Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting Organizational Reconfiguration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Approaches to Organization Design

Part of the book series: Information and Organization Design Series ((INOD,volume 8))

Abstract

This chapter addresses the issue of structural change within for-profit organizations, both as adaptation to changing markets and as purposeful experimentation to search for new opportunities, and builds upon the “reconfiguration” construct. In the areas of strategy, evolutionary economics, and organization theory, there are conflicting theories that either predict structural change or discuss obstacles to change. Our aim is to highlight relevant theoretical rationales for why and when organizations would, or would not, be expected to undertake structural reconfiguration. We conclude with remarks on how these literatures, together, inform our understanding of reconfiguration and organization design and provide insights for practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Eisenhardt and Brown (1999) broadly refer to “reorganization” in their comparison to patching, however, we refer more specifically to their “reorganization” construct as that of “organizational restructuring.”

References

  • Abernathy W, Utterback J (1978) Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Technology Review 80: 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amburgey TL, Kelly D, Barnett WP (1993) Resetting the Clock: The Dynamics of Organizational Failure. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(1): 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh DD (1998) Product-Market Uncertainty, Portfolio Restructuring, and Performance: An Information-Processing and Resource-Based View. Journal of Management 24 (2): 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau PM (1970) A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations. American Sociological Review 35(2): 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman EH, Singh H (1993) Corporate Restructuring: Reconfiguring the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 14 (Special Issue: Corporate Restructuring): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Lauridsen J, Obel B (2002) Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits. Management Science 48 (11): 1461–1485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (2004) Strategic Organization Diagnosis and Design: The Dynamics of Fit, 3rd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafferata GL (1982) The Building of Democratic Organizations: An Embryonic Metaphor. Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 280–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler A (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay P, Glick WH, Huber GP (2001) Organizational Actions in Response to Threats and Opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 937–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H, Teece D (1996) When is Virtual Virtuous: Organizing for Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 74(1): 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child J (1972) Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology 6 (1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child J, Kieser A (1981) Development of Organizations over Time. In: Starbuck W, Nystrom P (eds), Handbook of Organization Design. New York: Oxford, pp 28–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra CU (1996) The Platform Organization: Recombining Strategies, Structures, and Surprises. Organization Science 7 (2): 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crozier M (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton DR, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE, Johnson JL (1998) Meta-Analytic Reviews of Board Composition, Leadership Structure, and Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal 19: 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (1985) Organization Design and the Life Cycles of Products. Journal of Management Studies 22 (1): 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (1987) Strategy and Structural Adjustment to Regain Fit and Performance: In Defense of Contingency Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24 (1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (1990) The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory. In: Clegg H, Nord W(eds), The Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (1995) American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Brown SL (1999) Patching: Re-Stitching Business Portfolios in Dynamic Markets. Harvard Business Review 77(3): 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic Capabilities: What are They? Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue 21(10–11): 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(1): 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM (1996) The Evolution of Intracorporate Domains: Divisional Charter Losses in High-Technology, Multidivisional Corporations. Organization Science 7(3): 255–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM (2001) Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms. Academy of Management Journal 44 (6): 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud R, Kumaraswamy A (1995) Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution. Strategic Management Journal 16 (Special Issue: Technological Transformation and the New Competitive Landscape): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner L (1972) Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review 50(4): 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresov C (1989) Exploring Fit and Misfit with Multiple Contingencies. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(3): 431–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (2003) Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hage J, Aiken M (1969) Routine Technology, Social Structure and Organizational Goals. Administrative Science Quarterly 14(3): 366–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review 9: 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 49: 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haveman H (1992) Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Organizational Change and Performance under Conditions of Fundamental Environmental Transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 48–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE, Eisenhardt KM (2004) Inter-Temporal Economies of Scope, Organizational Modularity, and the Dynamics of Diversification. Strategic Management Journal 25(13): 1217–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill CWL, Hitt MA, Hoskisson RE (1992) Cooperative versus Competitive Structures in Related and Unrelated Diversified Firms. Organization Science 3(4): 501–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch PM, De Soucey M (2006) Organizational Restructuring and its Consequences: Rhetorical and Structural. Annual Review of Sociology 32: 171–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson RE, Johnson RA (1992) Corporate Restructuring and Strategic Change: The Effect on Diversification Strategy and R&D Intensity. Strategic Management Journal 13 (8): 625–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson RE, Johnson RA, Moesel DD (1994) Corrporate Divestiture Intensity in Restructuring Firms: Effects of Governance, Strategy, and Performance. Academy of Management Journal 37(5): 1207–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson RE, Turk TA (1990) Corporate Restructuring: Governance and Control Limits of the Internal Capital Market. Academy of Management Review 15 (3): 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GP (2004) The Necessary Nature of Future Firms: Attributes of Survivors in a Changing World. Boston, MA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC (1986) Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow. American Economic Review 76: 323–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC (1988) Takeovers: Their Causes and Consequences. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2 (1): 21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R (1996) Antecedents and Outcomes of Corporate Refocusing. Journal of Management 22 (3): 439–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim S (2006) Modularity in Organizational Structure: The Reconfiguration of Internally Developed and Acquired Business Units. Strategic Management Journal 27: 799–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim S, Mitchell W (2004) Innovating Through Acquisition and Internal Development. Long Range Planning 37: 525–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keats BW, Hitt MA (1988) A Causal Model of Linkages Among Environmental Dimensions, Macro Organizational Characteristics, and Performance. Academy of Management Journal 31 (3): 570–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla PN (1977) Organizational Design. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimberley J, Miles RH (1980) The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant TK, Hurley AE (1999) A Contingency Model of Response to Performance Feedback: Escalation of Commitment and Incremental Adaptation in Resource Investment Decisions. Group and Organization Management 24 (4): 421–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei D, Hitt MA, Goldhar JD (1996) Advanced Manufacturing Technology: Organizational Design and Strategic Flexibility. Organization Studies 17 (3): 501–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind J, Wiersema M, Hansen G (1992) LBOs, Corporate Restructuring, and the Incentive-Intensity Hypothesis. Financial Management 21(1): 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes LL (1987) Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20: 255–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1981) Footnotes to Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 563–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Shapira Z (1992) Variable Risk Preferences and the Focus of Attention. Psychological Review 99 (1): 172–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure, Rev. ed. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D (1988) Relating Porter’s Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications. Academy of Management Journal 31 (2): 280–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1980) Structure in 5s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design. Management Science 26 (3): 322–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler D, Tushman ML (1984) A Congruence Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior. In: Kolb DA, Rubin JM, McIntyre JM (eds), Organizational Psychology: Readings on Human Behavior in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp 587–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler DA, Tushman M (1997) Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naman JL, Slevin DP (1993) Entrepreneurship and the Concept of Fit: A Model and Empirical Tests. Strategic Management Journal 14 (2): 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio WC (1995) The Enactment of Economic Adversity: A Reconciliation of Theories of Failure-Induced Change and Threat-Rigidity. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds), Research in Organization Behavior Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 17: 287–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1987) From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review 65 (3): 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan PH, Hill CWL (1995) Organizational Restructuring and Economic Performance in Leveraged Buyouts: An Ex Post Study. Academy of Management Journal 38 (3): 704–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RE, Cameron K (1983) Organization Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science 29 (1): 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscraft DJ, Scherer FM (1987) Mergers, Sell-offs, and Economic Efficiency. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli E, Tushman ML (1994) Organization Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test. Academy of Management Journal 34: 141–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt RP (1974) Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. Strategic Management Journal 17: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MA (2000) Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity. Academy of Management Review 25 (2): 312–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MA, Steensma HK (2001) The Use of Modular Organizational Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis. Academy of Management Journal 44 (6): 1149–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seth A, Easterwood J (1993) Strategic Redirection in Large Management Buyouts: The Evidence from Post-Buyout Restructuring. Strategic Management Journal 14 (4): 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon DG, Hitt MA, Ireland RD (2007) Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of Management Review 32 (1): 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck W, Milliken F (1988) Executives’ Perceptual Filters: What They Notice and How They Make Sense. In: Hambrick D (eds), The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Executives. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp 35–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Ross J (1987) Understanding Escalation Situations: Antecedents, Prototypes, and Solutions. Research in Organizational Behavior 9: 39–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE (1981) Threat-Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 501–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J, Clark S, Gioia D (1993) Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages among Scanning, Interpretation, Action, and Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 36: 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Murmann JP (1998) Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organizational Outcomes. In: Staw B, Sutton R (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM, Suárez F (1993) Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure. Research Policy 22: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven AH, Poole MS (1995) Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 510–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP (1988) Top Management Turnover Following Mergers and Acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal 9: 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP (1989) Doing a Deal: Merger and Acquisition Negotiations and Their Impact upon Target Company Top Management Turnover. Strategic Management Journal 10: 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP, Ellwood JW (1991) Mergers, Acquisitions, and the Pruning of Managerial Deadwood. Strategic Management Journal 12 (3): 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenger TR, Hesterly WS (1997) The Disaggregation of Corporations: Selective Intervention, High-Powered Incentives, and Molecular Units. Organization Science 8 (3): 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Anne Bøllingtoft, George Huber, and participants in the 2008 Aarhus Conference on Organization Design for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 29208, Columbia, SC, USA

    Timothy N. Carroll

  2. School of Management, Boston University, 02215, Boston, MA, USA

    Samina Karim

Authors
  1. Timothy N. Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samina Karim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy N. Carroll .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, 8210, Denmark

    Anne Bøllingtoft

  2. Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, 8210, Denmark

    Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson

  3. Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, 8210, Denmark

    Jørn Flohr Nielsen

  4. Dept. of Management & Organization, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 16802, U.S.A.

    Charles C. Snow

  5. Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, 8210, Denmark

    John Ulhøi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carroll, T.N., Karim, S. (2009). Predicting Organizational Reconfiguration. In: Bøllingtoft, A., Håkonsson, D., Nielsen, J., Snow, C., Ulhøi, J. (eds) New Approaches to Organization Design. Information and Organization Design Series, vol 8. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0627-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation