This study aims to demonstrate the interaction of the regulatory environment and market forces with rapid technological change in the transformation of SOEs, as…
This study aims to demonstrate the interaction of the regulatory environment and market forces with rapid technological change in the transformation of SOEs, as exemplified by Telecom NZ.
This case study analysis explicates resource dependency and institutional forces in the process of SOE privatisation, in the first ten years of transformation, through textual analysis of data collected from company annual reports and interviews.
It is demonstrated that resource dependencies on technology and capital, market forces, and the institutionalization of new structures and relationships, are as important as regulatory changes in the analysis of SOE restructuring. It is also documented that the regulatory transitions are not as clear‐cut as the legislative dates and economic analyses suggest.
The research focuses on a single exemplar to explicate key interactions. While generalizable to theory, the use of in‐depth case studies is context‐specific.
Both technology and market forces must be incorporated in models of public sector transformations to fully capture resource dependence and institutional effects.
The value of the paper to academics is its integration and application of institutional theory and resource dependence theory to issues that have previously been explored primarily through economic lens. Methodologically, this paper provides an original insight into organisational change. The content analysis of annual reports, supported by interview records, reflects the importance of certain themes in organisational documents for organisational actors. To practitioners, this presents an in‐depth “portrait” of one of the largest and most successful public sector transformations of its era.
This paper uses the strategy‐as‐practice perspective to explore the relationship between practices and organisational routines of governance in pluralistic contexts. The…
This paper uses the strategy‐as‐practice perspective to explore the relationship between practices and organisational routines of governance in pluralistic contexts. The purpose of this paper is to explore empirically how strategising activities and organisational actions interact. It discusses and illustrates the relationship between strategising and organising through routines of governance, and in particular the use of board papers.
This research is based on a single longitudinal “soft” case study. The researchers collected both primary and secondary data. Primary data collection took place from the end of 2004 until early in 2008. Primary data collection occurred through three main methods: interviews, meeting observations, and “shadowing” of participants; six participants were each shadowed for a working week (five days), and another participant was shadowed for three days. Interviews were held with 20 participants and typically lasted for between one and two hours. The interviews and meetings resulted in over 150 hours of audio recordings. In addition, notes of shadowing covered 420 hours.
The first section of this paper presents the theoretical foundation before describing the research method. A discussion then explores the relationships between one of the specific strategising practices – the creation of board papers – and formal organisational routines of governance. The conclusion suggests that in professional service firms, informal practices that provide feedback are important in ensuring the stability and continuity of formal organisational routines.
The links between micro, meso, and macro levels – that is to say, between actors, organisational actions, and institutional field practices – have already been broadly investigated. However, much of the research remains theoretical rather than empirical in nature. Furthermore, although researchers have been increasingly interested in strategising within organisations featuring multiple goals, diffuse networks of power, and knowledge‐based work processes, a deep understanding of practices in these organisations is still underdeveloped.