Search results

A burgeoning literature refers to the effect of hypercompetitive conditions on organizations. The new orthodoxy involves reference to the disintegration of vertical, rational bureaucracies and the corresponding emergence of widespread innovation in new organizational practices such as delayering, outsourcing, and reducing organizational boundaries. Differing assumptions occur regarding the compatibility of new organizational practices with more traditional practices such as centralization and formalization. We present systematic, survey‐based data in order to assist in assessing these differing assumptions about compatibility. Our results confirm greater use of new organizational practices by organizations operating in dynamic environments. They also show that greater use of new organizational practices is not associated with less use of either centralization or formalization—indeed it is associated with an increased use of formalization. We argue the need to move beyond a compatibility/incompatibility dichotomy and propose a research agenda for achieving this. The implications for management include the need to view with caution evangelical calls for radical restructuring that ignore the subtleties of the relationship between traditional and new organizational practices.

Since the mid‐1980s, there has been strong advocacy of the use of reframing through the application of organizational metaphors as one of the skills of the “new” manager. The reframing approach champions the virtues of analysing and responding to organizational situations through the use of multiple frames and is centrally implicated in the process of organizational change. The underlying message is that it enables both analysis and action to occur. Argues that this link has not been adequately explored in the literature which tends to assume that “appropriate” actions are able to be taken and that they will be successful. Explores four main constraints: cognitive limits; frame dominance and the limits of language; conceptions of action and their limits on reframing; and knowledge and power as limits to reframing.

Discusses strategic human resource management (HRM) which emphasizes the importance of HRM policies and practices being integrated by a longer‐range HRM strategy, which in turn is an integrated part of an overall organizational strategy. Proposes an alternative, more overtly political, employment relations model with HRM policies and practices as negotiated outcomes which attempt to resolve the often conflicting expectations of a number of interested parties. Presents a study in which only one‐third of a sample of Australian HR managers reported that an HRM strategy had a great or moderately great impact on HRM within their organization, and there was no evidence that the impact of an HRM strategy resulted in a reduction of the direct impact of other factors. More important factors included legislation/regulation, industry characteristics, organizational strategy and objectives, top management priorities, organizational size and structure, and the impact of technological change. In addition, these factors impacted differentially on HRM practices and policies in areas such as recruitment, training, pay/ benefits and industrial relations. Suggests these results support the appropriateness of a broader employment relations view of the field.

A common argument is that organizations should adopt new organizational practices, in order to respond to the hyper‐competitive business environment. The assumption underlying this argument is that such adoption generally entails the replacement of traditional practices. We suggest, instead, that managers are more likely to be managing simultaneously both new and old organizational practices. We explore our position through an investigation of the use of remote collaboration technologies in film production. In our study of US, UK and Australian film production houses we identify seven organizational dualities which characterize remote collaborations: creative work/routines, freedom/constraint, trust/control, artistic excellence/cost effectiveness, collaboration/competition, emotional/rational and closeness/remoteness. One side of each relationship represents organizational practices commonly associated with traditional forms of organizing, while the other represents those practices commonly associated with new forms of organizing. The coexistence of these dualities suggests that new organizational forms are not replacing traditional forms but rather co‐exist with, and become incorporated into, remolded traditional forms.

The concept “flexibility” is ubiquitous as a rationale for organizational change. However, its broad application is accompanied by a general lack of definitional agreement or theoretical cohesion. The purpose of this paper is to propose the merits of an alternative approach – applying a discourse perspective to the use of flexibility as a rationale for organizational change.

This paper first illustrates the broad referencing of flexibility as a desired organizational characteristic. It then discusses the associated lack of theoretical coherence associated with the use of the concept “flexibility” before arguing the merits of a discourse perspective on flexibility as a rationale for organizational change.

This paper identifies a set of questions to frame a discourse perspective on the use of “flexibility” as a rationale for organizational change.

The questions derived in this paper provide a research agenda for an investigation of the use and effects of the concept “flexibility” in the context of organizational change.

The questions derived in this paper provide practice‐based insights into how the concept “flexibility” is and/or could be used in the context of organizational change.

“Flexibility” is a ubiquitous concept as a rationale for organizational change and its use is accompanied by a diversity of definitions and conceptual frameworks. The originality of this paper is that rather than seeking to provide yet another definition – or attempting a resolution of definitional differences – it argues the merits of a discourse perspective on the use and effect of the concept flexibility in the context of organizational change.

How organizations communicate with shareholders during times of great uncertainty, such as during transformational change, is a relatively neglected area within the change management literature. We use the concept of “change conversation” and speech act theory to analyze GE's letters to shareholders 1980‐1999. We found five consistent change conversations through which GE's management sought to reassure shareholders and reduce their uncertainty around the expected outcomes of GE's transformational changes: warnings; actions; explanations; achievements, and predictions. These were underpinned by three types of speech acts: assertives, expressives, and commissives. We suggest that internally and externally oriented change conversations differ, the former being best characterized as operational change conversations and the latter as supportive change conversations. We suggest that successful change managers engage in both types of change conversations.

The article provides and interview with Dr Richard Pech.

Richard Pech answers questions about business growth, downscoping, downsizing, core competencies, and growth strategies.

Richard Pech provides views on a variety of issues connected to business growth.

Provides an insightful interview with Dr Richard Pech.

Following September 11, 2001, spirituality has become an even more important issue. Research projects have been done to address the need of spirituality in the corporate workplace. The issue of spirituality in the academic workplace is even more vital since it is from within the higher academic institutions that the leaders of tomorrow emerge. Yet, little has been done. This research is an attempt to fulfill this need. This project examined the spirituality of professors and the spiritual culture found in a private secular college, a private Christian college and a state university, all located in southern California. The design of the research was based on the work of Ian Mitroff and Parker Palmer. The results showed that there was a difference in the spiritual culture between these three campuses and that the spirituality of the professors was a reflection of the spiritual culture found on the campuses.