Search results

This chapter reconstructs the roots of configurational analysis in organization theory and organizational economics, focusing on the elements of configurational thinking that are particularly relevant to organizational design; and outlining some future prospects for a configurational theory of organization design. We detect the presence of configurational ideas in many organization theories and organizational economics approaches. We argue that this, seldom acknowledged, continuity extends and enriches the implications of configurational analysis for organization design. In addition, we define and identify ‘structural heterogeneity’ as an organizational property that can be distinctively studied by configurational analysis, distinguishing between internal heterogeneity – diversity of organizational attributes within one configuration – and external heterogeneity – diversity of organizational configurations under the same environmental conditions. Some of the insights that can be gained through a configurational analysis of structural heterogeneity are illustrated through a fs/QCA study of a multi-industry sample of firms.

In the network strategy view, relative competitive advantage stems not merely from opportunity structures embedded in networks but also from the distribution of ability and motivation among firms. Thus, there is a need to “bring the firm back in” to the network strategy narrative. We demonstrate that a mixed-methods design, blending large-sample data with micro-data on specific firms and their networks, can increase our understanding of the interplay of network structure and actor mechanisms, thus bridging the chasm between theory and practice in network strategy. We believe this is a critical step toward the “strategic design of networks.”

In her research studies, Woodward (1958) found that those firms that were organized according to the logic of their production technologies were more successful (on a set of economic measures) than those that did not. On the conceptual front, this acknowledgment of contingency in organizational life was particularly valuable in helping management scholars shift away from assumptions and expectations of “one best way to organize.”¹ It also helped to counter reductionist claims of technological determinism, the view that technology is an independent force that has determinant and universal social impacts.

The current study aims to advance the understanding of the role of performance measurement systems (PMS) in the improvement of companies’ performance, as well to contribute to the limited knowledge of this issue in transition economies. In order to do so, performance effects of PMS are examined, testing both dominant approaches: the performance measurement diversity view and performance measurement alignment view.

A survey using questionnaire was conducted on a sample of large- and medium-sized manufacturing companies in Serbia.

The results of the research support the performance measurement diversity view, as we found evidence that a broader scope PMS is positively associated with performance. However, we also found partial support for the influence of the strategy–PMS alignment on performance.

This study investigates the complex mechanism of PMS effect on performance in a particular context – the transition economy. Moreover, this study represents a pioneering attempt to evaluate the state of performance measurement practice in Serbia and is one of the rare studies of this type on transition economies.

Strange and Soule (1998) outlined the processes of innovations as follows. “Innovations are novel (at least to the adopting community), making communication a necessary condition for adoption. Innovations are also culturally understood as progressive, strengthening the hand of change agents. And since innovations are risky and uncertain, adopters carefully weigh the experience of others before acting” (p. 267).

New institutionalisms in economic and organizational sociology need grounding in theories of capitalism. Comparative studies show that multiple, viable forms of capitalism have been constructed through the interplay of institutions, mobilizations of political power, and state policies. Further theoretical development requires attention to the contradictions of capitalism. Promising theoretical sources for this task are examined. The political process produces new forms of capitalist institutions, but contradictions built into those institutions cannot be fully resolved and provide the basis for new acts of social construction and power mobilization. The power and cultural arguments of the comparative institutionalists are joined, at least in aspiration, to theories of capitalist contradictions.