Search results

Identifying the impact of organizational structure on knowledge management (KM) is the aim of this study, as well as recognizing the importance of each variable indicator in creating, sharing and utility of knowledge.

For understanding relationships between the main variables (organizational structure‐KM), the authors used statistical analysis and a structural model. A questionnaire was designed based on a literature review. The correlation between variables was examined, then the effects of independent variables on dependent variable were recognized, and finally a structural equation approach was used to perform path analysis, and to examine the effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables.

The results suggest that organizational structure is positively related to knowledge management. The findings extend theoretical implications for organizational factor effects on knowledge management. In general, if the characteristics of organizational structure were less centralized, less formalized, more complicated and more integrated, the levels of KM would be enhanced.

A couple of limitations of this study should be noted. The first limitation is the sample size used. There was also inadequate access to scientific research and up to date papers.

The paper presents a clear relationship between organizational structure and knowledge management.

Decisions about the design of the organization and the competitive strategy of a firm are very important in order to gain competitive advantage and to improve firm performance. The relationship between organizational structure, competitive strategy, and firm performance has usually been analyzed using the contingency approach. The objective of this paper is to extend the relevant empirical literature of the strategy‐structure‐performance paradigm by comparing the resource‐based view (RBV) with contingency theory. To that end, the paper seeks to examine how organizational structure affects firm performance, taking into account the relationship with competitive strategy.

A sample of large Spanish firms was studied using the partial least squares (PLS) technique.

The results support both the RBV and the contingency approach, but the RBV is more strongly supported. The findings show that organizational structure does not exert a direct influence on performance, but has an indirect influence through competitive strategy.

The findings are limited to large firms. Therefore, they cannot be generalized to smaller companies. In addition, the use of opinion scales gives the study a subjective character. However, in this respect, most of the characteristics of organizational structure and competitive strategy are difficult to measure with objective data.

Researchers have studied the relationship between strategy and structure for a long time based on contingency theory. This study provides an alternative formulation for organizational design theory, based on the RBV, which makes it possible to reframe the relationships between strategy and structure by analyzing the organizational structure as a valuable resource and a source of competitive advantage.

Organizational forms have evolved over the decades. Organizational design reflects the systems view, which considers that structure consists of both hard and soft components, and is the superior composition of relationship between organizational elements. Structural dimensions are traditionally examined along three dimensions of formal relationship: hierarchical, functional, and the dimension of inclusion and centrality, underlining two prime types of structure: mechanistic and organic organizations. However, the knowledge economy makes new demands on organizational structuring based on processes. Informal structure better depicts actual organizational activities and reflects dynamic interaction that is critical to knowledge creation. This conceptual paper incorporates informal structure as an important dimension and further elaborates organizational structuring at a higher level: trust‐based relationship, externally‐oriented interactive relationship, and emotionally‐inclusive relationship; and their importance in the attainment of organizational success in the knowledge economy.

This paper aims to attempt to bring together various organisational aspects that have never been collectively investigated before in the strategic management literature. Its main objective is to examine the relationship between “strategic orientation” and “firm performance”, in the light of two firm-specific factors (“distinct manufacturing capabilities” and “organisational structure”). The proposed research model of the present study is built upon the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm and the organisational aspect of the VRIO framework (the “O” from the VRIO model).

The study proposes a newly developed research model that adopts a four-factor approach, while examining a number of direct and indirect effects. The examination of the proposed research model was made with the use of a newly developed structured questionnaire that was distributed on a sample of Greek manufacturing companies. Research hypotheses were tested using the structural equation modelling technique. The present study is explanatory (examines cause and effect relationships), deductive (tests research hypotheses), empirical (collects primary data) and quantitative (analyses quantitative data that were collected using a structured questionnaire).

The empirical results suggest the coexistence of three distinct categories of effects on “firm performance”: strategy or “utility” effects, depending on the content of the implemented strategy; firm-specific effects, depending on the content of the organisational resources and capabilities; and organisational effects, depending on the implemented organisational structure. More specifically, the statistical analysis underlines the significant mediating role of “strategic orientation” and the complementary role of “organisational structure”. Finally, empirical results support the argument that “strategy follows structure”.

The use of self-reported scales constitutes an inherent methodological limitation. Moreover, the present study lacks a longitudinal approach because it provides a static picture of the subject under consideration. Finally, the sample size of 130 manufacturing companies could raise some concerns. Despite that, previous empirical studies of the same field, published in respectable journals, were also based on similar samples.

When examining the total (direct and indirect) effects on “firm performance”, it seems that the effect of “organisational structure” is, almost, identical to the effect of “distinct manufacturing capabilities”. This implies that “organisational structure” (an imitable capability) has, almost, the same contribution on “firm performance” as the manufacturing capabilities of the organisation (an inimitable capability). Thus, the practical significance of “organisational structure” is being highlighted.

There has been little empirical research concerning the bundle of firm-specific factors that enhance the impact of strategy on business performance. Under the context of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, the present study examines the impact of “organisational structure” on the “strategy-capabilities-performance” relationship, something that has not been thoroughly investigated in the strategic management literature. Also, the present study proposes an alternate measure for capturing the concept of business strategy, the so-called factor of “strategic orientation”. Finally, the study adopts a “reversed view” in the relationship between structure and strategy. More specifically, it postulates that “strategy follows structure” and not the opposite (“structure follows strategy”). Actually, the empirical data supported that (reversed) view, challenging the traditional approach of Chandler (1962) and calling for additional research on that ongoing dispute.

The construction industry is plagued by fragmentation of the functions carried out by the various disciplines involved in a project, particularly between the design and construction teams. Concurrent engineering (CE) is seen as a possible means of overcoming this problem. However, for the use of CE to produce the desired benefits, various issues have to be addressed, one of which is the use of appropriate organisational structures. To this effect, this paper explores organisational structures for the implementation of CE in the construction industry. It does so by first reviewing the main principles of, and issues concerning, CE and organisational structures, and by examining the structures which have been proposed for CE by researchers and those which have been used by manufacturing companies in their implementation of CE. By taking into account the peculiarities of the construction industry, this information is used, in conjunction with the results of case studies of companies within the industry, to suggest suitable types of corporate and project level organisational structures to support CE.

Contains the results of a quantitative research study which compared the organisational structures of the World’s Top 100 brand companies with those of less successful companies, referred to in this article as Outsider brand companies. Identifies that whilst the type of organisational structure may not be seen as a determinant of brand success, perceptions of whether the organisational structure was right for them, were. In other words, managers of brands need to feel that the organisational structure allows them to manage in the way they consider necessary to deliver brand success. In some instances this might mean an authoritarian style of management through a hierarchical organisational structure and in others, it might mean a more democratic style of management through relatively flat organisational structures. The results are discussed in the context of brand management theory and practice and the postmodern paradigm shift regarding organisational structure.

The purpose of this paper is to show how the viable system model (VSM) and de Sitter's design theory can complement each other in the context of the diagnosis and design of viable organizations.

Key concepts from Beer's model and de Sitter's design theory are introduced and analyzed in order to show how they relate.

The VSM provides insight into the related systems necessary and sufficient for viability. As such, it specifies criteria supporting the diagnosis and design of organizational infrastructures, i.e. of organizational structures, HR systems, and technology. However, it does not explicitly conceptualize and provide a detailed heuristic for the design of organizational structures. De Sitter's theory fills in this gap.

The paper illustrates how, based on a rudimentary model of organizational viability, de Sitter's design theory positively addresses the question of how to diagnose and design organizational structures that add to the viability of organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of competitive strategies and organizational structure on hotel performance and to explore whether organizational structure has a moderating effect on the relationship between competitive strategies and hotel performance.

This study employed a causal and descriptive research design to determine the cause‐and‐effect relationships among competitive strategies, organizational structure, and hotel performance based on previous studies. A 28‐question self‐administered questionnaire comprising three sections was employed. The target population for this study was US hotel owners and general and executive managers whose e‐mail addresses were listed on a publicly available database. A census survey was carried out and e‐mails were sent to all of the hoteliers listed in the database.

The results show a competitive human resources (HR) strategy to have a direct impact on a hotel's behavioral performance, and a competitive IT strategy to have a direct impact on a hotel's financial performance. Organizational structure is found to have a moderating effect on the relationship between both of these strategies and behavioral performance, a result similar to those reported by Jogaratnam and Tse and by Tarigan. However, the results of the current study show that organizational structure has no influence on the relationship between a brand image strategy and a hotel's behavioral performance, nor does it have any moderating effect on the relationship between a hotel's financial performance and its competitive brand image, HR or IT strategy.

When hoteliers face an uncertain environment, they need to select which form of organizational structure to adopt with care. Hotels that adopt an organic structure allow greater flexibility in the workplace, meaning that they may lose control of their employees and productivity. A mechanistic organizational structure, in contrast, gives hoteliers the power to monitor employee behavior and productivity, which may help them to achieve goals and boost financial performance.

The paper provides further evidence of how competitive HR and IT strategies help to explain hotel performance, whereas a brand image strategy and organizational structure are not good explanatory factors in this regard. Hotels with a mechanistic such structure enjoy a greater relationship between a competitive HR strategy and behavioral performance than their organically structured counterparts. With regard to IT strategic implementation, in contrast, hotels with an organic structure enjoy superior behavioral performance to those with a mechanistic structure.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the impact of digital technologies adoption on the forms of organization of large architecture and engineering (A/E) firms. Network theory has attracted scholarly and managerial attention, particularly from the perspective of the changes of project organization. However, little research focuses on network theory as a lens for understanding and managing the new forms of firms’ organization. Additionally, conventional organizational analyses are hampered by the lack of methods for understanding the changes in roles and relationships due to the adoption of digital technologies and examining their impact on organizational structures.

To address this gap, this research adopted a mixed-method case-study approach. This approach combined interviews, regular check-ins, and document analysis with data mining and social network analysis (SNA) to capture the changes of intra-organizational roles and relationships and for understanding their impact on the firm’s organizational structure. Using the data gathered, the authors created a dendrogram that shows the formal organizational structure, a sociogram that displays the informal organizational structure and a network map that visualizes the interplay between the two structures.

From this analysis, the authors identified four main findings: informal roles – as go-to people for advice and information about digital technologies – play within A/E firms facing digital transformation; such go-to people operate through informal networked relationships and beyond their formal roles; most of these relationships do not overlap with the formal reporting relationships; the combination of both these roles and relationships create an informal social network. The authors also show how managers can use SNA to understand the changes in roles and relationships due to the adoption of digital technologies and to diagnose their impact on organizational structures.

This research contributes to the literature of organizational design and change management from a network perspective in the context of the digital transformation of large A/E firms. It provides a systematic data-driven approach to understanding the changes of intra-organizational roles and relationships within A/E firms facing digital transformation and to diagnosing the impact of these changes on firms’ organizational structures.