Linking technology and structure to enhance group performance.

We examined linkages between technology and structure at the group level of analysis as predictors of group performance. The general hypothesis is that group technology/structural fit is a better predictor of work group performance than either technology or structure alone. Related hypotheses match three technology variables (task predictability, problem analyzability, and interdependence) with three group structural variables (horizontal differentiation, vertical differentiation, and connectedness) to predict group performance. Technology/structural fit variables in this study are significant predictors of group performance, as are group structural properties alone. Technology variables are very poor predictors alone. The fit variables add significant explained variance over and above the technology and structural variables as universalistic predictors. Predictions about which technology and structural variables to match for higher group performance are generally supported. These results could allow future contingency research to make greater contributions to theory building about group performance. Several recent studies have examined the fit between technology and structure as a predictor of work group performance (Alexander & Randolph, 1985; Campbell & Gingrich, 1986;' Fry & Slocum, 1984; Ito & Peterson, 1986; Kozlowski & Hults, 1986). These studies suggest that group measures of technology and structure may be more effective in assessing work group design and performance issues than organizational-level measures. The problem with linking technology and structure at the organizational level to predict group performance is that multiple technologies and diverse structures, often cannot be matched in a meaningful way (Argote, 1982; Dewar & Werbel, 1979). Fry's (1982) analysis of 108 studies of technology and structure found a stronger relationship between technology and structure at the group level than at the organization level. Specifically, 72% of the subunit studies reported significant relationships between technology and structure, whereas only 57% of the organization studies reported significant relationships. The thesis of this article is that group measures of technology (task predictability, problem analyzability, and interdependence) can be matched effectively with group measures of structure (vertical differentiation, horizontal differentiation, and connectedness) to improve management's understanding of group performance. Literature Review

[1]  G. Huber,et al.  Relations Among Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Organization Structure, and Boundary-Spanning Behavior , 1977 .

[2]  Jack K. Ito,et al.  Effects of Task Difficulty and Interunit Interdependence on Information Processing Systems , 1986 .

[3]  Peter K. Mills,et al.  Perspectives on the Technology of Service Operations , 1982 .

[4]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[5]  J. Ford,et al.  Size, Technology, Environment and the Structure of Organizations , 1977 .

[6]  Donald J. Campbell,et al.  The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment , 1986 .

[7]  L. G. Hrebiniak.  Job Technology, Supervision, and Work-Group Structure. , 1974 .

[8]  M. Tushman.  Work Characteristics and Subunit Communication Structure: A Contingency Analysis. , 1979 .

[9]  C. Perrow.  Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View , 1970 .

[10]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure. , 1971 .

[11]  C. O'Reilly,et al.  Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness in three organizations. , 1977 .

[12]  W. Alan Randolph.  Matching Technology and the Design of Organization Units , 1981 .

[13]  P. Killworth,et al.  Catij: A New Sociometric and Its Application to a Prison Living Univ. , 1974 .

[14]  W. Alan Randolph,et al.  The Relationship Between Organization Technology and the Direction and Frequency Dimensions of Task Communications , 1977 .

[15]  L W Fry,et al.  Technology-structure research: three critical issues. , 1982, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[16]  D. R. Dalton,et al.  Organization Structure and Performance: A Critical Review , 1980 .

[17]  Scott Wr,et al.  Technology and the structure of subunits: distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. , 1977 .

[18]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[19]  R. Osborn,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Design. Vol. 1: Adapting Organizations to Their Environments. , 1982 .

[20]  Jitendra V. Singh.  Technology, Size, and Organizational Structure: A Reexamination of the Okayama Study Data , 1986 .

[21]  B. Lynch.  An Empirical Assessment of Perrow's Technology Construct. , 1974 .

[22]  D. Pugh,et al.  Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal , 1969 .

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

[24]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Person–situation interaction: Competing models of fit. , 1982 .

[25]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Measures of Perrow's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale , 1983 .

[26]  Noel M. Tichy,et al.  Network Analysis in Organizational Settings , 1979 .

[27]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[28]  J. Pearce,et al.  A Social Network Approach to Organizational Design-Performance , 1983 .

[29]  Steve W. J. Kozlowski,et al.  Joint Moderation of the Relation Between Task Complexity and Job Performance for Engineers , 1986 .

[30]  L. Argote.  Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. , 1982, Administrative science quarterly.

[31]  C. B. Schoonhoven.  Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency "theory.". , 1981, Administrative science quarterly.

[32]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Organization Design , 1977 .

[33]  J. Werbel,et al.  Universalistic and Contingency Predictions of Employee Satisfaction and Conflict. , 1979 .

[34]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model , 1984 .

[35]  W A Randolph,et al.  The fit between technology and structure as a predictor of performance in nursing subunits. , 1985, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

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

[37]  Diana C. Pheysey,et al.  Organization structure and sociometric nominations amongst line managers in three contrasted organizations , 1971 .

[38]  R. Daft,et al.  A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units. , 1981 .

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