The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination

Organization design is a major factor determining an organization’s performance and how the people work together in these organizations. In the paper, we argue that designing organizations should be scientific-based and forward-looking. This raises challenges in designing organizations in contexts and situations that are new and have not been seen before. Experimentation of what is and what might be is the basis for exploring and examining what makes a good science for organizational design. Experimentation permits us to examine what might be for organization designs, which are not well understood or may not exist yet. Collaborative communities, new ventures, agile organizations, and temporary organizations are examples; experimentation permits us explore and examine what is and what might be and to examine the organizational design problem and perform experiments to understand the relationship between structure and coordination mechanisms of information, communications, decisions, trust, and incentives—the basis for the multi-contingency theory of organizational design.An organizational design must specify the fit between the structure of division of tasks in the organization with its coordination, or how to make these tasks work in concert. These tasks can be interdependent and uncertain. To design good organizations, we need empirical evidence about what is and exploration about what might be; we need a good theoretical basis for being able to generalize our knowledge. To illustrate our point, we examine two experiments on the classic M-form hypothesis—a computer simulation that examines coordination, organization structure, and interdependency and a laboratory experiment that examines the effect of incentives on opportunism and performance. Together, we find that the M-form is a robust organizational design, but with contingent conditions.Finally, we discuss how observation and experimentation together is the foundation for the development of scientific-based theory of organizational design.

[1]  Kenneth Kotovsky,et al.  Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon , 1989 .

[2]  R. Burton,et al.  The impact of organizational climate and strategic fit on firm performance , 2004 .

[3]  Børge Obel,et al.  Strategy Implementation Requires the Right Executive Style: Evidence from Danish SMEs , 2012 .

[4]  Erik R. Larsen,et al.  Adaptive Learning in Organizations: A System Dynamics-Based Exploration , 1997 .

[5]  Daniela Fischer,et al.  Organizational Design A Step By Step Approach , 2016 .

[6]  Børge Obel,et al.  How failure to align organizational climate and leadership style affects performance , 2008 .

[7]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  The Virtual Design Team: Designing Project Organizations as Engineers Design Bridges , 2012 .

[8]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Organization Design: An Information Processing View , 1974 .

[9]  Timothy Van Zandt,et al.  Real-Time Decentralized Information Processing as a Model of Organizations with Boundedly Rational Agents , 1999 .

[10]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Developing Theory Through Simulation Methods , 2006 .

[11]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  GitHub: exploring the space between boss-less and hierarchical forms of organizing , 2017, Journal of Organization Design.

[12]  M. Reitzig,et al.  What’s ‘New’ About New Forms of Organizing? , 2013 .

[13]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design. , 1978 .

[14]  Børge Obel,et al.  Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[15]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[16]  H. Simon,et al.  Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. , 1959 .

[17]  G. DeSanctis,et al.  Organizational Design by Richard M. Burton , 2011 .

[18]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[19]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[20]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  When Two Bosses Are Better Than One: Nearly Decomposable Systems and Organizational Adaptation , 2018, Organ. Sci..

[21]  Børge Obel,et al.  Computational Modeling for What-Is, What-Might-Be, and What-Should-Be Studies - And Triangulation , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[22]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of Organizational and Institutional Designs , 2013 .

[23]  R. Burton,et al.  Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design , 1995 .

[24]  J. March,et al.  An introduction to models in the social sciences , 1975 .

[25]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[26]  M. Tushman,et al.  Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts , 2012 .

[27]  O. Williamson,et al.  Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. , 1977 .

[28]  Phanish Puranam,et al.  Valve's Way , 2015 .

[29]  R. Radner,et al.  Economic theory of teams , 1972 .

[30]  R. Burton,et al.  Designing efficient organizations : modelling and experimentation , 1986 .

[31]  Joan C. Woodward.  Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[32]  Peter Klaas,et al.  Towards a concept of dynamic fit in contingency theory , 2004 .

[33]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations , 1976 .

[34]  J. Eskildsen,et al.  Exploration versus exploitation: Emotions and performance as antecedents and consequences of team decisions , 2016 .

[35]  R. Brandis.  The Limits of Organization , 1975 .

[36]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  A summary and review of Galbraith's organizational information processing theory , 2012 .

[37]  Børge Obel,et al.  Strategic organizational diagnosis and design : developing theory for application , 1995 .

[38]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[39]  Børge Obel,et al.  The validity of computational models in organization science: From model realism to purpose of the model , 1995, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[40]  R. Burton,et al.  A Computer Simulation Test of the M-Form Hypothesis , 1980 .

[41]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[42]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[43]  N. Foss,et al.  Moving Opportunism to the Back Seat: Bounded Rationality, Costly Conflict, and Hierarchical Forms , 2016 .

[44]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The BUSINESS SCHOOL A PROBLEM IN ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN , 1967 .

[45]  Vibha Gaba,et al.  Corporate Structure and Performance Feedback: Aspirations and Adaptation in M-Form Firms , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[46]  Børge Obel,et al.  Erratum: Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[47]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Simulation modeling in organizational and management research , 2007 .

[48]  Børge Obel,et al.  Opportunism, incentives, and the m-form hypothesis : A laboratory study , 1988 .

[49]  Il-Chul Moon,et al.  Simulation Experiment of Disaster Response Organizational Structures With Alternative Optimization Techniques , 2015 .

[50]  R E Miles,et al.  Organizational strategy, structure, and process. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[51]  Øystein D. Fjeldstad,et al.  The architecture of collaboration , 2012 .

[52]  R. Burton,et al.  The Efficiency of the Price, Budget, and Mixed Approaches Under Varying a Priori Information Levels for Decentralized Planning , 1980 .

[53]  Phanish Puranam,et al.  A Future for the Science of Organization Design , 2012 .

[54]  T. Scandura,et al.  Research Methodology In Management: Current Practices, Trends, And Implications For Future Research , 2000 .

[55]  Yan Jin,et al.  Simulating Project Work Processes and Organizations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design , 1999 .

[56]  A. Georges L. Romme,et al.  Making a Difference: Organization as Design , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[57]  L. Vogel,et al.  Strategy and Structure , 1986 .

[58]  William H. Glick,et al.  Fit, Equifinality, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Test of Two Configurational Theories , 1993 .

[59]  W. Ashby,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957 .

[60]  R. Thompson.  Internal Organization and Profit: A Note [Internal Organization and Profit: An Empirical Analysis of Large UK Companies] , 1981 .