Search results

We all know that some organizations are more productive than others. We do not necessarily know why. The way in which the organization is structured is the basic determinant – it should offer a potential for high productivity which is realized in the way that work systems, processes and procedures are organized and the way in which the workforce is empowered and motivated. In this article I am assuming that an organization has undertaken a commitment to productivity improvement in its widest sense. This commitment (which unfortunately is all too rare), from the senior management team, has to be driven down into the organization through the organization structure and then implemented at all levels of the structure. So what kind of structure is best suited to delivering such productivity improvements? Before we examine the implications of specific structures we need to examine the concepts behind organizational structure and the reasons why changes may be necessary.

In this paper, we call for renewed attention to the structure and structuring of work within and between organizations. We argue that a multi-level approach, with jobs as a core analytic construct, is a way to draw connections among economic sociology, organizational sociology, the sociology of work and occupations, labor studies and stratification and address the important problems of both increasing inequality and declining economic productivity.

The mechanistic-organic assumptions of SF address those organizational factors related to structural arrangements, contextual factors, job-task work activities, and human resources management policies. Organizations adopt structures and procedures in search of legitimacy and institutionalization (Riebero & Scapens, 2006, p. 96). Structures manifest themselves in centralized (mechanistic) and/or decentralized (organic) forms. These structures can be loose or tightly controlled; they can involve independent or interdependent tasks. These conditions have a direct impact on the operation of management information and control systems that will, in turn, impact organizational learning and process innovations, which, ultimately, affects organizational performance.

Many researchers and executives have viewed fit as a key to organizational survival and high performance (Summer et al., 1990). However, the type of fit and how it can be best achieved may often be in question (Venkataraman, 1989). The current study empirically examines both external and internal fit as predictors of firm performance where: (1) external fit is the alignment of, or congruence between, the organization's strategy and/or structure and the task environment, and (2) internal fit is the multidimensional matching of strategy with structure. The argument presented here is that both internal and external fit can, and do, occur simultaneously. Further, the presence of one type of fit may compensate for deficiencies in the other. Using fit in terms of both matching and moderation, hypotheses are tested to determine the nature of both internal and external fit of strategy and structure. Testing of the hypotheses is conducted using data from the medical group industry. Findings support the influence of individual strategy and structure variables on medical group performance. However, fit found between strategy and structure, be it as matching or moderation, shows little influence on performance. Implications for medical groups and the broader health care industry are discussed.

The field of Human Resource Management (HRM) has long recognized the importance of interpersonal influence for employee and organizational effectiveness. HRM research and practice have focused primarily on individuals’ characteristics and behaviors as a means to understand “who” is influential in organizations, with substantially less attention paid to social networks. To reinvigorate a focus on network structures to explain interpersonal influence, the authors present a comprehensive account of how network structures enable and constrain influence within organizations. The authors begin by describing how power and status, two key determinants of individual influence in organizations, operate through different mechanisms, and delineate a range of network positions that yield power, reflect status, and/or capture realized influence. Then, the authors extend initial structural views of influence beyond the positions of individuals to consider how network structures within and between groups – capturing group social capital and/or shared leadership – enable and constrain groups’ ability to influence group members, other groups, and the broader organizational system. The authors also discuss how HRM may leverage these insights to facilitate interpersonal influence in ways that support individual, group, and organizational effectiveness.

Agility is an important characteristic that every organisation requires in today’s competitive digital era. Telecommunications companies in Indonesia face various types of competition, both from the same industry and new models. This study aims to identify the agility level of telecommunications companies in Indonesia. It also examines the effect of leadership style directly and indirectly through the mediation of employee readiness, innovation culture, technology capability and organisational structure.

This study used a non-probability sampling technique. The macroprocess was used to identify and measure the direct and indirect effects. The results are based on survey data collected from a telecommunications company in Indonesia with a total of 1,073 employees.

The results of this study showed that an adaptive leadership style has a direct and significant positive effect on the organisational agility level. Employee readiness, innovation culture, technological capability and organisational structure function as mediators between adaptive leadership style and agility.

This study could contribute to the development of programs to ignite and boost organisational agility. Organisations are recommended to conduct periodic evaluations to measure agility levels and amend their programs accordingly.

Adaptive leadership style was used, which expresses the leader’s deep concern for employee needs and organisational achievement. This leader will most likely positively impact employees and favourably influence the organisation (technology, structure, innovation and agility).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate structural patterns across industries in India. Organizational design is posited as a form of competitive advantage, which also helps Indian organizations build excellence.

The study used a questionnaire to investigate the structural patterns of organization in 32 enterprises in India. The sample consisted of 1,532 participants across six industries. The data were analyzed using SPSS v.15.0.

The findings suggest that the outward picture of structural patterns remains the same across industries but significant difference emerge in the inner core of the structural architecture of Indian organizations. For example, the inner core of the banking industry was found to be different from the other five industries studied.

The findings suggest that the links between organizational structure and national culture should be harmonious. Simultaneously, the structure of the organizations should be aligned with both the task and general environment of the business.

There is a scarcity of research into this domain of knowledge in India and the paper provides additional insights into the organizational structures of Indian enterprises across the major industrial sectors.

The Nature of Business Policy Business policy — or general management — is concerned with the following six major functions:

The concept of organizational learning has taken its prominence in the past several decades as a way to achieve competitive advantage. Companies are urged to become “learning organizations” to develop their learning capability for survival and maintaining competitiveness. However, very few studies have addressed the issue of how organizational structure may contribute to organizational learning. This article attempts to bridge the gap in literatures by engaging in a theoretical debate to generate a synthesis of these two concepts.

Argues that efforts to adapt to increased volatility and uncertainty are still plagued by the traditional wisdom and domination of command‐and‐control hierarchies. In highlighting over two decades of intimation for appropriate organizational structural fit, identifies recurring barriers to change. In an effort to achieve organizational adaptability and improve change initiative success, proposes the creation of pockets of excellence. These self‐organizing team structures are positioned as a resource to developing internal efficiencies and business opportunities as a means to enhance productivity and provide a measure of sustainable competitive advantage. The proposed team structure is informed by the developing field of complexity theory and evaluated through focus group discussions.