Search results

The purpose of this paper was to examine the relationship between organizational tenure and employee innovative behavior and the influence of culture difference and status-related moderators (i.e. status hierarchy and status stability) on the linkage.

By using a meta-analysis method that included 76 empirical studies, this study examines the relationship of organizational tenure and innovative behavior. In this study, 79 samples (N = 21659) derived from 76 empirical studies that met the inclusion criteria in the meta-analysis.

The results show that organizational tenure has a weak positive effect on employee innovative behavior (r = 0.04), and status hierarchy, position tenure, culture difference and measurement ways influence the relationship between the two. In addition, a three-way interaction among status hierarchy, position tenure and organizational tenure is found to jointly affect innovative behavior; specifically, for those who are low in status hierarchy and short in position tenure, their organizational tenures are positively related to innovative behavior, but for those with a longer position tenure in organizations, their organizational tenure may relate to innovative behavior negatively, whatever their status hierarchies are (high or low). This study is helpful in providing theoretical foundation and practical skills to such issues regarding how to trigger innovative behavior efficiently at different career stages.

Limitations include tenure range of participants and no longitudinal samples in our studies. Future research should examine more contextual factors which influenced the relationship between organizational tenure and innovative behavior.

The results of this study show that long organizational tenure is not negatively related to innovative behaviors. For managers, do not ignore the contribution of long-tenured employees to innovation. Through promotion or job rotation to increase employees’ job satisfaction and innovative willing.

To authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine status attribute class variables in the relationship between organizational tenure on innovative behavior. The study is helpful in providing theoretical foundation and practical skills to such issues regarding how to trigger innovative behavior at different career stages correctly.

Attributing blame for performance failure and credit for success is ubiquitous in organizations. These responsibility attributions can play an important role in aligning individual and organizational performance expectations, but may also exacerbate conflict in groups and organizations. Theory suggests that an actor's organizational role will affect blame and credit attributions, yet empirical work on this prediction is lacking. This article tests an organizational role approach by assessing the effect of the responsible actor's hierarchical position and whether he or she acted as an individual or as part of a group on blame and credit attributions. The study finds that in response to organizational failures and successes leadership roles attract more blame than other positions, but in contrast to previous predictions, these roles do not attract more credit than lower level roles. In addition, upper level positions tend to be assigned greater blame than credit, while lower level positions show a reversed pattern: they attract more credit than blame. Groups are less likely to be assigned blame and more likely to be credited than are individuals, and occupants in flat organizational structures are assigned higher levels of blame and credit than are occupants in taller organizational structures.

Drawing on the competing values framework, we look at the relationship of different organizational cultures (clan, hierarchy, adhocracy and market) with organizational performance. Furthermore, we examine the mediating role of knowledge sharing (attitude and behavior) in the organizational culture and organizational performance relationship.

We draw on survey data from 241 respondents working in the aerospace and aviation manufacturing and services firms in Pakistan (85), Turkey (65) and the United Arab Emirates (91). We employ structural equation modeling for data analysis.

Results suggest that knowledge sharing partially mediates the relationship between clan culture and organizational performance, and fully mediates the market culture and organizational performance relationship. Hierarchy culture is only positively related to organizational performance, while adhocracy culture shows no relationship with knowledge sharing, let alone organizational performance.

While knowledge sharing enhances organizational performance, there is limited knowledge with regard to the specific organizational culture(s) conducive to knowledge sharing and organizational performance. The study extends existing research on the topic and contributes by showing which cultures are more conducive to knowledge sharing and organizational performance and which are less.

Organizational change in an evolving technological age is reconsidered here. Extant organization theory focuses largely on technologically‐induced transformation. This paper argues that this focus is inappropriate. With the proliferation of information technology in the workplace, change literature propounds a particular view of the organization: a lean, flat and networked organization. Reevaluating future change and future shock literature prediction, we establish a more realistic account of technology and the organization and question the accuracy of the “altered organization” expectation. In developing a conceptualization of a “limited reality of change,” we imply that predicted changes are not as clear cut as certain proponents would have us believe. Though there is a willingness throughout technology change literature to slip into the language of organizational transformation, this paper indicates that the reality of change is far more restrictive than has largely been previously acknowledged We conclude by proposing the coexistent organization as an alternative—arguing that hierarchical organizational forms can coexist with a networked organization—and discuss implications for organization change theory.

This paper aims to explore changes in communication networks during organizational crisis. In the literature, various terms such as organizational mortality, organizational death, bankruptcy, decline, retrenchment and failure have been used to characterize different forms and facets of organizational crisis. Communication network studies have typically focussed on nodes (e.g. individuals or organizations), relationships between those nodes and subsequent affects of these relationships upon the network as a whole. Email networks in contemporary organizations are fairly representative of the underlying communication networks.

The changing communication network structure at Enron Corporation during the crisis period (2000-2001) has been analyzed. The goal is to understand how communication patterns and structures are affected by organizational crisis. Drawing on communication network crisis and group behaviour theory, three propositions are tested: communication network becomes increasingly transitive as organizations experience crisis; communication network becomes less hierarchical as organizations are going through crisis; and communication network becomes more reciprocal as organizations are going through crisis.

In this research analysis, the support of these three propositions was noticed. The results of tests and their implications are discussed in this paper.

This study builds on an emerging stream of research area that applies social network analysis to organizational interaction data to study various questions related to organizational change and disintegration. These findings could help managers in designing an effective approach to monitor regular functionalities of their organizations.

Hierarchy and bureaucracy have been more or less welcomed companions of human civilisation from the very beginning. In almost every culture and epoch, ruling elites and followers, superiors and subordinates can be identified. Hierarchy and bureaucracy are quite flexible, adaptable and they are fairly persistent – but why could, or even should we see this as a problem?

This introduction will first provide a brief history of no change, followed by the second section where the advantages and disadvantages and the contested terrain of hierarchy are elaborated in some length. The discussion focuses on three areas: the functional, social and ethical qualities of hierarchy. In the final section, the chapters of this volume will be briefly introduced. The chapters are grouped into three sections: (I) Fundamentals and historical accounts of bureaucracy, (II) Organisational, cultural and socio-psychological aspects of hierarchy and (III) Alternative views on, and alternatives to hierarchy.

Understanding of antecedence of organizational identification (OID) will help managements to improve the efficiency of organizations by enabling employees to perform their roles and responsibilities with total commitment. Many micro-level factors have been found to influence OID. The present study aims to examine the role of organizational culture (OC) which encompasses all micro-level factors and the moderating role of organizational learning (OL) which is a framework either to totally submit to or redefine the tenets of different cultural orientations adopted by organizations.

Four cultural types, namely clan, ad hocracy, hierarchy and market, were treated as independent variables; two learning styles, namely single loop (SLL) and double loop (DLL) learning styles, were included as moderator variables and four OID dimensions, namely positive identification, ambivalent identification, neutral identification and disidentification, were treated as dependent variables of a path analysis model. Three hundred and seventy-eight employees of ten private sector insurance companies located in south India were included as subjects and data on three questionnaires were collected. Best fitting path models one for each dependent variables, which had conceptual and practical relevance, were retained.

Adhocracy and hierarchy cultures show direct positive impact on positive identification and show direct negative impact on other three modes of identification. Clan culture shows a weak tendency towards positive identification and does not influence other three modes. Market culture shows no impact on positive identification but influences other modes. DLL and SLL learning both in isolation and in combination moderate the relationships to cultural orientations and various modes of OID.

This study highlights the importance of OC and OL in developing OID among the employees. The insights drawn from the findings can be used to build comprehensive model of OID.

This study aims to develop a theoretical framework of the impact of clan and hierarchy cultures and knowledge technological capabilities on organizational learning.

A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from 693 employees working in knowledge management centers in various law and enforcement units in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between the variables.

The findings show that the clan culture had a significant negative effect on organizational learning. However, hierarchy culture and knowledge technological capabilities had a significant positive impact in predicting organizational learning behavior.

The study focuses on a specific type of public organization only, which somewhat limits the generalizability of the research results. Second, as the study was cross-sectional, the causal relationships could not be inferred directly. The study results will help policymakers create a learning organization by examining the impact of organizational culture and knowledge of technological capabilities.

This paper has added knowledge about the relationship between culture types, knowledge technological capabilities and organizational learning, particularly in the UAE. This study helps to bridge the gap in research on culture and knowledge technological capabilities and organizational learning.

Building on and reconsidering previous research on organizational models of education, the authors argue that while many administrators in education are still trying to manage ambiguous, and occasionally “anarchic” organizations effectively, the ambivalences of both loose and tight structures are today better understood than 25 years ago. In a development paralleling the evolution of organizational thinking in corporate management which no longer posits a “one‐best‐system hierarchy”, developments in education theory and practice point to the emergence of hybrid models of organization that capture the advantages of centralization and coordination produced by hierarchy while attempting to harness the advantages of more decentralized organizational structures.

A core premise of the paper is that participative, democratic organizational forms have a direct effect on openness. A key proposition is that organizational forms that promote inclusion, transparency and shared decision-making more broadly as part of their structure and culture would enhance greater openness. However, democratic forms are not a panacea when it comes to openness, there are inherent paradoxes, leading to inevitable tradeoffs that democratic organizations must manage.

The theoretical framework in the study explores the interaction between open strategy making and organizational democracy. This paper reviews the literature on open strategy and organizational democracy and presents propositions linking openness and elements of democratic organizations.

Open strategy requires a level of inclusion and transparency not typically associated with hierarchical organizations. This paper proposed that an organizational context where there are institutionalized processes that promote both transparency and inclusiveness, shared decision-making and a supportive organizational culture would promote openness. At the same time, these organizations need to manage key paradoxes associated with organizational democracy to benefit from its positive effect on openness. The idea is not that hierarchies cannot be open; they may simply need to be more creative and work harder at providing the scaffolding for participation.

This is a conceptual paper and we cannot make any claims of causality. It is also possible to refine the framework by adding or eliminating some of the conceptual variables.

Opening up the strategy process to non-traditional stakeholders can improve the strategy formation process. Non-traditional stakeholders can bring new insight, and be motivated and prepared for strategy implementation when they are part of the strategy formation process. Organizations need to focus on creating a climate that supports openness by emphasizing structural forms that promote openness. Sharing decision-making, profits and creating a democratic culture are important for successful openness. In addition, organizations need to manage the tradeoffs that arise as they link organizational democracy to openness.

This paper discusses the link between open strategy and organizational democracy. The research sheds light on how organizational forms, specifically structure affects openness, as well as the limits to structure and openness.