Suchergebnisse

AbstractOrganizational theories frequently rely on notions of sharing and dependence among organizational participants, but researchers usually focus on characteristics of the actors themselves instead of the relational patterns among the actors. Loose coupling is one conceptual tool that emphasizes relational patterns. Loose coupling, however, is an abstract metaphor that is simultaneously fertile and ambiguous. This paper develops a rigorous and comprehensive framework that sharpens the theoretical contributions of loose coupling to our understanding of structural relationships. Characteristics of loose coupling capture some important and underexplored features of multidimensional fit and interdependence in organizations. The proposed framework clarifies these theoretical contributions of loose coupling with concepts and equations modified from network analysis. Testable hypotheses are proposed with respect to three key independent variables that may affect patterns of coupling: organization strategy, technology, and environmental turbulence. Additional hypotheses are advanced with respect to the use of the multidimensional approach to loose coupling in studying new organizational forms. Initial psychometric and empirical evidence are presented.

Firm performance is one of the most prominent concepts in organizational research. Despite its importance, and despite the many developmental critiques that have appeared over the years, performance continues to be a difficult concept to apply in a scientifically rigorous way. After surfacing three potentially viable approaches for conceptualizing performance, we find that most studies are internally inconsistent in their use of these approaches, a situation that creates substantial difficulty in effectively interpreting research. The primary source of inconsistency lies in the use of a generalized abstract conceptualization of performance in theory building (the latent multidimensional approach) coupled with the adoption of one or two narrow aspects of performance in the empirical work (the separate constructs approach). Follow-up analyses designed to determine the best path for resolving these mismatches indicate that our field's heavy use of abstract performance in theorizing is not scientifically grounded and should be replaced with more specific aspects of performance to match existing practices in empirical work. Although this change would profoundly affect the field and would be resisted by many, it offers a concrete path away from indefensible practices. We offer several explanations for current practices but emphasize forces related to institutional theory. From an institutional perspective, it appears that firm performance is treated in a general fashion in many areas of our academic lives because it has been embraced as an instrument of legitimacy rather than as a scientific tool that facilitates dialogue and the accumulation of knowledge. We recommend and begin a conversation designed to highlight the long-run dangers of focusing our attention on an abstract concept of performance and suggest a set of specific steps that could help to move all of us in a new direction as we attempt to enhance the scientific rigor of our field.

Theories that relate organization-level variables to one another frequently contain just three variables. "Formalization is negatively associated with success in a turbulent environment" and "Technology is a determinant of span of control at lower organizational levels" are examples. Theories limited to two or three variables tend to have low predictive validity and consequently are of limited use to anyone attempting to predict or interpret relationships among organizational variables. One purpose of the study reported here was to develop a more encompassing and more valid theory about a specific relationship—the relationship between centralization and effectiveness. A second purpose of the study was to set forth and test the efficacy of a general approach for developing more encompassing and more valid theories about organizations. The successful application of this approach resulted in a six-variable theory: the relationship between the two variables centralization and effectiveness is a function of (1) the average size of the units of analysis, (2) the effectiveness subconstruct considered, (3) the extent of professionalization in the organizations, and (4) whether the organizations produce primarily goods or services. Specifically, 57% of the variance in the linear association between centralization and effectiveness was shown to be explainable by a linear function of the four variables just noted. This theory enables identification of the conditions where centralization will be related to effectiveness most positively (i.e. r = 0.49) and the conditions where it will be related to effectiveness most negatively (i.e., r = −0.56). Besides these four predictor variables, four others were tested as possible predictors of the centralization-effectiveness relationship, but were rejected. Rejection of two of these latter four variables contradicted commonly accepted beliefs—decentralization was not more positively related to effectiveness in turbulent environments and decentralization was not more positively related to effectiveness in larger organizations. Two concerns regarding the organization science literature resulted from this research. The first follows from our observations that most reports of studies include dysfunctionally sparse descriptions of the organizational contexts in which the data were collected and that in many studies the magnitudes of both the variables of primary interest and also the contextual variables are reported on coarse scales (e.g., on nominal scales with few levels, such as "small" and "large"). As a consequence of these two practices, researchers synthesizing the literature and developing theories from it—as was done in the research reported here—necessarily group together studies that should be distinguished from one another on the basis of their attributes. This unwanted grouping results in theories that are less predictive than they could be. The second concern is that the subset of the organization science literature dealing with relationships between organizational design variables (such as centralization) and organizational effectiveness contains few studies demonstrating the causal directions of observed relationships. As a result, because various levels of effectiveness may lead to the adoption or evolution of different levels of "design variables," or may be related to certain levels of a design variable because both are related to a third variable researchers and administrators observing high correlations between a design variable and effectiveness must be cautious in inferring that effectiveness can be enhanced by changing, the level of the respective design variable.

This paper describes assumptions, rationale, and track-offs involved in designing the research methodology used in a longitudinal study of the relationships among changes in organizational contexts, designs, and effectiveness. The basic research question concerns when how, and why do different types of organizational change occur. Given this research question and a desire to develop and test generalizable theory about changes in organizational design and effectiveness, we conducted a longitudinal study of over 100 organizations. Data concerning the changes were obtained through four interviews spaced six months apart with the top manager in each organization. Each interview provided a short-term retrospective event history over the preceding 6-month interval in aggregate, the four interviews provided a 24-month event history for each organization. Additionally, periodic assessments of the state of the organization's context, design, and effectiveness were collected with two questionnaires spaced one year apart. Finally, in each organization, the top manager's personal characteristics were assessed after all other data were obtained. This paper examines the alternatives, advantages, and disadvantages of the research design decisions. With some hindsight, we also offer some suggestions for future researchers with similar goals of developing and testing generalizable explanations of change processes in organizations.