First, competition influences both organizationdesign and innovation. 6 Intense competition calls for more efficient, typically leaner, structures because it increases the need for firms to be more adaptive and efficient organizationally. Although ineffi- cient firms with higher costs may sustain their operations in the absence of intense competition (Leibenstein, 1966, refers to this as “ x-inefficiency ” ), they risk losing their competitive position to more efficient rivals when competition intensifies (see, e.g., Schmitz, 2005). As a result, firms facing intense rivalry tend to have, for example, flat- ter organizational hierarchies (Guadalupe and Wulf, 2010), which are associated with faster response to market changes and lower informational inefficiencies in the organizational hierarchy (McAfee and McMillan, 1995; Thesmar and Thoenig, 2000). In parallel, intense competition leads to more innovation because, as noted above, ri- vals’ innovations that reduce costs and/or increase customer’s willingness-to-pay leave the focal firm at a competitive disadvantage, prompting the firm to innovate in order to match or surpass rivals. 7 Given the high uncertainty associated with investments in innovation, the effect of rivalry on innovation is more pronounced for firms that are neck-and-neck with each other or for those in the lead (see, for example, Aghion et al., 2005; Shu and Steinwender, 2018). This resonates with the notion of Schumpe- terian competition assessed through a competitive dynamics lens (see Giustiziero, Kaul, and Wu, 2019).
All four primers offer insights into organizationdesign in the Simon (1969) sense: how organizations “ ought to be ” and how they can be changed from “ existing situations into preferred ones. ” The primer on multimarket competition alerts us to the fact that nomin- ally independent firms are connected by multiple points of contact in the marketplace, and their respective designs must address the tensions that result. Divestiture involves the removal of one or more businesses from the portfolio of a diversified firm, and the firm must be redesigned for a reduced scope of operations. The evolutionary psychology primer argues that many existing organizations are too complex for their members to cope psychologically, and it challenges organizational researchers and designers to find ways to transform those existing situations into preferred ones. The primer on post-merger inte- gration discusses how an acquiring firm and a target firm ought to combine their resources and how the two organizations can be designed into one.
The specific approach taken in this short essay is to call for more research on the CHQ from the perspective of economic organizationdesign theory, that is, organizational economics. Such an approach can address the fundamental questions concerning the CHQ, such as why it exists. Basically, economies of scale and learning in the above two tasks suggest that they be centralized in one unit (Holmstrom, 1999). Because the activities and (human) assets of the CHQ become co-specialized with the rest of the firm as the CHQ carries out its activities, and therefore may be subject to potential hold-up, CHQ services are produced internally rather than being procured from the outside (Williamson, 1985). The extent to which CHQ activities are separable from/complementary to other firm activities helps determining the in- ternal boundaries of the CHQ vis-à-vis other corporate units. An organizational eco- nomics inspired approach to the CHQ may also help illuminate its internal organization by focusing on task interdependencies and asymmetric information in- side the unit itself (Ross, 2014).
The chapter also offers a ‘map’ of configurational studies relevant for organizationdesign. The map is a typology of approaches within CA based on two dimensions that emerged as key from the literature review. In fact, while all CA is based on the identification of ‘conceptually distinct elements’ and how they can be combined, there have been different ways of modelling the ‘laws of clustering’: some of the studies hypothesize that only ‘coherent’ and ‘similar’ elements can cluster, some envisage complementarities among elements that ‘differ in kind’, some hypothesize a one-to-one correspondence between one configuration of contextual contingencies and one effective organizational configuration, some envisage multiple effective configurations in the same conditions. A distinctive methodological contribution of this chapter has been to measure ‘structural heterogeneity’ and to advance and empirically explore some propositions on how it varies across contexts characterized by different levels of task uncertainty and complexity/size of the organized system. A new empirical application of QCA has been presented to demonstrate how this type of analysis can lead to substantive contributions, such as the positive relation between the heterogeneity of contingencies and the internal heterogeneity of structure, the higher equifinality of different configurations in large firms competing on efficiency (with respect to other conditions) and the substantive specification of which organizational elements are complementary under what conditions.
The fit among the components of an organizational system has been shown to crucially affect firm performance since the origin of organization science. Despite the importance of fit has been consistently emphasized in organization research, the notion of fit has been changing over time. While early contingency studies worked out a dicotomous notion of fit as "pairwise" association between two variables, such as the "internal fit" between strategy and structure (Chandler, 1962) or the "external fit" between structure and environment (March and Simon, 1958; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967), over time the focus of organizationdesign research has gradually shifted to a multidimensional notion of fit, understood as the relationship among sets of elements or activities. Examples of this new notion of fit have been widespread over the last two decades across strategy, organization and economics-oriented design research. For instance, configurational researchers empirically discovered that patterns or profiles of organizational attributes (namely, "organizational configurations" or "gestalts"), rather than single structural variables, are related to firm performance (Miller and Friesen, 1984; Meyer et al, 1993), while economists created mathematichal frameworks to model the existence of complementarities among firm practices (Milgrom and Roberts, 1995).
However, there is little exploration of the design process in the organizationdesign literature. Snow (2018) listed all of the articles published in the Journal of Organiza- tiosn Design since its inception in 2012 until mid-2018. The majority of the articles are theory-driven. He identified only one article (Engler et al. 2013) that was concerned with the design process. It seems obvious to us, however, that the design process should be a key research topic. One opportunity would be more fine-grained, descriptive re- search. Our study covers the main phases of a re-design project at a fairly high level. This means that we may have ignored some more detailed elements within each phase that may in fact be important for the overall outcome. A second opportunity is to con- sider the effectiveness of alternative tools and approaches. Organizationdesign is a relatively immature field that is highly dependent on the skills of the individual practi- tioner. Many alternative tools and methods are in use, and it is unlikely that they are equally effective.
Willis-Knighton Health System adopted the hub-and- spoke model on the introduction of its first expansion campus, WK South, which opened in 1983. WK South was constructed to complement its sole campus at the time, Willis-Knighton Medical Center, affording the institution a prominent presence in both south and west Shreveport. In the years leading up to this expansion, ex- ecutives explored organization designs and selected the hub-and-spoke model based on the many benefits that it provided, especially its reputation for efficient and effect- ive service delivery. The model proved to be successful, prompting its continued use in subsequent expansion initiatives. Today, the system’s hub-and-spoke network consists of one hub, Willis-Knighton Medical Center, and five primary spokes: WK South, WK Bossier Health Center, WK Pierremont Health Center, WK Rehabilita- tion Institute, and The Oaks of Louisiana. Numerous general and specialty medical clinics, located throughout the region, also serve as spokes linked to the main cam- pus hub. The benefits attributed to the hub-and-spoke organizationdesign, as noted earlier in this article, were realized in full by Willis-Knighton Health System, and through the direction of concerted efforts, its associated risks never materialized [11, 12]. While the system established its hub-and-spoke network as a structural platform for operating its own properties, it coincidently and beneficially discovered that the organizationdesign also offered value structurally for the management of relationships with external entities, namely rural hospi- tals which reached out to the system for support in order to remain viable .
[3–5, 7]. Informed decisions regarding service distribu- tion are essential, with the goal being to find an optimal balance between operations efficiency and quick, conveni- ent access by patients to associated healthcare services. This is something that only healthcare providers them- selves can decide, as service arrays, the markets in which they are offered, and populations served are unique to each entity. However, with firsthand familiarity of an oper- ational hub-and-spoke network, knowledge and awareness of this organizationdesign comes to life, making construc- tion of custom networks possible for most any interested healthcare provider. Willis-Knighton Health System ’ s ser- vice delivery network makes use of the hub-and-spoke model, offering an excellent opportunity to gain an under- standing of this particular organizationdesign ’ s attributes and operation.
Two other topics that have received disproportionate attention in JOD are Innovation and Executives. Both of these topics may reflect JOD’s organizational goals. Thus, the emphasis on innovation is indicative of the journal’s “future” orientation and of the importance it ascribes to the relationship between organizationdesign and technology evolution (e.g., ecosystems, platforms). In JOD ’ s very first issue, for example, Baldwin (2012) argued that the key problem for organizationdesign is the management of distrib- uted innovation in dynamic ecosystems. Since then, a variety of JOD articles have focused on ecosystems, platforms, and other organizational features shaped by technology.
In the development of banking in Indonesia, the type of bank operating in Indonesia is not only a conventional bank but also many banks that embrace the principles of Sharia in conducting their business activities. The large number of conventional Banks in Indonesia will be a challenge in the development of Sharia Bank in Indonesia, so it is important for sharia banks to formulate the right strategy in running their operational activities that can be reflected from the right organizational structure. Society has been engaged with conventional banking for long period hence it is necessary to have right strategy and systematic steps that should be done by sharia banking. This study discusses the impact of dynamic strategic fit in organizational design at
First, management scholars and practitioners alike tend to conceive of hierarchy as a sequence of levels of decision-making authority (e.g., Butler and Grahovac 2012; Dobrajska et al. 2015; Luo et al. 2018), that is, the vertical integration of official posi- tions within a single organizational structure, in which each position is under the supervision and control of a higher one. The ladder of authority thus implies that the (underlying) accountability ladder is infused with people authorized to make decisions about various issues. For example, the authority ladder of a military organization in- volves a systematically differentiated authority, from commander-in-chief to soldier. The military example is, to a large extent, the historical antecedent of the ladders of au- thority that prevail in today’s business organizations (Grant 1996).
This paper is closely related to the paper entitled “Determination of management capacity”, published in the Agrarian Perspectives 2009, 54: 49–55. The paper derives from the working and publication activities from research projects of the MSM 6046070904 and the GACR 11140/1411/114105 focused on Module TM 10 – Knowledge-Based systems Design. There were several themes solved and published in terms of this research projects (besides those in the Agrarian Perspectives proceedings). The initial work was re- garding the classification of the factors of organiza- tional systems (represented by the paper “Ontogenesis – Based Organization of Knowledge” Hron 2008), in terms of the above-mentioned project, and the principles of designing organizational systems (rep- resented by the paper “Design of the Diversification Classifier for Agricultural Entrepreneurs Activities”, Hron et al. 2009). The claims of the development of a new contemporary process were implicit from that initial classification. These new processes concentrate on the optimisation of the food production control (in analytical and also in set forms) – “Control of Food Products´ Quality” (Hron and Macák 2009). Regarding the present control systems or manage- rial systems, it is necessary to consider a common attribute of a typical real system – although its output is not always reliably obtained. This was published
Organizational design and choosing the organizational structure for a company is the problem which has been solved using different methods, considering numerous criteria, but still there is not one method suitable for all companies. Soulsby & Clark (2007) presented the post-socialist organizational research and the post- socialist transformation of the organization theory. Kujacic & Bojovic (2007) presented the process and relevant issues of the postal traffic organizationdesign. Bojovic, Kujacic & Macura (2010) applied the ANP method for the selection among alternatives of organizational structure. An interesting approach to computational organizational modelling was used by inter alia, (Hyatt & Jones, 1997). In this paper, an object-oriented simulation environment using difference equations for organization network modlling was developed.
These notions of fit, as well as the notion of organization forms as ‘syndromes of attributes’, are traceable also in another important approach to organizationdesign, namely transaction cost economics. That approach has delivered two contributions, not present in classic organizational design, that are particularly useful for our purposes. First, it has enlarged the portfolio of organizational attributes, by including incentives and price-like elements. Second, it has partitioned attributes into classes with specified, different, organizing properties, thereby defining families of attributes that ‘differ in kind’ (Williamson 2004). Typically, three kinds of attributes have been identified: market-like, bureaucratic and clan-like (Williamson and Ouchi 1981). These attributes were constructed in part by observing institutionalized, frequently adopted, packages of organizing techniques, and in part by assuming that attributes are consistent if they are ‘similar in kind’. Williamson (1991b) has been particularly explicit on that, and even stated the impossibility of ‘selective intervention’, namely the impossibility to infuse attributes of different kinds into the same organizational system – for example, and in particular, to infuse market elements into firms, seen as the realm of plans and hierarchy.
The following example may indicate to what extent the unconscious dynamic in organizational contexts and the thinking of role holders can be understood as induced by the organization (and its relatedness to its environment). For example, Lawrence (1995; cf. Sievers, 1999; Knights & McCabe, 1997; Steingard & Fitzgibbons, 1993; Willmott, 1993) has noted that the implementation of traditional management tools by the British National Health Service has contributed to the tendency of hospital managements to represent and justify totalitarian ways of thinking incompatible with the professional value orientations of physicians and nurses. To the extent that management practices and tools are primarily oriented towards a maximization of profit and economic survival, the original ‘spirit of a hospital’ is lost. Hospitals thus no longer differ from other production or service enterprises and employee anxiety about losing their jobs predominates. Employees and patients are reduced to economic objects, i.e. human resources and customers. The anxiety of annihilation – both that of losing one’s job and one’s professional identity – reactivates earlier anxieties of this kind on the side of organizational role holders. They therefore are in danger of losing the capacity to contain 1 the (annihilation) anxieties of patients, which they experience in relation to their illness and/or their impending death (cf. Menzies, 1960).
One interesting thing about the Darul Arqam was its ability to appeal to the urban Malays although its approach is retrospective. In a study done by Kamarulnizam (1998), he found that this was due to several reasons. The first is the charismatic leadership of Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad. Secondly, the Darul Arqam guides its members back to basics of Islam, preaching on the importance of one’s relationship with Allah (hablum minaAllah) and self correction. Thirdly, as does the Jamaat Tabligh, the Darul Arqam does not use jargons but simple concepts of iman and taqwa which is easy to follow and understand. Many of its member of the Council of Syuyuks (Syeikhs) are educated and urban-based Malays although there were accusations of kinship domination. The reason being, that Ustaz Ashaari’s sons and son in law were among the high ranking syeikhs of the Darul Arqam. The Darul Arqam also tries to establish its learning activities through classes, sermons, audio tapes, video tapes and some publications, however since it is not a formal organization and does not have official membership, it is quite difficult to see its learning activities in the eyes of a formal organizational learning perspective as purpoted in the LO and OL concept.
Let us turn to the illustration of a higher balance in The Manager as Stress Coach (Andersen and Kingston, 2007) in order to cast a light on the role the manager plays in making the somatic relation in stress productive. I emphasize two things. First, I want to show how stress coaching aims not at a balanced middle but rather at the dynamic elevated middle that the discussion of Aristotelian melancholy has revealed to us. It is the self-transgressive character of this condition that not only ensures productivity but also brings change to the organization. This leads me to my second point. As a role model, the manager must become a representation of a way of looking at the world, the nexus of a shared set of assumptions that enables the employees to understand or predict behaviour. In stress coaching, the manager’s own behaviour must become a model or a pattern – what the Greeks called paradeigma. The paradigm of the manager as stress coach illustrates the desubstantialization of human nature; it illustrates the paradoxical way in which the natural becomes desubstantialized when related to productivity. The Manager as Stress Coach presents the change from growth to stress in order to illustrate how the anomaly itself is the foundation of productivity. In The Manager as Stress Coach ‘The Stress Ladder’ (Andersen and Kingston, 2007: 14) is presented as a tool to measure the proportions between effectivity and stress. Interestingly, the tool shares its basic somatic imagery with the Aristotelian assumption of heat as the dynamic foundation of growth (Klibansky et al., 1992: 81), which the author of Problems also subscribes to. On the high end the “temperate employee… feels effective – not busy – and on top of the situation” (Andersen and Kingston, 2007: 14). At the bottom of the ladder the result of too extreme temperatures come together in the distressed and non-productive employee, who has ‘burned-out’ (ibid.: 18). The way from top to bottom
constitute with functions of power’ (Hetherington, 2011: 459). While four of the contributions in this issue – two articles (Hanlon; Presskorn-Thygesen and Bjerg) and two notes (Armano; Barratt) – deal primarily with the effects of diagrammatic figuring, Matt Rodda’s article on ‘The diagrammatic spectator’ is concerned with the potential for defiguring and refiguring, sketching out potential lines of flight within an existing diagram through aesthetic practice. In the first contribution in this issue, ‘The entrepreneurial function and the capture of value’, Gerard Hanlon focuses on the diagram of entrepreneurial value production. Drawing particularly on the work of Kirzner, Hanlon contrasts what he calls a ‘finders-keepers’ model of entrepreneurship with the more traditional idea(l) of the entrepreneur as value-producer. The entrepreneurial subject with whom we are more familiar is that of the risk-taker, innovator, the creator of jobs and wealth – in other words, ‘the ideal of what capitalist subjectivity should look like’ (p, 177). However, Hanlon argues that the entrepreneurial subject is better understood as one who discovers, captures and harvests value, rather than creating it. This suggests a more parasitical role whereby value is extracted from the labour of others (see also Hardt and Negri, 2009; Murtola and Jones, 2012), which inevitably raises the question: who is the producer? Hanlon points to the increasing tendency for value creation to occur outside the organization (e.g. the development of open-source software by disparate intellectual communities) and in the use of property rights by entrepreneurs to capture this value. Hanlon’s entrepreneurial subject territorializes and thus restricts the possibilities of knowledge exchange and innovation as a consequence, much like a modern day form of ‘enclosure’. By sketching out the diagrammatics of contemporary entrepreneurship, Hanlon seeks to demonstrate how changes in the capitalist economy – notably the shift to financialization (Teixeira and Rotta, 2012) – are linked to conditions of value capture and rent-seeking activity, rather than the productive capabilities of individuals.
However, most studies of humour ‘at work’, be they part of the functionalist or critical tradition, study humour in organizations. While we consider work and the workplace interesting contexts for the study of humour, in the present paper we, in contrast, look at humour of organization (Westwood and Rhodes, 2007). This means that we examine how organization – and its humorous sides – are represented in popular culture. Assuming that such representations are not simply un- or surreal (ibid.), we analyze, as mentioned above, the TV series Twin Peaks, which is full of ludicrous and absurd aspects of organization. Under- explored in OS as a form of humour, absurdity notably reveals the ability of comicality to break up and intervene in prevalent orders and mundane meanings (Critchley, 2007: 24; Palmer, 1987). A more precise definition of absurdity makes this clear: the absurd is usually understood as a matter or phenomenon that a) contradicts or goes beyond formal logic and reason; b) is not in accordance and alignment with common sense and commonly held values and expectations; and c) is linked to ridicule, foolishness and laughter (Dougherty, 1994: 141). While it is, on that basis, commonly argued that absurdity’s intermingling of different, seemingly unreasonable and contradictory orders and conventions provokes the perception of meaninglessness and nonsense (Cooper and Pease, 2002: 309), we claim that the absurd is not solely about lack of meaning and order, but about other orders and logics of ordering (see also de Cock, 2000). Evaluated as a threat to ‘serious’ order and rational reason that frequently, yet not necessarily, prompts laughter (Kavanagh and O’Sullivan, 2007: 244), absurdity is also often equated with unease (Westwood, 2004). To us though, absurdity is above all about the persistent reversion and questioning of conventional boundaries and distinctions that define what is ‘real’, ‘normal’ and logical, and what is ‘unreal’, ‘abnormal’ and illogical (Collinson, 2002: 270).