For Kim woods

ContentServer1.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Accounting homework help >For Kim woods

Organization Science Vol. 16, No. 4, July–August 2005, pp. 327–331 issn 1047-7039�eissn 1526-5455�05�1604�0327

informs ® doi 10.1287/orsc.1050.0147

Pushing Back the Frontiers of Organization Science

Claudia Bird Schoonhoven Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, [email protected]

Alan D. Meyer Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, [email protected]

James P. Walsh Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, [email protected]

Key words: theory; National Science Foundation; seismic theoretical shifts

It gives us great pleasure to present the two-part special issue “Frontiers of Organization Science.” The keystone for this special issue is a grant from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Innovation and Organization Change (IOC) program to the University of California, Irvine. The IOC has sought to advance knowledge on organizations and innovation through the funding of leading-edge research that will make a major contribution to the field. In November of 2003, an NSF- sponsored conference was convened at Laguna Beach, CA, with this goal in mind. The genesis for the NSF/IOC grant was detection of

a low-level “grumbling”—which Kaye likens to about a grade 4.5 earthquake on the Richter scale—among many in the field of organization and management, writ large, to the effect that we have become stuck in theories devel- oped in the latter half of the twentieth century. Earth- quakes come to mind because Kaye rode out Northern California’s 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake and experienced all of its precursor tremors—the smaller 4.5s and the 5.5s—that led up to the nearly “big one” of 1989. The smaller (but not trivial) foreshocks are heralded by an audible grumbling or low-level roar followed by unex- pected movement of the ground under your feet. The seismic metaphor describes the theoretical grum-

bling of recent years quite well for us; however, it is inexact to posit that social scientific breakthroughs are accompanied by precursor theories in the manner that small earthquakes foreshadow larger ones. Nevertheless, the 16 papers in the “Frontiers of Organization Science” special issue are intended to serve as precursor perspec- tives and ideas (increasingly loud and amplified rum- blings intended to capture your attention) to shift the surfaces on which our theories are currently based. If this special issue is successful, it will redirect your atten- tion to the need for new ideas, new theories, and new approaches to the field of organization science.

Recall the theoretical advances of the last third of the twentieth century: March and Simon’s (1958) grounding-breaking treatise on the “theory of formal organizations” (p. 1) in which the authors organized and codified the existing literature as a coherent series of propositions that went so far as to specify the causal direction of relationships (p. 9). Although sel- dom cited for this, March and Simon (1958) explicated the relationship between changes in the environment and the rate of innovation (p. 183), paving the way for Burns and Stalker’s (1961) influential book on the management of innovation. Thompson’s (1967) propo- sitional compendium of organizational research, along with Lawrence and Lorsch’s (1967) empirical study of organization and the environment catalyzed contin- gency perspectives on organizing. Weick (1969) pub- lished a revised concept of organization in his explica- tion of the social psychology of organizing. Williamson (1975, 1981) enticed economists into organization the- ory by positing the relationship between markets and hierarchies, and in so doing facilitated the launch of the contemporary fields of organizational economics, strategy, and business policy. In 1977, Hannan and Freeman published their break-away article on the popu- lation ecology of organizations, articulating the founda- tion for organization ecology. In the same year, Meyer and Rowan (1977) published the first statement on a neo-institutional theory of organizations and were fol- lowed in 1978 by Pfeffer and Salancik’s highly influ- ential book on the external control of organizations, a resource dependence perspective. Every generation of students of organization knows

these classic contributions to organization theory. While certainly not the only significant contributions to the field in the latter third of the twentieth century, these foundational works produced ground-breaking research over the next 25 years and a great deal of cumulative knowledge. This knowledge base served us exceptionally

327

well for some time. However many feel that it is time to reexamine our current theories in light of contempo- rary conditions and to assess the extent to which we are satisfied with the state of organization theory today. This, the first half of the “Frontiers of Organization

Science” special issue, contains eight thought-provoking articles intended to spur the reader’s imagination and to motivate a stream of outstanding research over the next five years. Each of the following papers is coau- thored by a more senior author writing with more junior scholars to infuse hard-won wisdom with fresh perspec- tives. Each paper has been through Organization Sci- ence’s usual double-blind review process, and all authors have stoically endured multiple revision requests from reviewers and editors. We open the “Frontiers of Organization Science” spe-

cial issue with a paper by Gerald F. Davis and Christo- pher Marquis, titled “Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms.” The authors observe that empirical work in organization theory has shifted from paradigm- driven research in which topics to be studied flow directly out of tenets of theory, toward problem-driven work oriented toward events unfolding in the world. They argue that problem-driven work drawing on orga- nizational mechanisms is particularly appropriate dur- ing times of significant social and economic transitions when the explanatory power of old theories has bro- ken down. As opposed to purely descriptive work that the authors label “business journalism with regressions,” problem-driven work is distinguished by its orientation toward explaining events in the world, beginning with the question, “Why is it that � � �?” To begin with this question inspires what Davis and

Marquis refer to as social mechanism-based theoriz- ing, an intermediate level of analysis between pure description and universal social laws (Hedstrom and Swedberg 1998). After providing multiple examples of social mechanism-based theorizing—like relational and environmental mechanisms—they assert provocatively that mechanism-based theorizing can aspire to explain but not to predict� They argue that organization the- ory is best seen as a commitment to an organizational mode of explanation, an approach using organizational mechanisms to explain social phenomena, rather than an attempt to accumulate findings that are generally true about organizations, which they view as a fruit- less undertaking. While the authors use examples from new institutional theory to illustrate their arguments, it is important to recognize that theirs is a more general argument in favor of social mechanism-based theoriz- ing, which extends beyond institutional theory. Davis and Marquis predict that the organizational field, not the organization itself, will become the most productive unit of analysis for advancing organization science in the twenty-first century.

The second paper in this special issue “Regional Industrial Identity: Cluster Configurations and Eco- nomic Development,” by Elaine Romanelli and Olga M. Khessina, maps out a different route for advancing organization science. The authors single out “geographic regions” as crucial but understudied social entities. They contend that the construct of regional industrial iden- tity renders locales differentially conducive to the devel- opment of new industries, and that it shapes the evo- lution of industry clusters. Regional industrial identity is defined as a social code arising from residents’ and external audiences’ shared understandings about a region’s suitability for particular kinds of business activ- ity. These authors focus our attention on delineating the overarching theoretical characteristics of a region as a means for understanding its capacity to promote and sus- tain new industry clusters. In the next paper, “Zooming In and Out: Connecting

Individuals and Collectivities at the Frontiers of Orga- nizational Network Research,” Herminia Ibarra, Martin Kilduff, and Wenpin Tsai address an elusive problem in network research: What is the role of individual action in enacting network structures of constraint and opportunity? Although the importance of linking per- sonal networks with larger network systems has long been understood (Boissevain 1974), the authors argue that most scholars have limited their focus to a single level of analyses. Instead Ibarra, Kilduss, and Tsai pro- pose a cross-level research agenda that marries work of both micro and macro scholars. In urging us to “zoom back and forth” between indi-

vidual and collective levels of analysis, the authors point the way toward explication of connections between personal and larger systems of networks. First, they address dilemmas concerning social capital, highlight- ing potential conflicts between actions of self-interested individuals seeking to maximize benefits of their own ego networks, and efforts by organizations or other social collectivities seeking to maximize collective net- work benefits. Next they focus on networks as mech- anisms for constructing and changing an individual’s identity. Finally they consider how network structure affects individuals’ perceptions of environments and opportunities—the cognitive biases and schemas that help structure social worlds. In focusing on these three domains the authors illustrate the theoretical leverage that can be achieved by zooming in and out between individual and collective phenomena, taking advan- tage of the wide-angled lens offered by the network perspective. The fourth paper, by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Christina T.

Fong, is titled “Building Organization Theory from First Principles: The Self-Enhancement Motive and Under- standing Power and Influence.” The authors argue for a synthesis of the field’s fragmented theories into a more integrated logical structure. They describe a process

through which foundational constructs can be used to integrate disconnected areas of inquiry. They illustrate this process by focusing on self-enhancement, which is defined as the desire to see oneself and one’s actions in the most positive light. Using this as their primi- tive construct, they develop a broad set of implications for the dynamics of power and influence. From these materials they assemble a set of propositions accounting for a number of organizational anomalies, such as why individuals willingly subjugate themselves to powerful others, even in situations where leaders demean their subordinates. The authors’ conceptual integration around self-enhancement brings together ideas typically treated as distinct in the literature—ideas like escalation of com- mitment, disinhibition by the powerful, and the tendency to ostracize unsuccessful others—while simultaneously deriving individual- and organization-level implications. The process of theoretical integration that Pfeffer and Fong describe is a provocative one, and can be used to generate novel hypotheses for further inquiry. In the next paper, “Designing Work Within and Be-

tween Organizations,” Kingshuk K. Sinha and Andrew H. Van de Ven argue that we need to place a high pri- ority on the study of work design. Work practices have changed so dramatically over the past quarter century that modifications in the organization of work have outpaced our theories and methods for representing and explaining them. In addition to technology-enabled changes in orga- nizational division of labor (i.e., Barley 1996, Dedrick et al. 2003), the authors argue that conceptualizations of work must now include work within and between orga- nizations, to accommodate the multiorganization divi- sion of labor that has emerged over the past century. Examples include cross-organization joint product devel- opment teams, value chain networks, contract manufac- turing, and the outsourcing of formerly in-house labor to organizations located on distant continents. Complex work arrangements like these create coordination prob- lems in orchestrating work across levels, modules, and networks of a work system. Next, the authors analyze the potential offered by

the configurational perspective (Meyer et al. 1993), the literature on organizational complementarities (Mili- grom and Roberts 1995), and the complexity perspec- tive (Kauffman 1995, Anderson 1999) for organizing a research agenda on changing work designs. Each of these approaches takes a holistic view of work systems and design, and each can accommodate a complex view of work as subsystems nested in systems located within and between organizations. However because work sys- tems so described are extremely complex, the authors conclude that the development of conceptual models specifying conditions and configurations that achieve internal and external fit for a work system remains an

elusive goal. Instead, Sinha and Van de Ven end by urg- ing empirical research that employs accurate descrip- tions of empirical work systems with designs that allow for comparative analyses across such systems. In their paper “Organizing and the Process of Sense-

making,” Karl E. Weick, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld argue that sensemaking plays a central role in determining human behavior, within and out- side formal organizations. Sensemaking is the process whereby meanings materialize that inform or constrain identity and action, and the ongoing retrospective devel- opment of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing. Furthermore, sensemaking is a way station on the road to a consensually constructed, coordinated system of action. This interesting paper serves multiple purposes. First, it is an outstanding primer on sensemak- ing, written clearly and collaboratively by its original author with colleagues: sensemaking organizes flux; it starts with noticing and bracketing; it is about labeling; it is retrospective; it is about presumption; it is social and systemic; it is about action; it is about organizing through communication. The paper provides ample evi- dence of elements of sensemaking illustrated through scores of colorful “stories”—the empirical findings of a wide range of studies about unusual and interesting orga- nizational situations, like the shooting down of a Libyan plane; sensemaking within and about the British infir- mary with an atrocious pediatric cardiac surgery mortal- ity rate; and sensemaking involving F-15 pilots over Iraq who shot down two friendly helicopters resulting in the deaths of 26 people. The paper is also a call to reconceptualize the sense-

making notion to make it more future oriented, more action oriented, more macro, more closely tied to orga- nizing and identity, more visible, more behaviorally defined, less backward facing, and more infused with emotion and the issues of sensegiving and persua- sion. The paper expands our notion of sensemaking to incorporate new findings, like Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991) conclusion that sensemaking is incomplete with- out sensegiving, undertaken to create meanings for a target audience. The authors leave us with a somewhat surprising research agenda (at least for seasoned afi- cionados of sensemaking). It builds on their expectation that sensemaking will become more macro, by juxtapos- ing sensemaking and institutionalism. The authors argue that sensemaking can provide micro mechanisms that link macro states across time by explicating cognitive structures associated with processes like agency and the creation of mimetic isomorphism. Moving directly into more micro processes related to

sensemaking is the next article by Kimberly D. Elsbach, Pamela S. Barr and Andrew B. Hargadon “Identifying Situated Cognition in Organizations.” The authors define situated cognition in organizations as the interaction of

cognitive schemas and organizational context. They ana- lyze the last 15 years of empirical case studies as a basis for illustrating how situated cognition might oper- ate within organizations. Building a framework from this research base, the authors argue that specific forms of cognitive schemas (rule, event, and person schemas for example) and specific contexts (like physical or institu- tional contexts) interact during the sensemaking process to give rise to some common forms of momentary per- ception, which they term “situated cognitions.” That is. they focus attention on both context and schema in inter- action rather than either in isolation. Their framework is used to derive theoretical implications, one of which is that situated cognitions are temporally bounded and transitory rather than being reliable and predictable over time. This implies that rather than applying decision rule schema consistently across situations to ensure rational decisions, the actual decision-making process will be the result of an interaction between actor’s various schemas and the decision context. The authors’ propose a research agenda that includes

investigating the extent to which cognition is transitory in actual organizations. Another item on their research agenda is to investigate whether specific combinations of context and schema reside together empirically in orga- nizations. If so, would these would permit a comparison across organizations of the extent to which cognition in organizations is temporally bound? We close the first half of the “Frontiers of Organiza-

tion Science” special issue with the paper by Jennifer A. Chatman and Francis J. Flynn titled “Full-Cycle Micro-Organizational Behavior Research.” Their paper is an appropriate transition between the two parts of the OS special issue because it contemplates relation- ships between theoretical insights, theoretical progress, the research process itself, and rewards within the aca- demic community—which include funding from impor- tant agencies like the National Science Foundation, our professional associations, and our universities. The authors advocate a full-cycle approach to conducting organizational research, writ large. Full-cycle organiza- tional research is defined as an iterative approach to understanding individual and group behavior in organi- zations and it includes field observations of interesting phenomena; theorizing about causes; experimental tests of the theory-in-process; and further field observations to enhance understanding and inspire additional theorizing. Full-cycle research is not firmly rooted within one set of methodologies, but rather it moves back and forth across methods to establish the power, generality, and concep- tual underpinnings of a phenomenon as research pro- gresses. Scholars recognize that diverse approaches to theory building and hypothesis testing offer advantages as well as trade-offs. However these trade-offs make it difficult to simultaneously strengthen theoretical coher- ence without sacrificing innovative, important, and real- istic insights. This is a call for researchers and theorists

to self-consciously develop research programs in con- cert with other scholars, with their students, and with their funding agencies. It is also a call for scholars and their students to become proficient in a range of research methods rather than simply specializing within narrow methodological approaches. In this paper the authors describe full-cycle research

in the abstract and illustrate it with research programs that have utilized a full-cycle approach, whether con- sciously or not. Such programs cycle between observing natural phenomena, theorizing about them, experimen- tally testing narrow elements of insights in the labora- tory, and returning to the field to test the extent to which the phenomenon exists in variable organizational con- texts. This is followed by further theorizing and empiri- cal research. As full-cycle research is only revealed over the course of many years and may indeed be invisible while in process, the authors consider a range of ways in which the field of organization science can support the development of more programmatic full-cycle research. It is acknowledged that the approach requires scarce resources: the passage of time, multiple researchers, and (invariably) money to conduct multiple research projects over time, but not necessarily simultaneously. More macro theorists should not be dissuaded by the

fact that the authors are organizational behavior (OB) theorists, and their illustrations of full-cycle research are naturally derived from within the field of OB. Nonethe- less one could track the research program of macro theorists Hannan and Freeman (1977) and their for- mer students over a 25-year period of time. This would likely reveal a clear program of research contributed to by multiple scholars continuously going back and forth between natural observations of phenomena, theorizing about this, gathering data (typically extant but sometimes original data from the field), and returning to theorizing and moving on within the cycle. What would be miss- ing in the macro case are the pronounced advantages of experimental laboratory research described well by Chatman and Flynn and others. However, the macro the- orists might be inclined to argue that the advantages of longitudinal and dynamic research designs across long periods of time and in a wide variety of organizational settings and populations are sufficient to demonstrate the internal validity and generality of the theories proposed. We leave you for the moment to consider this somewhat controversial approach to research and theorizing. We hope that this first half of the “Frontiers of Orga-

nization Science” special issue will be sufficiently stim- ulating to spur you to engage in avid debates with your colleagues. We expect that the debates will continue after publication of the second half of the Frontiers Special Issue, which follows. The following papers are forthcoming in Part 2. Alan D. Meyer, Vibha Gaba, and Kenneth A. Colwell “Organizing Far from Equilibrium: Nonlinear Change in Organizational Fields”

Greta Hsu and Michael T. Hannan “Identities, Genres, and Organizational Forms”

Filipe M. Santos and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt “Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organi- zation”

Sarah Kaplan and Rebecca Henderson “Organizational Rigidity, Incentives, and Technologi- cal Change: Insights from Organizational Economics”

Wendy K. Smith and Michael L. Tushman “Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Manage- ment Model for Managing Innovation Streams”

Gretchen Spreitzer, Kathleen Sutcliffe, Jane Dutton, Scott Sonehshein, and Adam M. Grant “A Social Embedded Model of Thriving at Work”

Mariann Jelinek and Terri L. Griffith “Organizational Science and the National Science Foundation: Partnership for Mutual Benefit” We commend the special issue “Frontiers of Orga-

nization Science” to the readers of Organization Sci- ence, and hope you will be as stimulated by the articles within as we have been. We look forward to seeing your good research and your proposals to the National Sci- ence Foundation and other granting agencies. We also look forward to seeing your new submissions to Organi- zation Science as well as to the collection of outstanding journals that serve as additional publication outlets for advances in organization science.

References Anderson, Philip. 1999. Complexity theory and organization science.

Organ. Sci. 10(3) 216-232. Barley , Stephen. 1996. Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic

evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(3) 404–441.

Boissevain, J. 1974. Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions. Basil Blackwell Publishers, London, UK.

Burns, Tomm, G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London, UK.

Dedrick, J., V. Gurbaxani, K. L. Kraemer. 2003. Information technol- ogy and economic performance: A critical review of economic performance. ACM Comput. Surveys 35(1) 1–28.

Gioia, D. A., K. Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiv- ing in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management J. 12 433–448.

Hannan, Michael T., John Freeman, 1977. The population ecology of organizations. Amer. J. Sociology 82 929–964.

Hedstrom, P. R., R. Swedberg, 1998. Social mechanisms: An intro- ductory essay. P. Hedstrom, R. Swedberg, eds. Social Mech- anisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe. Oxford University Press, New York.

Lawrence, Paul R., Jay W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environ- ment. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

March, James G., Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Meyer, John W., Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutional organizations: For- mal structures as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociology 83 340–363.

Meyer, Alan D, Anne S. Tsui, C. R. Hinings, 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad. Management J. 36 1175–1195.

Miligrom, P., J. Roberts. 1995. Complementarities and fit— Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. J. Accounting Econom. 19 179–208.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Weick, Karl E. 1969. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., Menlo Park, CA.

Williamson, Oliver E., 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. The Free Press, New York.

Williamson, Oliver E. 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. Amer. J. Sociology 87 548–577.