Sei sulla pagina 1di 21

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

http://apj.sagepub.com

Coexistence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices: Transitory phenomenon or


enduring feature?
Richard Dunford, Ian Palmer, Jodie Benveniste and John Crawford
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007; 45; 24
DOI: 10.1177/1038411107073597

The online version of this article can be found at:


http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/1/24

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)

Additional services and information for Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://apj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/1/24

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 24

24 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Coexistence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices:


Transitory phenomenon or enduring feature?

Richard Dunford
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Ian Palmer, Jodie Benveniste and John Crawford


University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

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.

Keywords: new forms, organization, formalization, centralization

A ‘new organizational forms’ literature has emerged over the last two decades.
The literature argues that in a business environment that is dynamic,
fast changing and competitive, the traditional bureaucracy is inflexible and

Correspondence to: Professor Ian Palmer, Dean’s Unit, University of Technology, Sydney,
PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, Australia 2007; fax: +612 9514.3513; e-mail:
Ian.Palmer@uts.edu.au

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and
Singapore; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright © 2007
Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 45(1): 24–43. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411107073597.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 25

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 25

unresponsive (Daft and Lewin 1993; Child and McGrath 2001). As a result,
bureaucracies need to be replaced by ‘new organizational forms’ that allow for
speed, flexibility and innovation (Child and Rodrigues 2003; Nadler and
Tushman 1999; Volberda 1996).
Various labels describe these ‘new organizational forms’: post-bureau-
cratic (Hill, Martin and Harris 2000; Thompson 1993); intelligent (Pinchot and
Pinchot 1994; Quinn 1992); boundaryless (Ashkenas et al. 1995; Cross, Yan and
Louis 2000); self-managing (Purser and Cabana 1998); centerless (Pasternack
and Viscio 1998); virtual (Davidow and Malone 1992; DeSanctis and Monge
1999); cellular (Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles and Coleman 1997); knowledge
(Oliver and Montgomery 2000); horizontal (Castells 1996; Quinn, Anderson
and Finkelstein 1996), modular (Galunic and Eisenhardt 2001); and lateral
(Joyce, McGee and Slocum 1997).
The literature, however, has its shortcomings. Although a number of
‘new’ forms practices have been described, the literature has been criticized for
lacking empirical and theoretical coherence. Empirical work has been frag-
mented and diverse and there is no unifying theory to interpret empirical
findings (Pettigrew et al. 2003). The literature relies largely on single case
studies in atypical or exceptional circumstances to assert ‘new’ forms (Ogbonna
and Harris 2003; Whittington and Pettigrew 1999).
Of particular importance is disagreement in the literature about the
compatibility of ‘old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices. Originally, researchers
assumed that ‘old’ practices, such as centralization and formalization, were
discordant with a more dynamic workplace. ‘New’ organizational practices,
such as flexible work-groups, delayering and collaborative networks, would
replace ‘old’ practices after a period of transition. More recently, researchers
have argued that instead of replacing ‘old’ with ‘new’, the two are compatible
and can co-exist. But no longitudinal, empirical studies have been undertaken
to assess the validity of either argument. In this paper, we address the compat-
ibility issue.

Co-existence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ practices

The original view in the ‘new organizational forms’ literature regarded ‘new’
organizational practices as being incompatible with ‘old’ forms (Fulk and
DeSanctis 1995). This assumption of incompatibility was based on the view
that new organizational forms practices are designed for flexibility, whereas
traditional practices are designed for stability (Dess et al. 1995). So due to
radical changes in the business environment, new organizational forms
represent a fundamental shift in organization structure, processes and decision-
making (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1993). This shift is facilitated by the use of infor-
mation technology, enabling an evolution of organizational forms from a
traditional bureaucracy to ‘new’ networked and virtual forms of organizing

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 26

26 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

(Dibrell and Miller 2002). In these new organizational forms work is argued
to be structured increasingly along horizontal not vertical lines (Barley 1996).
As such, the transition from rigid organizations to flexible organizations
includes reduced formalization and specialization and a looser organizational
form (Volberda 1996). Although there may be a transition period between ‘old’
and ‘new’ forms, ‘new’ forms will eventually replace traditional ways of organ-
izing (Miles et al. 1997).
More recently, however, another view has emerged to counteract this
argument. Not all researchers agree that ‘new’ forms necessitate a dismantling
of ‘old’ forms. Instead, and in what we label as the compatibility argument, it
is claimed that ‘old’ and ‘new’ practices can co-exist. Virtual organizations,
built around horizontal relationships, can exhibit considerable hierarchical
tendencies (Ahuja and Carley 1999). Organizations such as a country fire
department can combine both bureaucracy and flexibility (Bigley and Roberts
2001), a feminist bureaucracy can embrace hierarchical power and egalitari-
anism (Ashcraft 2001), and transnational organizations may retain hierarchical
governance as an overriding feature (Gooderham and Ulset 2002).
Organizations, therefore, are viewed as dualistic entities (Pettigrew and Fenton
2000), which combine traditional or hierarchical practices with new more
flexible, market-based practices (Holland and Lockett 1997; Tushman and
O’Reilly 1997). So the new model for organizing resembles a dialectic (Child
and McGrath 2001), one in which the core design challenge is for new orga-
nizational forms to cope with apparent paradoxes such as efficiency and inno-
vation; global operating control and local responsiveness; and centralized vision
and decentralized autonomy.

Co-existence – transitory or enduring?

Co-existence, of course, could represent a transition from ‘old’ to ‘new’ forms


of organizing. But few have examined whether co-existence is a passing phase
or an enduring feature of organizational life. There are limited studies iden-
tifying the extent of adoption of ‘new’ practices or the elimination of ‘tradi-
tional’ practices across a broad range of organizations. The INNFORM project
and Palmer and Dunford’s (2002) work are exceptions.
The INNFORM project surveyed indicators of change, rather than ideal
types of ‘new organizational forms’ (Pettigrew and Fenton 2000; Pettigrew et
al. 2003). Indicators were grouped under three headings: changing structures
(decentralizing, delayering, and project forms of organizing), changing
processes (communicating horizontally and vertically, investing in IT, and
practising new human resources) and changing boundaries (downscoping,
outsourcing, and developing strategic alliances). They surveyed large organ-
izations in Europe, US and Japan, asking respondents to compare the organ-
ization in 1992 and 1996. They found a trend toward flatter and more

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 27

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 27

decentralized structures, process changes involving investment in IT and more


horizontal and vertical linkages, and boundary changes through increased
outsourcing. They also found that ‘new’ organizational practices existed
alongside ‘old’ practices, supporting the co-existence argument.
Although the project surveyed a broad range of organizations, the data
was not truly longitudinal. The survey questioned respondents at one point in
time and relied on management’s recall of events four years prior. Survey
methodologists have found that data quality suffers with the passage of time
(Pierett 2001; Beckett et al. 2001), and that the more complex the events, the
more likelihood of inaccurate recall (Wu, Martin, and Long 2001).
Based on 100 books and articles on ‘new organizational forms’, Palmer
and Dunford (1997) identified eight recurring practices that underlie ‘new
organizations forms’: collaborative networks/alliances, outsourcing of non-core
activities, disaggregation of business units, delayering, reduced internal and
external boundaries, flexible work groups, empowerment and short-term
staffing. This approach views ‘new organizational forms’ as ‘forms of organ-
izing’ rather than ideal types (Quinn, Anderson, and Finkelstein 1996), and is
consistent with viewing ‘structure’ and ‘organization’ as processes rather than
end-states (Weick 1996; Whittington and Melin 2003). In 1996, they surveyed
the top 2000 organizations by revenue in Australia and found that ‘new’
practices co-exist with traditional practices. Increased use of ‘new’ organiza-
tional practices was not consistent with less formalization and increased decen-
tralization (Palmer and Dunford 2002).
Palmer and Dunford’s (2002) research found co-existence of ‘new’ and
‘old’ organizational practices, but could not comment on whether co-existence
was transitory or an enduring feature of organizational life. This is because it
is not possible to draw conclusions about change from a survey at one point in
time: a comparable study was needed at a future point in time in order to test
whether co-existence is transitory or enduring. Hence, a key contribution of
the current paper is to provide a comparable study utilizing a similar sample
and survey in order to see whether co-existence is enduring. This enables us to
comment more clearly on the compatibility question, in particular: does co-
existence remain a credible argument or are ‘new’ practices now replacing
traditional practices?

Development of hypotheses

Although some writers suggest that hypercompetition has not increased in the
1990s compared to the 1970s (Macnamara, Vaaler, and Devers 2003), others
accept that it has and that ‘new’ organizational practices are needed to cope
with the dynamic business environment (Child and Rodrigues 2003; Nadler
and Tushman 1999; Volberda 1996). Both the compatibility and incompati-
bility arguments accept this latter assumption and, in line with it, Palmer and

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 28

28 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Dunford (2002) found that greater use of ‘new’ organizational practices was
associated with more dynamic business environments. As such, we propose the
following:

Hypothesis 1: The more dynamic the business environment the greater the
use of new organizational form practices.

The next two hypotheses explore the compatibility/incompatibility


arguments in relation to formalization and centralization, both of which are
commonly accepted as traditional organizational practices (Pugh et al. 1969).
Formalization refers to the degree to which organizations have well artic-
ulated policies, procedures, plans and systems of operation. The ‘new organ-
izational forms’ literature originally argued an incompatibility line, that
because formalized organizations are too restrictive and rigid, they are unable
to respond to a dynamic business environment (Damanpour 1991). As such,
decreased formalization is associated with improved organizational perform-
ance in a dynamic business environment (Ogbanna and Harris 2003). Well-
defined job roles are viewed as inadequate and more ‘fluid, ambiguous and
deliberately ill-defined tasks and roles’ are required (Dess et al. 1995). Similarly,
social processes rather than technical rules and regulations exercise control
(Heydebrand 1989). Foreign-induced competition and technological turbulence
are also said to decrease formalization (Li 1999; Lin and Germain 2003).
However, the emerging compatibility arguments maintain a continuing
need for formalized rules and procedures in order to increase reliability and
reduce risk in a dynamic environment (Roberts and Lihuser 1993).
Formalization, rather than inhibiting innovation, encourages it by providing
certainty and reliability (Adler and Borys 1996; Baum and Wally 2003;
Caruana, Morris, and Vella 1998; Nahm, Vonderembse, and Koufteros 2003).
Formalization also facilitates effective production start-up in the design-manu-
facturing process (Vandevelde and Van Dierdonck 2003) and, when combined
with a greater role played by information systems, can lead to higher organ-
izational performance (Wang 2003). Information and communications tech-
nology, rather than leading to decreased formalization, have required
increased rules and regulations to ensure efficiency and security (Healy and
Iles 2003). Consistent with the compatibility argument, Palmer and Dunford
(2002) discovered that greater use of formalization is associated with the use of
‘new’ organizational practices. If the compatibility argument is correct then
we would expect the following to be the case:

Hypothesis 2: Use of new organizational form practices is not associated


with lower levels of formalization.

Centralization refers to the degree to which decision-making is concen-


trated in authority. The ‘new organizational forms’ literature originally argued

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 29

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 29

the incompatibility line, that a dynamic business environment requires flatter,


decentralized organizations to ensure responsiveness and flexibility (Massini
et al. 2002). As such, decentralization leads to increased flexibility by
promoting entrepreneurial behaviour (Caruana, Morris, and Vella 1998), and
improving organizational communication (Holtzhausen 2002). Increased
decentralization also leads to performance increases in a pressured business
environment (Ogbanna and Harris 2003), and is associated with foreign-
induced competition and technological turbulence (Li 1999; Lin and Germain
2003). Further, decentralization facilitates the implementation of radical innov-
ation by pushing down decision-making to those best equipped to make
decisions (Nahm et al. 2003).
An emerging view in the literature disagrees with the incompatibility
argument. This contends that centralization of strategic decision-making is
needed in uncertain environments (Baum and Wally 2003; Chesbrough and
Teece 1996; Milgrom and Roberts 1995). Centralization, rather than inhibiting
innovation, allows a quick response to market intelligence (Lin and Germain
2004). Centralized teams are argued to perform better than decentralized
teams under extreme uncertainty (Kim and Burton 2002), and decentraliza-
tion, through flatter organizations, is associated with less job clarity and
increased uncertainty (Powell 2002). Consistent with the compatibility
argument, Palmer and Dunford (2002) found that decentralization was not
associated with greater use of ‘new’ organizational practices. If the compati-
bility argument is correct then we would expect the following to be the case:

Hypothesis 3: Use of new organizational forms practices is not associated


with lower levels of centralization.

Method

Procedures and sample

As a key objective of the study was to explore use of ‘new’ organizational


practices across a wide range of organizations, we used a survey. We studied
large organizations because they are associated with the two key traditional
practices of formalization and centralization. Although employee numbers is
an indicator of organizational size, we deemed it inappropriate because many
commonly cited ‘new’ organizational practices lead to reduced employee
numbers (Lawler 1997). Instead, we chose revenue as an indicator of size.
In 2003 a four-page survey was posted to human resource managers of
the top 1997 organizations in Australia as measured by revenue. We chose
human resource managers because their position provides an organization-
wide view of organizational practices. Focusing on a single position in the
organization also contributed to comparability of responses across organiza-

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 30

30 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

tions. Further, the position was likely to exist in the majority of organizations,
thus increasing the likely response rate. In addition, and unlike CEOs, human
resource managers were deemed more accessible and willing to complete a
survey. Organizations were sourced from Dun and Bradstreet’s Business who’s
who database. Ten days after the initial mail out a second reminder letter and
survey was sent to all organizations that had not responded. As an incentive
to complete and return the survey, respondents were offered an executive
summary of the findings.
Of the original database of 1997 organizations, we identified 58 cases
where organizations were included twice and 186 were returned to sender.
This left a total set of 1753. Of these, we received 395 responses with a response
rate of 22.5%. This compares well with other recently published organizational
surveys, including: a 21% response rate (Jiang, Klein, and Pick 2003, 106); a
13% response rate (Nahm et al. 2003, 224); a 17% response rate (Schulz 2001,
666); a 27.1% response rate (Guthrie 2001, 182); a 20% response rate (Dooley,
Fryxell and Judge 2000, 1242); and a 13% response rate (Whittington and
Pettigrew 1999, 590).
Responding organizations were spread across all industries, with manu-
facturing being the best represented: agriculture/forestry/fishing (0.5%);
mining (4.2%); construction (7.1%); manufacturing (28%); transport/commu-
nications/utilities (9%); wholesale trade (15.1%); retail trade (6.6%); services
(18.3%); finance/insurance/real estate (9.8%); and public administration and
other (1.3%). The human resource managers who answered the survey had
been with their organization for an average of 5½ years. The majority were
male (59%) and over 40 years of age (66%).

Measures

Dynamic business environment


The ‘new organizational forms’ literature refers to six key characteristics of
dynamic business environments: intensified competition, short product life-
cycles, a high degree of technological change, market turbulence, an increased
expectation of corporate responsibility and customisation of products (see
Nadler 1992; Mirvis 1994). For each of these characteristics, respondents were
asked: ‘To what extent is the external environment in which your organiza-
tion operates characterised by the following?’ (1 = not at all; 5 = completely).
After pilot testing the survey, explanations were provided for globaliza-
tion (‘that is, business transactions on an international basis’); turbulence (‘that
is, rapid changes in customer demands and markets’); demands to be socially
responsible as a corporate body (‘that is, being responsive to issues such as
gender, worklife, the environment, professionalisation’); and customisation
(‘that is, having to provide tailored products or services to your clients’).
An overall ‘Environmental dynamism’ scale score for each respondent

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 31

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 31

was calculated as the mean score across the six characteristics with 1 = not
dynamic, and 5 = dynamic.

Use of new organizational practices


The survey adapted Palmer and Dunford’s (1997) eight key ‘new organiza-
tional practices’, but followed Ashkenas et al. (1995) by treating ‘internal’ and
‘external’ boundaries as separate variables. Nine practices, therefore, were
included in the survey. The practices were: delayered (‘that is, reduced the
number of vertical levels separating the highest from the lowest position in
your organization’); networks or alliances (‘that is, strategic collaboration with
units or organizations formally external to your organization’); outsourcing
(‘that is, outsourced activities where your organization has no distinctive
competence’); disaggregated business units (‘that is, broken up the organization
into smaller business units’); empowerment mechanisms for employees (‘that
is, mechanisms that provide employees with the authority, resources and
encouragement to take actions’); flexible work groups (‘that is, multi-skilled
teams used for specific purposes which are disbanded or reformed upon
completion of task’); short-term staffing (‘that is, people contracted to the
organization for a short period of time to work on specific issues/tasks who
then leave the organization’); reduce internal boundaries (‘by facilitating
communication and resource flows among different units within your organ-
ization (e.g. end-to-end process teams, cross-functional teams, etc.’)); and
reduce external boundaries (‘by facilitating communication and resource flows
with different suppliers/customers (e.g. 360 degree appraisal systems involving
customers/suppliers, staff exchanges, customer involvement in design, etc.’)).
Respondents were asked: ‘During the past five years, to what extent has
your organization [used practice X]?’ (1 = not at all; 5 = to a large extent). For
each respondent, a ‘New organizational practices’ scale was calculated as the
mean score across the nine practices, with 1 = not used at all, and 5 = used to
a large extent.

Formalization
There is no measure of formalization used uniformly across the literature.
Although many researchers have used a simple two-item scale to measure
formalization (Gresov and Stephens 1993; Oldham and Hackman 1981; Van
de Ven and Walker 1984; Wallace 1995), we used a six-item scale adapted from
the US National Organizations Survey (Marsden, Cook, and Knoke 1994).
Our reasoning is that this scale suits the human resources managers whom we
intended to survey as the focus of the scale is on formalization of human
resource issues and these are issues that they should be able to comment on in
a knowledgeable way. Respondents were asked: ‘Do each of the following
documents exist in your organization?’ (rules and procedures manuals;

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 32

32 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

documents on fringe benefits; written job descriptions; documents on safety


and hygiene; written performance records; documents on hiring/firing proce-
dures; and documents on personnel evaluation). Responses were either ‘yes’,
‘no’, or ‘don’t know’. The scale ‘Formalization’ was formed equal to the
proportion of the six documents present in each organization, with ‘don’t
knows’ coded as missing values. Thus scale scores varied between 0 and 1, with
higher scores representing higher levels of formalization.

Centralization
There is no measure of centralization used uniformly across the literature. We
used a scale based on work from the Aston group (Pughet al. 1968 1969), as
adapted for the US National Organizations Survey (Marsden, Cook, and
Knoke 1994). As with the rationale outlined above in relation to the formal-
ization scale our reasoning for adopting this particular centralization scale is
that it suits the human resources managers whom we intended to survey as its
focus is on centralization of human resource decisions and these are decisions
on which they should be able to comment in a knowledgeable way.
Respondents were asked: ‘In practice, who makes the final decision in your
workplace about each of the following areas?’ (performance evaluation; work
scheduling/overtime; which employees to hire; staff promotions; use of subcon-
tractors/temporary staff; discharges/layoffs; wage/salary levels; and number of
employees). Responses were coded: 1= someone external to your workplace
(e.g. corporate HQ); 2 = someone external to your workplace AND the head
of your workplace; 3 = the head of your workplace; 4 = the head of your
workplace AND someone below them; 5 = someone below the head of your
workplace. Responses were reverse-scored. The centralization scale was the
mean response across the eight decision areas with 1 = low centralization, and
5 = high centralization.

Controls
There were four control variables in the study. Revenue was the indicator of
size and was measured in A$m. As a further check on size, we included total
number of full-time employees. To account for variation in the use of practices
in older, compared to newer organizations, age of organization was the third
control variable. This was calculated as the difference between the time period
of the survey and the organization’s year of founding. The fourth control
variable was industry. Dummy variables were created to represent the
following industry categories: agriculture/forestry/fishing; mining; construc-
tion; manufacturing; transport/communications/utilities; wholesale trade; retail
trade; services; finance/insurance/real estate; and public administration.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 33

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 33

Results

Descriptive statistics for the main variables of the study are shown in table 1.
Here are displayed the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for
the four scales, New organizational practices, Environmental dynamism,
Formalization, and Centralization, as well as the control variables, Revenue,
Number of employees, Age of organization, and the set of dummy variables
coding the organization’s industry. The Cronbach alpha reliability estimates
for the four scales are also shown in table 1. The Centralization scale produced
a high reliability co-efficient of 0.90, while the New organizational practices
and Formalization scales yielded lower, though adequate, reliabilities just
above 0.70. The Environmental dynamism scale, however, gave a somewhat
lower reliability estimate of 0.64, and the removal of items from this scale did
not lead to an increase in the scale’s reliability. The original scale was therefore
retained for further data analysis, although its lower reliability should be kept
in mind when interpreting the results.
Regarding the overall level of use of the new organizational practices, the
results indicate a moderate general level of adoption. On a five-point scale,
ranging from 1 = not used at all, to 5 = used to a large extent, the mean scale
score is 2.62 (s.d. = 0.71), a value that falls just below the scale mid-point of 3.
We compared this result to that obtained in the earlier study by Palmer and
Dunford (2002). They found a slightly higher mean score for the use of new
organizational practices, 2.71 (s.d. = 0.78). We conducted a t-test comparison
of these two means and found no significant difference between the studies in
the use of new organizational practices at the 0.05 level (t-value = 1.96, d.f =
1055).
The three hypotheses of the study relate to the associations between the
New organizational practices scale and the three other scales listed in this table.
Hypothesis 1 states that ‘the more dynamic the business environment the
greater the use of new organizational form practices’. The positive and statis-
tically significant correlation of 0.26 (p < 0.01) shown in table 1 between the
New organizational practices and Environmental dynamism scales indicates
that this hypothesis is supported by the results of the study.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 state that use of new organizational form practices is
not associated with lower levels of formalization or centralization, respectively.
Both of these hypotheses are supported by the correlations shown in Table 1.
Negative correlations were not found between the New Organizational
Practices scale and either of the formalization and centralization scales. For
formalization, a statistically significant and positive correlation with New
Organizational Practices was found (r = 0.26, p < 0.01), while for centraliza-
tion there exists a near-zero, but positive, correlation of 0.08 with use of New
organizational practices.
The same conclusions regarding the hypotheses can be drawn from the
regression analyses, in which the relevant relationships are investigated after

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


34
Dunford.qxd

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and correlationsa

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
30/01/2007

1. New practices c 2.62 .71 (.71)b


d
2. Env dynamism 3.16 .63 .26** (.64)
3. Formalization e .89 .20 .26** .19** (.72)
10:05 AM

4. Centralization f 3.75 .71 .08 .06 –.04 (.90)


5. Revenue g 426.80 1,683.97 .12* .05 .07 .08
6. Number of staff 1381.22 8,335.69 .03 .05 .04 .05 .85**
h
7. Age of org. 39.34 34.57 .07 .09 .17** .00 .25** .19**
Page 34

8. Mining i .04 .20 –.04 –.10* –.10* .04 –.02 –.02 –.08
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

9. Construction .07 .26 .03 –.15** –.10* .00 –.01 –.02 –.02 –.06
10. Transport .09 .29 .02 –.05 .03 –.11* –.01 –.02 –.07 –.07 –.09*
11. Wholesale .15 .36 –.10* .04 –.04 –.09 –.05 –.06 –.01 –.09 –.12* –.14**
2007 45(1)

12. Retail .07 .25 –.23** –.03 .03 .00 .11 .16** –.08 –.06 –.08 –.09 –.11*
13. Service .19 .39 .07 .08 .03 .02 –.02 .00 –.03 –.10* –.13** –.15** –.20** .13**
14. Finance .10 .30 .06 –.08 .02 –.01 .10* .01 .02 –.07 –.09* –.11* –.14** –.09* –.16**
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.
a
Correlations are calculated with pairwise deletion; b Cronbach’s alphas appear on the diagonal for multiple-item measures; c 1 = not used at all; 5 = used to a large extent; d 1 = not dynamic;
5 = very dynamic; e 0 = low; 1 = high; f 1 = low; 5 = high; g $ x1 000 000; h Measured in years; i For dummy variables 8 to 14, coded as 0 = not those industries; 1 = those industries.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 35

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 35

taking account of the control variables, Revenue, Number of staff, Age of


organization, and the type of industry. This analysis, displayed in table 2,
shows that the introduction of the three main independent variables,
Environmental dynamism, Formalization and Centralization into the model
leads to a statistically significant increase in the prediction of the use of new
organizational practices (∆R2 = 0.11, p < 0.01) after accounting for the
influence of the control variables. In particular, can be observed a positive and
statistically significant regression co-efficient (β = 0.22, p < 0.01) representing
the effect of Environmental dynamism on the extent of use of new organiza-
tional practices. Thus, after taking account of the control variables, Hypothesis
1 is again confirmed. Similarly, neither of the regression co-efficients for
Formalization nor Centralization are negative (β s of 0.22 and 0.05, respec-
tively). Thus, hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported by the results of the regression
analysis.

Table 2 Hierarchical regression analysis for use of new organizational practices a

Model 1 Model 2

Variable β t β t

Control variables
Revenue 0.30 2.92** 0.26 2.70**
Number of employees –0.19 –1.90 –0.17 1.78
Age of org. 0.00 –0.05 –0.04 –0.82
Mining –0.07 –1.29 –0.02 –0.36
Construction –0.02 –0.33 0.05 0.94
Transport –0.03 –0.44 0.00 0.04
Wholesale –0.14 –2.40* –0.11 –1.97*
Retail –0.26 –4.57** –0.24 –4.49**
Service 0.00 –0.05 0.01 0.10
Finance –0.02 –0.35 0.02 0.33

Main variables
Envir. dynamism 0.22 4.31**
Formalization 0.22 4.30**
Centralization 0.05 1.06

R2 0.10 0.21
F 3.87** 6.85**
df 10, 340 13, 337
∆ R2 0.11**
F 15.14
df 3, 337
a
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01; Linear regression with pairwise deletion of missing data

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 36

36 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Limitations

We are mindful of a number of limitations regarding our results. First, the


relationships of interest were between variables whose measurement relied on
questionnaire responses from the same subjects, thus raising the potential
problem of spurious inflation of associations because of common method
variance (Spector 1994; Williams and Brown 1994). However, as some authors
have suggested (e.g. Crampton and Wagner 1994), this problem is less likely to
arise in certain domains, such as the study of organizational structure, where
subjects are reporting information of a more factual, rather than evaluative,
nature.
Second, the Cronbach alpha reliability co-efficient for the scale
‘Environmental dynamism’ was found to have the fairly low value of 0.64.
However, although this is lower than is generally considered desirable, it might
not have serious consequences regarding the main conclusions of the study.
The lower reliability would tend to lead to an underestimate of the association
with other variables, including the extent of use new organizational practices.
Since a statistically significant positive relationship between these variables was
found in this study, thus supporting the hypothesis 1, the lower reliability of
this scale would not be expected to lead to an erroneous drawing of this conclu-
sion. Furthermore, a consideration of the nature of the items comprising this
scale would suggest that it would be more appropriate to regard it as a
formative, rather than a reflexive, scale (Bollen and Lennox 1991; Edwards
and Bagozzi 2000). For a formative scale, the component items contribute to,
rather than reflect, the particular construct measured by the scale, and need
not necessarily be positively correlated. For such a scale, measures such as the
Cronbach co-efficient that rely on the intercorrelation of the composite items,
do not provide an appropriate estimate of the scale’s reliability. In the present
case, the various aspects of the business environment (intensified competition,
short product life-cycles, technological change, etc.) could be thought of as
contributing to an increase in the ‘dynamism’ of the business environment,
rather than each of them being a reflection of, or being caused by, such a char-
acteristic of the business environment.
Third, all respondents in this study were human resource managers, and
it is not known if their perceptions are representative of others in the organi-
zation. Finally, the top 1997 Australian organizations were sampled and the
findings of the study might not generalize to smaller organizations or ones
outside Australia.

Discussion and conclusion

The objective of the study was to assess the emerging compatibility argument
in the ‘new organizational forms’ literature. Originally, the ‘new organiza-

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 37

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 37

tional forms’ literature viewed ‘old’ organizational practices, such as formal-


ization and centralization, as incompatible with ‘new’ organizational practices.
As such, it was argued that ‘new’ organizational practices would replace ‘old’
forms. More recently, however, the argument has emerged that ‘old’ practices
can co-exist alongside ‘new’ practices and that ‘old’ and ‘new’ can be comple-
mentary, rather than contradictory.
Notwithstanding the limitations noted above, our investigation of hypoth-
esis 1 confirmed a positive and significant relationship between the use of ‘new’
organizational practices and a dynamic business environment. The more
dynamic the business environment, the higher the use of ‘new’ organizational
practices. Hypothesis 2 supported the compatibility argument as use of ‘new’
organizational practices was not associated with lower levels of formalization.
In fact, the findings revealed the opposite. The use of ‘new’ organizational
practices was associated with higher levels of formalization. This suggests the
continuing relevance, if not the increasing importance, of rules, regulations
and procedures. Hypothesis 3 was also confirmed. Use of ‘new’ organizational
practices was not associated with lower centralization, thus supporting the
compatibility argument. This suggests that decentralization is not a prerequi-
site for the use of ‘new’ organizational practices.
A key contribution of our current study is that we are able to address a
major limitation in two earlier studies about the use of new organizational
practices. The survey by the INNFORM project found that the ‘new is
emerging alongside and within the old, rather than replacing the ‘old’
(Pettigrew et al. 2003, 32). Similarly, based on a survey of Australia’s top 2000
organizations seven years earlier, Palmer and Dunford (2002) argued that
formalization and centralization were not being replaced by ‘new’ organiza-
tional practices. Instead, they co-existed alongside ‘new’ practices.
Both of these studies supported the compatibility, rather than the incom-
patibility argument. However, a major limitation of both is that because they
utilized surveys conducted at a single point in time they were not able to
comment on whether compatibility was an enduring or transitory phenom-
enon. Were new organizational practices likely to increase in usage and over
time replace old practices? By using directly comparable surveys and samples
to those reported by Palmer and Dunford (2002) we are able to address this
limitation by taking a longitudinal view. As reported above, we found that the
use of new organizational practices has not changed significantly over the
seven-year period and that the traditional practices of formalization and
centralization remain important design features of Australian organizations.
Based on this longitudinal comparison we are able to conclude that compati-
bility appears to be an enduring rather than a transitory phenomenon.
Co-existence suggests a more complex interaction between ‘new’ and ‘old’
organizational practices than simple replacement. This is consistent with the
view that centralization and formalization may be beneficial for some but not
all practices within an organization. For example, high centralization of

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 38

38 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

strategic decision-making, but low centralization of operations management


is associated with high performance (Baum and Wally 2003). Similarly, high
performance is associated with high formalization of organizational routines,
but low formalization of non-routines (Baum and Wally 2003). Organizations
also mix and match centralized and decentralized subsystems to fit strategy
and influence employee behaviour (Overholt and Connally 2000), and call
centre management uses both standardised procedures and flexibility to meet
customer needs (Adria and Chowdhury 2004). Indeed, Pettigrew and Fenton
(2000) discovered that between 1992 and 1996 operational decentralization
increased but strategic decentralization did not.
Further, decentralization and low formalization, rather than being a
panacea for organizational ills, may create as many problems as they solve.
Decentralized organizations may be more flexible and responsive, but they can
also lead to chaos, duplication and inconsistency (Lin and Germain 2003).
Similarly, organizations with low formalization can promote interaction and
challenge orthodoxy, but can also lead to the loss of valuable information and
the inability to convey priorities and values (Lin and Germain 2003).
Decentralization and centralization can produce different but equally desired
outcomes, such that, decentralized research and design functions lead to
product designs and incremental innovation, but centralized structures
produce major technological advances (DeSanctis, Glass and Ensing 2002).
Organizations, therefore, are faced with a design dilemma of encouraging
innovation, while retaining sufficient accountability (Grimshaw et al. 2003).
In particular, the apparent increase in formalization associated with ‘new’
organizational practices suggests that well-articulated policies, procedures,
plans and systems may be needed in a dynamic business environment. For
example, one feature of a dynamic business environment is increasing
customization, or tailoring of products or services to clients. Lin and Germain
(2004) discovered that formalization positively predicts customer involvement
in product development. They conclude that formalization rather than being
a barrier to innovation is necessary for responding effectively to market intel-
ligence. Further, Schmid (2002) found that in three types of non-profit organ-
izations, where the main focus is benefiting clients, high formalization,
through strict adherence to regulations and arrangements, is required to best
meet client needs. Schminke, Cropanzano and Rupp (2002), in reference to
employees, found that organizations that do not formalize policies are likely to
be perceived as unjust. As organizational fairness is associated with citizen-
ship behaviour, lower turnover and high job performance, less formal organ-
izations may reduce an organization’s ability to meet the demands of a
dynamic business environment by decreasing employee motivation.
On a practical front, our study suggests that, while case studies of
successful ‘new’ organizational forms may encourage management to experi-
ment with ‘new’ practices and to dismantle traditional practices, replacement
of traditional practices may not be the best path. Considerations such as

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 39

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 39

strategy (Smith David et al. 2002), sector (Schmid 2002) and customer orien-
tation (Lin and Germain 2004) may be necessary when making organizational
design decisions. Instead of substitution, managers should focus on what mix
of ‘old’ and ‘new’ practices are needed to enhance organizational performance.
The results of this study, in combination with the earlier one reported by
Palmer and Dunford (2002), suggest that centralization and formalization
remain relevant in a dynamic business environment. Further research is
required to explore the benefits and drawbacks of centralizing and formal-
izing some practices over others, and how centralization and formalization
complement ‘new’ organizational practices to ensure both flexibility and
control. Future research is required to understand how formalization and
customization, or superior customer service, interact to enhance organizational
effectiveness. The ‘new organizational forms’ literature, when emphasizing
radical replacement rather than integration of ‘old’ and ‘new’ practices, may be
missing the key dynamic – what is ‘novel’ about ‘new’ organizational practices
is not the ‘new’ practices themselves, but the way they interact with traditional
organizational practices.

Richard Dunford (PhD, ANU) is professor of management in the Macquarie Graduate School of
Management, Macquarie University, Sydney. He has held academic positions at a number of universities
in Australia and New Zealand. His main areas of research are the development of new forms of
organisation and the characteristics of high-performing organisations and his work has been published
in leading international journals. He has also held positions in both business and government and has
worked as a consultant in strategy, change and executive development for a broad range of
organisations.

Ian Palmer (PhD, Monash) is a professor of management and associate dean, research in the Faculty
of Business, University of Technology, Sydney. He teaches, researches and consults on organization
change, design and analysis. His publications appear in a wide range of journals. He has held visiting
positions at Cornell University (1993) and the University of Virginia (1997, 2000) and is currently chair
of BARDsNET (Business Academic Research Directors Network).

Jodie Benveniste is a research associate at the University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Business.
Her research work encompasses new organizational forms, and organizations entering highly
competitive environments. She is also the author of two books – one on corporate sustainability,
and the other on work–family balance.

John Crawford (PhD, UNSW) is a senior lecturer in the School of Management at the University of
Technology, Sydney, and has taught organizational behaviour and research methods. His thesis was a
study of mental abilities and human performance, and his research interests are in the general area of
organizational behaviour, and include leadership, teamwork, and business ethics.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 40

40 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

References
Adler, P., and B. Borys. 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and co-ercive.
Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 61–89.
Adria, M., and S. Chowdhury. 2004. Centralization as a design consideration for the
management of call centers. Information and Management 41(4): 497.
Ahuja, M., and K. Carley. 1999. Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization
Science 10(6): 741–57.
Ashcraft, K. 2001. Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of
Management Journal 44(6): 1301–1322.
Ashkenas, R., D. Ulrich, T. Jick, and S. Kerr. 1995. The boundaryless organization: Breaking the
chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barley, S. 1996. Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into
organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(3): 404–41.
Bartlett, C., and S. Ghoshal. 1993. Beyond the M-form: Toward a managerial theory of the
firm. Strategic Management Journal 14: 23–46.
Baum, J., and S. Wally. 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal 24(11): 1107–29.
Beckett, M., J. DaVanzo, N. Sastry, C. Panis, and C. Peterson. 2001. The quality of
retrospective data. Journal of Human Resources 36(3): 593–625.
Bigley, G., and K. Roberts. 2001. The incident command system: High-reliability organizing
for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal 44(6):
1281–99.
Bollen, K., and R. Lennox. 1991. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural
equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110: 305–314.
Caruana, A., M. Morris, and A. Vella. 1998. The effect of centralization and formalization on
entrepreneurship in export firms. Journal of Small Business Management 36(1): 16–30.
Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chesbrough, H., and D. Teece. 1996. When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation.
Harvard Business Review 74: 65–73.
Child, J., and R. McGrath. 2001. Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an
information-intensive econonmy. Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1135–48.
Child, J., and S. Rodrigues. 2003. Corporate governance and new organizational forms: Issues
of double and multiple agency. Journal of Management and Governance 7(4): 337–60.
Crampton, S.M., and J.A Wagner III. 1994. Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational
research. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 67–76.
Cross, R., A. Yan, and M. Louis. 2000. Boundary activities in ‘boundaryless’ organizations: A
case study of a transformation to a team-based structure. Human Relations 37: 563–85.
Daft, R., and A. Lewin. 1993. Where are the theories for the ‘new’ organizational forms?
An editorial essay. Organization Science 4(4): i–vi.
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34(4): 555–90.
Davidow, W., and M. Malone. 1992. The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the
organization for the 21st century. New York: Harper Collins.
Dess, G., A. Rasheed, K. McLaughlin, and R. Priem. 1995. The new corporate architecture.
Academy of Management Executive 9(3): 7–20.
DeSanctis, G., J. Glass, and I. Ensing. 2002. Organizational designs for R&D. Academy of
Management Executive 16(3): 55–66.
DeSanctis, G., and P. Monge. 1999. Introduction to the special issue: Communication
processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science 10(6): 693–703.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 41

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 41

Dibrell, C., and R. Miller. 2002. Organization design: The continuing influence of
information technology. Management Decision 40(5/6): 620–7.
Dooley, R., G. Fryxell, and W. Judge. 2000. Belaboring the not-so-obvious: Consensus,
commitment, and strategy implementation speed and success. Journal of Management
26(6): 1237–57.
Edwards, J.R, and R.P. Bagozzi. 2000. On the nature and direction of the relationship
between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods 4: 155–74.
Fulk, J., and G. DeSanctis. 1995. Electronic communication and changing organizational
forms. Organization Science 6(4): 337–49.
Galunic, D., and K. Eisenhardt. 2001. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms.
Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1229–49.
Gooderham, P., and S. Ulset. 2002. Beyond the M-form: Towards a critical test of the new
form. International Journal of the Economics of Business 9(1): 117–38.
Grevos, C., and C. Stephens. 1993. Electronic communication and changing organizational
forms. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 252–76.
Grimshaw, D., H. Beynon, J. Rubery, and K. Ward. 2002. The restructuring of career paths
in large service sector organizations: Delayering, upskilling and polarization.
Sociological Review 50(1): 89–116.
Guthrie, J. 2001. High-involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: Evidence
from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal 44: 180–92.
Healy, M., and J. Iles. 2003. The impact of information and communications technology on
managerial practices: the use of codes of conduct. Strategic Change 12(4): 185.
Heydebrand, W. 1989. New organizational forms. Work and Occupations 16: 323–57.
Hill, S., R. Martin, and M. Harris. 2000. Decentralization, integration and the post-
bureaucratic organization: The case of R&D. Journal of Management Studies 37: 563–85.
Holland, C., and A. Lockett. 1997. Mixed mode network structures: The strategic use of
electronic communication by organizations. Organization Science 8(5): 475–88.
Holtzhausen, D. 2002. The effects of a divisionalised and decentralized organizational
structure on a formal internal communication function in a South African organization.
Journal of Communication Management 6(4): 323–39.
Jiang, J., G. Klein, and R. Pick. 2003. The impact of IS department organizational
environments upon project team performances. Information and Management 40(3): 213.
Joyce, W., V. McGee, and J. Slocum. 1997. Designing lateral organizations: An analysis of the
benefits, costs, and enablers of nonhierarchical organizational forms. Decision Sciences
28(1): 1–24.
Kim, J., and R. Burton. 2002. The effect of task uncertainty and decentralization on project
team performance. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 8(4): 365.
Lawler, E. 1997. Rethinking organization size. Organizational Dynamics 26(2): 24–35.
Li, Z. 1999. Management innovation and logical incrementalism. CEO and CIO World l: 25–7.
Lin, X., and R. Germain. 2003. Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and
performance: Lessons from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Strategic Management
Journal 24(11): 1131–51.
Lin, X., and R. Germain. 2004. Antecedents to customer involvement in product
development: Comparing US and Chinese firms. European Management Journal 22(2):
244–55.
McNamara, G., P. Vaaler, and C. Devers. 2003. Same as it ever was: The search for evidence
of increasing hypercompetition. Strategic Management Journal 24(3): 261–78.
Marsden, P., C. Cook, and D. Knoke. 1994. Measuring organizational structures and
environments. American Behavioral Scientist 37(7): 891–910.
Massini, S., A. Lewin, T. Numagami, and A. Pettigrew. 2002. The evolution of organiza-
tional routines among large Western and Japanese firms. Research Policy 31: 1333–48.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 42

42 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2007 45(1)

Miles, R., C. Snow, J. Mathews, G. Miles, and H. Coleman. 1997. Organizing in the knowl-
edge age: Anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive 11: 7–20.
Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1995. Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure and
organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics 19(2/3):
179–208.
Mirvis, P.H. 1994. Environmentalism in progressive businesses. Journal of Organizational
Change Management 7(4): 82–100.
Nadler, D.A. 1992. Organizational architecture: A metaphor for change. In Organizational
architecture: Designs for changing organizations, eds D.A. Nadler, M.S. Gerstein, R.B.
Shaw & Associates, 1–10. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Nadler, D., and M. Tushman. 1999. The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and
core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics 28(1): 45–60.
Nahm, A., M. Vonderembse and X. Koufteros. 2003.The impact of organizational structure
on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management
21(3): 281–306.
Ogbonna, E., and L. Harris. 2003. Innovative organizational structures and performance:
A case study of structural transformation to ‘groovy community centers’. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 16(5): 512–33.
Oldham, G., and J. Hackman. 1981. Relationships between organizational structures and
employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly
26: 66–83.
Oliver, A., and K. Montgomery. 2000. Creating a hybrid organizational form from parental
blueprints: The emergence and evolution of knowledge firms. Human Relations 53:
33–56.
Overholt, M., and G. Connally. 2000. The strands that connect: An empirical assessment of
how organizational design links employees to the organization. Human Resource
Planning 23(2): 38–51.
Palmer, I., and R. Dunford. 1997. Organizing for hyper-competition. New Zealand Strategic
Management 2(4): 38–45.
Palmer, I., and R. Dunford. 2002. Out with the old and in with the new? The relationship
between traditional and new organizational practices. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 10(3): 209–25.
Pasternack, B., and A. Viscio. 1998. The centerless corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Pettigrew, A.M., and E.M. Fenton. 2000. Complexities and dualities in innovative forms of
organizing. In The innovating organization, eds A.M. Pettigrew and E.M. Fenton,
279–300. London: Sage.
Pettigrew, A., R. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. van den Bosch, W. Ruigrok,
and T. Numagami. 2003. Innovative forms of organizing. London: Sage.
Pierret, C. 2001. Event history data and survey recall. Journal of Human Resources 36(3):
439–66.
Pinchot, G., and E. Pinchot. 1994. The end of bureaucracy and the rise of the intelligent
organization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Powell, L. 2002. Shedding a tier: Flattening organizational structures and employee
empowerment. International Journal of Educational Management 16(1): 54–9.
Pugh, D., D. Hickson, C. Hinings, and C. Turner. 1968. Dimensions of organization
structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 13(1): 65–106.
Pugh, D., D. Hickson, C. Hinings, and C. Turner. 1969. The context of organization
structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 14(1): 91–114.
Purser, R.E., and S. Cabana. 1998. The self-managing organization. New York: Free Press.
Quinn, J.B. 1992. The intelligent organization: A new paradigm. Academy of Management
Executive 6(4): 48–63.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009


Dunford.qxd 30/01/2007 10:05 AM Page 43

‘Old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices 43

Quinn, J.B., P. Anderson, and S. Finkelstein. 1996. New forms of organizing. In The strategy
process, eds H. Mintzberg and J.B. Quinn, 350–62. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Roberts, K.H., and C. Libuser. 1993. From Bhopal to banking: Organizational design can
mitigate risk. Organizational Dynamics 21(4): 15–26.
Schmid, H. 2002. Relationships between organizational properties and organizational
effectiveness in three types of nonprofit human service organizations. Public Personnel
Management 31(3): 377–95.
Schminke, M., R. Cropanzano, and D.E. Rupp. 1989. Organization structure and fairness
perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behaviour
and Human Decision Making Processes 89(1): 881–905
Schulz, M. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and
knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 661–81.
Smith David, J., Y. Hwang, B. Pei, and J. Reneau. 2002. The performance effects of
congruence between product competitive strategies and purchasing management
design. Management Science 48(7): 866–85.
Spector, P.E. 1994. Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of
a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 385–92.
Thompson, P. 1993. Postmodernism: Fatal distraction. In Postmodernism and organizations, eds
J. Hassard and M. Parker, 183–203. London: Sage.
Tushman, M.L., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1997. Winning through innovation. Boston: HBS Press.
Vandevelde A., and R. Van Dierdonck. 2003. Managing the design-manufacturing interface.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 23(11): 1326–48.
Van de Ven, A.H., and G. Walker. 1984. The dynamics of interorganizational coordination.
Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 598–621.
Volberda, H. 1996. Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive
environments. Organization Science 7(4): 359–74.
Wallace, J.E. 1995. Organizational and professional commitments in professional and
nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 228–55.
Wang, E. 2003. Effect of the fit between information processing requirements and capacity on
organizational performance. International Journal of Information Management 23(3):
239–47.
Weick, K. 1996. Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative
Science Quarterly 41(2): 301–13.
Whittington, R., and L. Melin. 2003. The challenge of organizing/strategizing. In Innovative
forms of organizing, eds A. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F.
van den Bosch, W. Ruigrok and T. Numagami. London: Sage.
Whittington, R., and A. Pettigrew. 1999. Change and complementarities in the new
competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization Science 10(5):
183–94.
Williams, L., and B. Brown. 1994. Method variance in organizational behavior and human
resources research: Effects on correlations, path co-efficients and hypothesis testing.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57: 185–209.
Wu, L., S. Martin, and D. Long. 2001. Comparing data quality of fertility and first sexual
intercourse histories. Journal of Human Resources 36(3): 520–55.

Downloaded from http://apj.sagepub.com at Victoria Uni of Technology on January 19, 2009

Potrebbero piacerti anche