Does Organization Structure Matter? On the Relationship Between the Structure, Functioning and Effectiveness

Andersen, Jon Aarum; Jönsson, Patrik

doi:10.1142/s0219877006000788

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I derived and adapted all items from several prior studies on decentralization (Andersen and Jonsson, 2006;Bloom, Sadun, and Van Reenen, 2009a;Burton et al, 2002;Colombo, Delmastro, and Rabbiosi, 2007;Hanks et al, 1993;Lee and Grover, 2000;Nahm, Vonderembse, and Koufteros, 2003;Pugh, 1973). For each decision right, the respondents were asked to indicate the hierarchical level that is responsible for the decision.…”

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Mahr¹

2010

Aligning Information Technology, Organization, and Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is discussed whether hybrid strategies are beneficial or detrimental to a firm's performance, because hybrid strategies lead to organizational tensions that arise from the simultaneous pursuit of distinct strategic activities. However, existing studies on the relationship between hybrid strategy and firm performance have largely neglected the role of the organizational architecture. This study tests the hypothesis that an ambidextrous organizational architecture positively moderates the relationship between a hybrid strategy and firm performance. Particularly, the roles of specific organization structures and HRM practices (individual ambidexterity) and information and communication technologies (technological ambidexterity) are assessed. Further, a hybrid strategy's performance impact is defined in two distinct ways and measured relative to three different comparison groups, that is, the entire sample, no-emphasis strategies, and pure strategies. A novel multi-source dataset on German and Polish manufacturing firms is constructed from three independent sources, including a dataset on objective firm performance indicators. Evidence is found that a hybrid strategy positively impacts firm performance in the presence of organizational ambidexterity, but negatively impacts firm performance in the absence of organizational ambidexterity. These findings are robust across two types of organizational ambidexterity, three different comparison groups, and further robustness tests.

show abstract

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Standardization is measured as the average of two five-point Likert scale items that are derived and adapted from prior studies (α=.56) (Andersen and Jonsson, 2006;Burton et al, 2002;Hanks et al, 1993;Nahm et al, 2003). Respondents were asked to indicate how many written or oral rules and procedures are in place in their firm.…”

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Mahr¹

2010

Aligning Information Technology, Organization, and Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Organization" deals with three issues related to the form and function of planning organizations (e.g. Andersen andJonsson, 2006, Pinjala et al, 2006). The internal consistency, or degree of correlation among the three items for the same construct, within this new variable was tested using Cronbach's alpha.…”

Section: The Survey Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring problems related to the materials planning user environment

Jönsson

2008

International Journal of Production Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the existence of various user environment problems (i.e. problems related to the planning organization, basic planning data, software support, education and knowledge) and explains the impact of user environment problems on the perceived planning performance of different materials planning methods (MRP, re-order point, kanban, run-out time and periodic review methods). It is based on a survey of 153 manufacturing and 53 distributing companies in Sweden. Four distinct clusters of user environments are identified. It is shown how different materials planning methods perform differently in various user environments.Keywords: inventory management, materials requirements planning, organizational issues, productivity IntroductionMaterials planning methods differ in applicability due to the existing planning environment, i.e. depending on the demand, product and process characteristics (e.g. Krajewski et al., 1987, Berry and Hill, 1992, Jonsson and Mattsson, 2003. The planning performance is not only a result of which method is used and in which planning environment it is applied. The user environment, i.e. the software support available in the ERP system or a similar information system supporting the planning function (hereafter, the term ERP is used also for similar planning information systems), the quality of the planning information, and how actively the planning personnel actually are working with designing and using the respective method, should also have important impact on the planning performance.

show abstract

“…Irrespective of the nature of business, an organizational structure provides a foundation within which organizations function (Andersen & Jonsson, ; Cummings & Berger, ; Jacob, ). Jackson and Morgan () viewed organization structure as durable arrangements within an organization, because it shows the allocation of work roles and administrative mechanisms that creates a pattern of interrelated work activities and allows the organization to conduct, coordinate, and control its work activities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Reporting Levels on Team Workers in New Business Sectors

Wickramasinghe¹

2016

Perf Improvement Qrtly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature provides evidence for the effects of number of reporting levels on employees’ attitudes and, in turn, their reactions to work and work context. However, little empirical attention has been paid to understand implications of the number of reporting levels on employees. This study investigated the differential effects of number of reporting levels on employees in teams in terms of opportunities for promotion, opportunities for lateral transfer, satisfaction with work environment, and team process. Survey methodology was used, and 281 respondents who fulfilled the selection criteria set for the study responded. To examine the hypothesized relationships, logistic regression was performed. The findings supported the hypothesis that employees perceive more opportunities for promotion when many reporting levels (three to five in the present study) exist. Further, the findings supported the hypothesis that employees perceive more satisfaction with the work environment when few reporting levels (two in the present study) exist.

show abstract

Does Organization Structure Matter? On the Relationship Between the Structure, Functioning and Effectiveness

Cited by 17 publications

References 39 publications

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Exploring problems related to the materials planning user environment

Effects of Reporting Levels on Team Workers in New Business Sectors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About