Search results

In this chapter, we explore the relationship between organizational complexity and firm-level innovation. We define and operationalize a new construct, experienced complexity, which is the extent to which the organizational environment makes it challenging for decision makers to do their jobs effectively. We distinguish experienced complexity from structural complexity, which is the elements of the organization, such as the number of reporting lines or integrating mechanisms, that are deliberately put in place to help the organization deliver on its objectives, and we argue that structural complexity correlates positively with firm-level innovation, while experienced complexity correlates negatively with innovation. Using a novel dataset combining survey and objective data on 209 large firms, we find support for our arguments.

Organizations today operate in highly dynamic environments and are becoming more complex. Helping their organizations master this complexity is a major leadership challenge. To better understand how managers’ behaviors aggravate or reduce complexity, we reviewed 1,400 responses to a proprietary organizational complexity survey. Analysis identified specific managers’ behaviors that contribute to perceived complexity. We draw from these findings, literature on complex adaptive systems, and our consulting experiences to identify specific strategies managers can use to make it simpler for people to get things done, and even to “master” complexity by turning it into a source of strategic advantage.

Improving the performance of health care organizations is now perceived as essential in order to better address the needs of the populations and respect their ability to pay for the services. There is no consensus on what is performance. It is increasingly considered as the optimal execution of four functions that every organization must achieve in order to survive and develop: reach goals; adapt to its environment; produce goods or services and maintain values; and a satisfying organizational climate. There is also no consensus on strategies to improve this performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper intends to analyze the performance of primary health care organizations from the perspective of Kauffman’s model. It mainly aims to understand the often contradictory, paradoxical and unexpected results that emerge from studies on this topic.

To do so, the first section briefly presents Kauffman’s model and lays forward its principal components. The second section presents three studies on the performance of primary organizations and brings out the contradictory, paradoxical and unexpected results they obtained. The third section explains these results in the light of Kauffman’s model.

Kauffman’s model helps give meaning to the results of researches on performance of primary health care organizations that were qualified as paradoxical or unexpected. The performance of primary health care organizations then cannot be understood by only taking into account the characteristics of these organizations. The complexity of the environments in which they operate must simultaneously be taken into account. This paper brings original development of an integrated view of the performance of organizations, their own characteristics and those of the local environment in which they operated.

This paper uses a complex adaptive systems view to examine two different organizational responses to turbulent, complex environments. We examined the internal make‐up of eight organizations that saw their environment the same way – as rapidly changing, complex and requiring aggressive change strategies. Half of these organizations chose a complexity absorption response to environmental turbulence, and half chose a complexity reduction response to environmental turbulence and complexity. The organizations pursuing a complexity absorption response outperformed those organizations with complexity reduction responses.

The purpose of this paper is to propose the use of graph theoretic structural modeling for assessing the possible reduction in complexity of the work flow procedures in an organization due to lean initiatives. A tool to assess the impact of lean initiative on complexity of the system at an early stage of decision making is proposed.

First, the permanent function-based graph theoretic structural model has been applied to understand the complex structure of a manufacturing system under consideration. The model helps by systematically breaking it into different sub-graphs that identify all the cycles of interactions among the subsystems in the organization in a systematic manner. The physical interpretation of the existing quantitative methods linked to graph theoretic methodology, namely two types of coefficients of dissimilarity, has been used to evolve the new measures of organizational complexity. The new methods have been deployed for studying the impact of different lean initiatives on complexity reduction in a case industrial organization.

The usefulness and the application of new proposed measures of complexity have been demonstrated with the help of three cases of lean initiatives in an industrial organization. The new measures of complexity have been proposed as a credible tool for studying the lean initiatives and their implications.

The paper may lead many researchers to use the proposed tool to model different cases of lean manufacturing and pave a new direction for future research in lean manufacturing.

The paper demonstrates the application of new tools through cases and the tool may be used by practitioners of lean philosophy or total quality management to model and investigate their decisions.

The proposed measures of complexity are absolutely new addition to the tool box of graph theoretic structural modeling and have a potential to be adopted by practical decision makers to steer their organizations though such decisions before the costly interruptions in manufacturing systems are tried on ground.

This paper aims to explore organizational structure, efficiency and evolution, and its relationship to bureaucracy. A new mathematical model is utilized to generate theoretically consistent relationships between economic performance and organizational scale and structure, and to develop a taxonomy of organizational structure.

A systems approach is used to model structural evolution and generate consistent, testable hypotheses concerning organizational sustainability and financial performance. This theoretical treatment seeks to reconcile contradictory views of bureaucracy, modeling both positive and negative impacts on performance and behavior. A variant of agency theory is used as an organizing paradigm, based on three competing organizational needs: control, autonomy and ownership of consequences.

Simulations reveal that organizations evolve through five stages of development: from an entry (flat/parallel) stage, through a hybrid or mixed stage, to the massively serial (hierarchical) stage. As firms evolve, the risk/return ratio first falls as employment expands, but later rises as higher levels of hierarchy appear. Eventually, organizational complexity rises sufficiently to produce lower levels of managerial ownership of consequences and professional autonomy, as well as higher levels of control, leading to a collapse of organizational efficiency. A subtle variation of agency theory is revealed: upper-management may maximize organizational depth, increasing salary differences between levels.

This paper uses an internally consistent, deductive framework to elucidate relationships between task complexity, skill level, industry life-cycle and firm age – providing the first known attribute-based metric for organizational complexity. This approach is reminiscent of Perrow’s (1999) non-mathematical treatment of organizational systems complexity.

There is general agreement that global brands should ensure that they incorporate social responsibility. To do this properly, organisations must understand what it means to be socially responsible and how they can leverage their actions. The paper proposes consideration of three distinct areas: the range of social responsibility issues, what the organisations actually do and how to leverage those corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions. This paper seeks to conceptually develop these three areas of complexity – Issue, Organisational and Communication – as it is only after organisations understand these three areas that they can effectively leverage socially responsible activities in their brands.

This research undertakes a review and synthesis of the academic, practitioner and industry literature examining CSR and the brand, addressing the three areas of complexity – issue, organisational and communication.

The research finds that within these three areas of complexity there are a number of sub‐issues that must be addressed if CSR is to be strategically integrated into a global brand. This includes sub‐issues associated with social issue complexity (identification, heterogeneity, measurement, and interpretation); organizational complexity (overall corporate brand, multiple products and brands, functional activities, and supply chain); and communication complexity (intensity of action/positioning, communicating action, types of programs utilised, and integration issues.) It thus provides an agenda for future research.

There is limited academic literature examining how global organisations incorporate CSR activities into their brand and the research proposes the issues that need to be considered when integrating CSR into branding strategy. Future research needs to be undertaken to explore the internal processes that global firms use to develop their CSR positioning strategies and some research propositions for future research are proposed. Additionally further exploration of each of the issues (and sub‐issues) identified in this paper is warranted, and some suggestions are made for this.

The results of this study show that developing a CSR leveraged brand in a consistent way that is salient to all stakeholders is no simple task for global organisations. By considering the three areas of complexity developed here organisations will be able to better understand and align their activities in line with CSR related issues. Being global means that organisations will likely need to ensure they address the highest set of global expectations, as any lower level may be criticised as being less than appropriate.

The paper develops the sub‐issues of issue, organisational and communication complexity associated with global brands' CSR activities. This strategic perspective goes beyond focusing on the tactical activities undertaken or the philosophical issue of whether CSR should be undertaken. The work therefore allows global organisations to look at CSR more strategically as a branding issue.

Unprecedented complexity is reshaping the financial services industry and presenting formidable challenges to financial services leaders and their organizations. “Sensemaking of Complexity: Leadership in Financial Services,” highlights seven leadership principles that could help leaders and their organizations respond effectively to the complexities inherent in financial services today.

After in‐depth secondary research on the topic of leadership and events in the financial services industry, the report offers a novel and holistic approach to managing complexity in today's marketplace.

Beyond the leadership principles, the research suggests that values, competencies and motivations – or “VCMs” – are like an organization's DNA, or the building blocks of organizational behavior, and therefore the basis for real improvement across an organization's many dimensions. VCMs play a critical role in the outcome of change initiatives and an organization's capacity to adapt, yet they are often overlooked in the leadership dialogue.

VCMs that are well aligned with the seven leadership principles can help empower the effective functioning of organizational levers – such as intelligence and risk management, corporate governance, business models, talent processes and organizational culture – and enhance an organization's ability to adapt to complexity, drive strategic agendas, and improve day‐to‐day operations.

Unprecedented interdependencies in the financial services industry may require a move away from the status quo of many leadership strategies, which tend to deal with complexity in a disjointed fashion. Instead, leaders may need to uncover and understand the interconnected root causes of complexity within their organizations and in the marketplace. We believe a focus on leadership principles and the right set of values, competencies, and motivations to support them can help leaders and their organizations systematically and holistically react to and manage their complicated competitive environments.

This study aims to distinguish businesses by their degree of complexity and to analyse the influence of complexity on the performance of firms during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Data were collected from 468 businesses, and various multivariate statistical techniques were used. Initially a factor analysis was conducted, organising variables into five factors. A discriminant analysis, performed with the five factors, allowed discriminating firms based on whether they internationalise or not. A linear regression was performed in order to estimate the contribution of each factor in the business performance.

The results suggest the existence of additional variables for measuring the complexity. From the factorial analysis it is possible to conclude that business complexity can be explained by size, indebtedness and profitability, internationalisation, number of employees, and age and leverage. Total assets, indebtedness and age are the variables that contribute the most to business performance. On the other hand, indebtedness, internationalisation, age and leverage are the independent variables that most contribute to explain business performance.

This paper presents advances in two ways. First, it proposes measures of complexity (highly debatable in the literature). It also proposes internationalisation as an explanation of complexity. Second, this paper sheds light on businesses decisions to grow, taking into account how complexity may affect performance.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how order‐generated rules applied to organizing form dualities can assist in creating the conditions for emergent, self‐organized behavior in organizations, thereby offering an operational deployment of complexity theory.

The paper begins by showing that the concept of dualities is consistent with complexity‐thinking. In addition, when applied to organizing forms, dualities represent a practical way of affecting an organization's balance between chaos and order. Thus, when augmented with order‐generating rules, organizing form dualities provide an access point for the practical instigation of edge of chaos conditions and the potential for emergence.

The paper maintains that many attempts to “manage” complexity have been associated with changes to organizing forms, specifically toward new forms of organizing. It is suggested that organizing form dualities provide some management guidance for encouraging the “edge of chaos” conditions advocated in complexity theory, although the details of self‐organization cannot be prescribed given the assumptions of non‐linearity associated with complexity theory perspectives. Finally, it is proposed that organizing dualities can elucidate the nature and application of order‐generating rules in non‐linear complex systems.

Dualities offer some guidance toward the practical implementation of complexity theory as they represent an accessible sub‐system where the forces for order and chaos – traditional and new forms of organizing respectively – are accessible and subject to manipulation.

The commonalities between dualities and complexity theory are intuitive, but little conceptual work has shown how the former can be employed as a guide to managing organizing forms. Moreover, this approach demonstrates that managers may be able to stimulate “edge of chaos” conditions in a practical way, without making positivistic assumptions about the causality associated with their efforts.