What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

As well as review the literature on the notion of institutional entrepreneurship introduced by Paul DiMaggio in 1988, we propose a model of the process of institutional entrepreneurship We first present theoretical and definitional issues associated with the concept and propose a conceptual account of institutional entrepreneurship that helps to accommodate them We then present the different phases of the process of institutional entrepreneurship from the emergence of institutional entrepreneurs to their implementation of change Finally, we highlight future directions for research on institutional entrepreneurship, and conclude with a discussion of its role in strengthening institutional theory as well as, more broadly, the field of organization studies

/pdf/how-actors-change-institutions-towards-a-theory-of-157mc7o554.pdf

How actors change institutions : Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship

New Patterns of Management.

Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal Tushman, Michael L. and O'Reilly, Charles A., 256 pp., Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Reviewed by Subodh P. Kulkarni, Assistant Professor in School of Business at Howard University, Washington, D.C. Professors Tushman and O'Reilly are well known for their research on innovation and organizational culture. In this book, the authors address a fundamental and interesting issue underlying organizational change and innovation: that of how firms can achieve a balance between stability and change. Businesses are not likely to prosper or survive in the long run without this balance. One of the book's key premises is that short-term success may constrain a firm's ability to change. Short term successes often occur in larger, older, more structured organizations, the source of structural and cultural inertia, which yields success in stable environments and failure when environments change. Therefore, a company's culture holds the key to success (or failure) in the long run. To create and sustain a competitive edge in the long run, companies must learn how to manage incremental and revolutionary change. The key, according to the authors, is to develop an "ambidextrous organization." Tushman and O'Reilly define ambidextrous organizations as those having internally consistent structures and an internal operating culture that provides for excelling today, while also planning for the future. The ambidextrous organizations are, thus, engaged in a balancing act between the management of incremental and revolutionary technologies. Further, these organizations have very different cultures within a company (or even a business unit, for that matter). Vision is vital to ambidextrous organizations, often displaying one vision that hosts multiple cultures in the unit. Of course, a firm can have multiple cultures under one roof by spinning off different business units and managing them independently. This is unacceptable to the authors. It is important to manage them as a whole, or as a system. The thing that holds the system components together is the overarching vision for the technology firm. That is why the book emphasizes strategic intent or competitive vision; because without a common, overarching purpose and set of values, the ambidextrous company just does not hold together. So it is not only different cultures, but different structures, systems, rewards, and competencies that need to be managed together. Drawing on their extensive research, consulting practice, as well as the experiences of managers from several "ambidextrous companies," the authors develop a model that can be used by executives to understand the dynamics of change necessary for long-term success. Toward this end, the book provides several tools for identifying and diagnosing the causes of performance gaps and for developing action plans to attain, and maintain, industry leadership. The book is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 1 is introductory, and it outlines the concepts underlying the authors' model. Chapter 2 highlights the significance of the concepts introduced earlier in the context of global change and innovation. Chapters 3 through 6 focus on the building of capabilities, competencies, and cultures that can generate a sustainable competitive advantage. Chapter 4 develops a model that highlights the congruence among an organization's strategies and four distinct factors: critical tasks, culture, structure, and people. A lack of congruence often results in performance gaps. Chapter 5 outlines how organizational culture-the selecting, socializing, and rewarding of workers consistent with the company's goals-promotes this congruence. It also illustrates how to assesses an organization's culture. Chapters 7 and 8 stand out in particular because in these chapters the authors introduce techniques for building an ambidextrous organization. …

Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal

Purpose: This paper investigates the way in which blockchain technology is likely to influence future supply chain practices and policies. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic review of both academic and practitioner literature was conducted. Multiple accounts of blockchain adoption within industry were also consulted to gain further insight. Findings: While blockchain technologies remain in their infancy, they are gaining momentum within supply chains, trust being the predominant factor driving their adoption. The value of such technologies for supply chain management lies in four areas: extended visibility and traceability, supply chain digitalisation and disintermediation, improved data security and smart contracts. Several challenges and gaps in understanding and opportunities for further research are identified by our research. How a blockchain enabled supply chain should be configured has also been explored from a design perspective. Research limitations/implications: Our systematic review focuses on the diffusion of blockchain technology within supply chains and great care was taken in selecting search terms. However, we acknowledge that our choice of terms may have excluded certain blockchain articles from this review. Practical implications: This paper offers valuable insight for supply-chain practitioners into how blockchain technology has the potential to disrupt existing supply chain provisions as well as a number of challenges to its successful diffusion. Originality/value: Ours is one of the first studies to examine the current state of blockchain diffusion within supply chains. It lays a firm foundation for future research. Keywords: blockchain, distributed ledger technology, supply chain management, peer-to-peer communication, systematic literature review

/pdf/understanding-blockchain-technology-for-future-supply-chains-382nu4vul4.pdf

Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda

The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer–supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation

Although the relevance of management control systems to successful change achievement has been conceptually acknowledged, empirical matters such as measuring the contribution of control systems to effective change implementation lack practical investigation. Using data obtained from managers in 22 organizations, we explore the extent to which managers believe their management control systems are employed when implementing planned change. Relationships between commonly employed management controls and implementation success are also estimated. Results indicated that managers used management control systems less extensively than other elements of change process, although usage of control systems increased with implementation. A strong relationship was found between the use of control systems based on outcomes monitoring and implementation success. However, there was no significant relationship between the use of behavior-based controls and implementation success. Overall, the findings suggest that ...

The Relationship between Management Control System Usage and Planned Change Achievement: An Exploratory Study

Research is necessary to improve our understanding of change processes necessary to successfully implement SCM. One aspect of such inquiry should seek to improve our grasp of how SCM change differs from other types of change. The complex, multifunctional nature of supply chains suggests that processes used to implement SCM changes may differ from those employed for implementing non-supply chain management (NSCM) changes (Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh 1998). Because broader change initiatives are often more difficult to implement (Nadler and Tushman 1989), degree of success realized from implementing SCM changes might differ as well. Understanding the process for implementing SCM is critical because its success drives organizational performance, efficiency and competitive position (Chen and Paulraj 2004). Such an understanding can be found in the change management literature. Research on strategy implementation suggests that it is inextricably connected to change management (Pryor et al. 2007). Successful change embraces both the inner shift in the individual’s values, aspirations and behaviors and the outer shift in process, strategy, practices and systems (Karp 2005). Change management provides insight on changing the organizational structure and staffing to address new changes and insight on adjustment to the administrative system, such as revising systems for planning, performance measurement, and incentive compensation to aid the organization in achieving its strategic goal (Bourgeois and Brodwin 1983). Recent research has indicated relationships between various change process activities and change achievement (Ford and Greer 2005). This study explores differences between SCM and NSCM change using an empirical approach. We seek to determine if there are differences in the change process when organizations implement SCM change as oppose to NSCM change. We define SCM change as planned change that is SCM related. Subsequently, NSCM change is planned change that is not SCM related. Planned changes are premeditated, agent-facilitated interventions that are intended to improve the function of the organization (Lippit, Watson, and Westley 1958). Using concepts from the literature, we first hypothesize about differences in change processes used to implement SCM and NSCM change, and about differences in implementation success realized from them. We then test the hypotheses using data from a sample of managers involved in change implementation. The results and knowledge generated from this study can assist managers with understanding the process for SCM change implementation and what process factors are necessary for SCM change achievement.

Managing change in supply chains: a process comparison

Profile analysis is proposed as a means for advancing empirical change process research. In the context of organizational studies, a profile can be viewed as a set of sequentially arranged factors ...

Profiling Change An Empirical Study of Change Process Patterns

Research has shown that superior supply chain effectiveness can yield enhanced firm financial performance. However, existing research does not use a consistent definition or a comprehensive list of supply chain leader firms. Using matched sample comparison, this study investigates the robustness of the relationship between supply chain effectiveness and the overall financial health of firms viewed as supply chain leaders by using AMR's supply chain top 25 list. We hypothesize that firms that have been identified by AMR as supply chain leaders will be more financially healthy than nonsupply chain leaders. That is, they will have better cost, activity, and liquidity ratios. The findings indicate that firms identified as supply chain leaders outperform their nonsupply chain leader peers in accounting-based activity, cost, and liquidity measures.

Bertie M. Greer

Papers

The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer–supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation

The Relationship between Management Control System Usage and Planned Change Achievement: An Exploratory Study

Managing change in supply chains: a process comparison

Profiling Change An Empirical Study of Change Process Patterns

Linking Supply Chain Management Superiority to Multifaceted Firm Financial Performance