Coexistence of 'old' and 'new' organizational practices : transitory phenomenon or enduring feature?

The new organizational forms literature argues that in a dynamic business environment, 'new' ways of organizing are required to ensure speed, flexibility and innovation. Originally it was asserted that the 'new' organizational practices, after a period of transition, would replace the 'old' practices, such as formalization and centralization. An alternative view has emerged recently which argues that 'old' and 'new' practices are compatible and can co-exist. The focus of this study was to test the emerging compatibility view by surveying Australian human resource managers. We found that organizations utilize new organizational practices but that traditional practices such as formalization and centralization remain important features of organizational design. Comparing our findings to an earlier study by Palmer and Dunford (2002) provides longitudinal support in favour of the compatibility argument. The key to understanding the use of new organizational forms may lie in the interaction between 'old' and 'new' practices: their co-existence appears to be an enduring rather than a transitory feature of Australian organizational design.

[1]  D. Pugh,et al.  Dimensions of Organization Structure , 1968 .

[2]  Richard Germain,et al.  Antecedents to Customer Involvement in Product Development:: Comparing US and Chinese Firms , 2004 .

[3]  Richard M. Burton,et al.  The Effect of Task Uncertainty and Decentralization on Project Team Performance , 2002, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[4]  Svein Ulset,et al.  'Beyond the M-form': Towards a Critical Test of the New Form , 2002 .

[5]  R. E. Miles,et al.  Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form , 1997 .

[6]  James Brian Quinn,et al.  The Strategy Process , 1988 .

[7]  Elizabeth Pinchot,et al.  The End of Bureaucracy & the Rise of the Intelligent Organization. First Edition. , 1993 .

[8]  J. Baum,et al.  STRATEGIC DECISION SPEED AND FIRM PERFORMANCE , 2003 .

[9]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Complexities and Dualities in Innovative Forms of Organizing , 2000 .

[10]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study , 1999 .

[11]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Towards The Flexible Form: How To Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments , 1996 .

[12]  J. Child,et al.  Corporate Governance and New Organizational Forms: Issues of Double and Multiple Agency , 2003 .

[13]  M. Healy,et al.  The impact of information and communications technology on managerial practices: the use of codes of conduct , 2003 .

[14]  Ian Palmer,et al.  OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND NEW ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES , 2002 .

[15]  W. Heydebrand.  New Organizational Forms , 1989, Organizational Design.

[16]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Network Structure in Virtual Organizations , 1999 .

[17]  Martin Parker,et al.  Postmodernism and organizations , 1995 .

[18]  C. Bartlett,et al.  Beyond the M-form: toward a managerial theory of the firm , 1993 .

[19]  Philip H. Mirvis,et al.  Environmentalism in Progressive Businesses , 1994 .

[20]  David A. Nadler,et al.  Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations , 1992 .

[21]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing , 1995 .

[22]  M. Castells.  The rise of the network society , 1996 .

[23]  Eric T. G. Wang.  Effect of the fit between information processing requirements and capacity on organizational performance , 2003, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[24]  Gary Klein,et al.  The impact of IS department organizational environments upon project team performances , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[25]  Karen Lee Ashcraft,et al.  Organized Dissonance: Feminist Bureaucracy as Hybrid Form , 2001 .

[26]  D. Pugh,et al.  The Context of Organization Structures , 1969 .

[27]  H. Schmid.  Relationships between Organizational Properties and Organizational Effectiveness in Three Types of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations , 2002 .

[28]  Richard Whittington,et al.  The Challenge of Organizing/Strategizing , 2003 .

[29]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[30]  Martin Harris,et al.  Decentralization, Integration and the Post-Bureaucratic Organization: The Case of R&d , 2000 .

[31]  Ronald N. Ashkenas,et al.  The boundaryless organization : breaking the chains of organizational structure , 1995 .

[32]  Robert S. Dooley,et al.  Belaboring the Not-So-Obvious: Consensus, Commitment, and Strategy Implementation Speed and Success , 2000 .

[33]  Lawrence L. Wu,et al.  Comparing Data Quality of Fertility and First Sexual Intercourse Histories , 2001 .

[34]  Mark A. Vonderembse,et al.  The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance , 2003 .

[35]  Yuhchang Hwang,et al.  The Performance Effects of Congruence Between Product Competitive Strategies and Purchasing Management Design , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[36]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Winning through innovation , 1997 .

[37]  Thomas R. Miller,et al.  Organization design: the continuing influence of information technology , 2002 .

[38]  Dennis T. Jaffe.  The Self‐managing Organization , 1999 .

[39]  Derina R. Holtzhausen.  The effects of a divisionalised and decentralised organisational structure on a formal internal communication function in a South African organisation , 2002 .

[40]  L. Melin,et al.  Innovative Forms of Organizing , 2003 .

[41]  R. Cross,et al.  Boundary Activities in `Boundaryless' Organizations: A Case Study of a Transformation to a Team-Based Structure , 2000 .

[42]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Organizational designs for R&D , 2002 .

[43]  Richard L. Priem,et al.  The new corporate architecture , 1995 .

[44]  Larry J. Williams,et al.  Method Variance in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Research: Effects on Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Hypothesis Testing , 1994 .

[45]  M. Schulz.  THE UNCERTAIN RELEVANCE OF NEWNESS: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS , 2001 .

[46]  J. Hackman,et al.  Relationships between organization structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks , 1981 .

[47]  Victor E. McGee,et al.  Designing Lateral Organizations: An Analysis of the Benefits, Costs, and Enablers of Nonhierarchical Organizational Forms* , 1997 .

[48]  David Knoke,et al.  Measuring Organizational Structures and Environments , 1994 .

[49]  Loraine Powell,et al.  Shedding a tier: flattening organisational structures and employee empowerment , 2002 .

[50]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms , 2001 .

[51]  Andrew Pettigrew,et al.  The Innovating organization , 1965 .

[52]  Xiaohua Lin,et al.  Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and performance: lessons from Chinese state‐owned enterprises , 2003 .

[53]  G. DeSanctis,et al.  Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms , 1995 .

[54]  K. Weick.  Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies. , 1996 .

[55]  Michael H. Morris,et al.  The Effect of Centralization and Formalization on Entrepreneurship in Export Firms , 1998 .

[56]  K. Roberts,et al.  From bhopal to banking: Organizational design can mitigate risk , 1993 .

[57]  G. Walker,et al.  The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. , 1984, Administrative science quarterly.

[58]  E. Lawler.  Rethinking organization size , 1997 .

[59]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Creating a Hybrid Organizational Form from Parental Blueprints: The Emergence and Evolution of Knowledge Firms , 2000 .

[60]  N. Sastry,et al.  The Quality of Retrospective Data , 2001 .

[61]  J. Guthrie.  High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from New Zealand , 2001 .

[62]  David A. Nadler,et al.  The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century , 1999 .

[63]  Deborah E. Rupp,et al.  Organization structure and fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level , 2002 .

[64]  Huw Beynon,et al.  The Restructuring of Career Paths in Large Service Sector Organizations: ‘Delayering’, Upskilling and Polarisation , 2002 .

[65]  Karlene H. Roberts,et al.  The Incident Command System : High Reliability Organizing for Complex and Volatile Task , 2007 .

[66]  L. Harris,et al.  Innovative organizational structures and performance: A case study of structural transformation to “groovy community centers” , 2003 .

[67]  A. Lewin,et al.  The evolution of organizational routines among large Western and Japanese firms , 2002 .

[68]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation , 1999 .

[69]  F. Damanpour.  Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators , 1991 .

[70]  Christopher P. Holland,et al.  Mixed Mode Network Structures: The Strategic Use of Electronic Communication by Organizations , 1997 .

[71]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations , 1999 .

[72]  Paul E. Spector.  Using self‐report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method , 1994 .

[73]  Paul M. Vaaler,et al.  Same as it Ever Was: The Search for Evidence of Increasing Hypercompetition , 2003 .

[74]  Anneke Vandevelde,et al.  Managing the design‐manufacturing interface , 2003 .

[75]  Shamsud D. Chowdhury,et al.  Centralization as a design consideration for the management of call centers , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[76]  S. Barley.  Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organizational Studies , 1996 .