Organizations in Action

Organizational Decline Research Review: Challenges and Issues for a Future Research Agenda

“…Some address the antecedents of decline and the turnaround process (e.g., Argenti, 1976;Hambrick & D'Aveni, 1988), while others deal with theoretical approaches that would influence work on decline such as resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancick, 1978), threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981), organizational ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1984, 1989, contingency theory (Thompson, 1967), behavioral theory of the firm (Cyert & March, 1963), industrial economics (Porter, 1980) and risk taking in decision making (Singh, 1986). Therefore, the theoretical approaches that bolster studies on decline are related to the influence of the environment and context on decision making in companies and organizational mortality.…”

“…The first factor for this period was seminal articles of organizational decline and was composed of articles arguing that organizational decline is the subject of little research and that the explanations for the origins, responses to and effects of decline are neglected topics in the literature. According to , the works published during this period show three theoretical foundations for organizational decline: the literature on organizational environment highlights the importance of organizations having control over critical environmental resources, represented by the works of Aldrich (1979); the literature on crisis management addresses the impact of environmental discontinuities in organizations, in the works of Starbuck et al (1978) and Smart and Vertinsky (1977); and the literature on the management of uncertainty, in the works of Thompson (1967). Other works regarding this factor were Whetten (1980) on organizational life-cycles, articles on retrenchment (Whetten, 1981), the definition of a typology of decline (Zammuto & Cameron, 1985) and the difference between decline and stagnation (Bozeman & Slusher, 1979).…”

“…It is made up of articles that show the theoretical approaches used to analyze organizational decline through different perspectives: organizational ecology (Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993;Hannan & Carroll, 1992;Hannan & Freeman, 1977Miner 1990;Tuma & Hannan, 1984;Tushman & Anderson, 1986), evolutionary theory (Nelson & Winter, 1982), contingency theory (Thompson, 1967) and organizational learning (Cyert & March, 1963;Levitt & March, 1988 For the third period, from 2003 to 2014, the first factor was called actions and decline in turnaround situations, but the difference between this factor and its equivalents for the other periods is that it focuses more specifically on turnaround strategies and actions, and also on situations of divestment. The works on turnaround are included (Bibeault, 1982;Hambrick & Schecter, 1983;Robbins & Pearce, 1992;Schendel, Patton, & Riggs, 1976) as well as an important article by Pearce and Robbins (1993), which introduced the two-stage model for turnaround that has often been used and cited.…”

O que é legitimidade organizacional?

“…Para tanto, esses autores definiram cada um dos níveis de acordo com as três formas de articulação das organizações com o ambiente, que fora desenvolvido por Parsons (1956;1960) e ampliado posteriormente por Thompson (1967). Para Ruef e Scott (1998), a legitimidade organizacional pode ter origem em três níveis: (1) nível técnico, responsável por transformar insumos de produção em produtos; (2) nível gerencial, que administra e obtém os recursos essenciais para o sistema técnico; (3) nível institucional, que se atém ao vínculo da organização com seu ambiente, buscando assegurar sua sobrevivência e sua legitimidade (vide também MEYER; ROWAN, 1977;SELZNICK, 1971).…”

How powerful political ties appropriate resources and how weaker organizations protect themselves: A case study from Indonesia

“…Forming linkages with outside parties is a coping mechanism as these ties provide advice, information, access to resources and legitimacy (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The degree to which organizations engage in such boundary spanning activity depends on managerial preferences, but generally increases with environmental uncertainty (Leifer & Huber, 1977;Santos & Eisenhardt, 2005) and with a heavier dependence on external resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).However, as organizations and their partners exchange resources, the nature of the interaction depends on the relative power of the parties (Emerson, 1962;Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978;Thompson, 1967) and their degree of dependence on each other (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). Therefore, organizations with external ties face a risk of their partners appropriating their resources (Gulati & Singh, 1998), necessitating controls, in particular in cases of power imbalance.…”