This study was designed to examine the dynamics of quantum versus incremental M-form reorganization on financial performance. The dynamics of reorganizations in six companies were studied by means of time-series intervention analysis, since a structural change can beformally considered an' 'intervention" upon the existing organizational system. The technique used was Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) intervention analysis. Three different models of reorganization impact on performance were specified and examined. The results indicate that reorganization to the M-form produces a positive effect on financial performance, with incremental reorganizations having less of a positive impact than quantum reorganizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armour, A., & Teece, D. (1978). Organizational structure and economic performance: A test of the multidivisional hypothesis. Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 106-122.
2.
Box, G.E.P., & Jenkins, G. (1976). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
3.
Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C. (1963). A strategy of decision. New York: Free Press.
4.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.
5.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
Dixon, WJ. (1981). BMDP statistical software. Berkeley: University of California.
7.
Galbraith, J., & Nathanson, D. (1979). The role of organizational structure and process in strategy implementation. In D. Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning (pp. 249-283). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
8.
Greiner, L.E. (1972, July-August). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review pp. 37-46.
9.
Larson, H.M., Knowlton, E.H., & Plpple, C.S. (1971). History of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey): New horizons 192 7-1950. New York: Harper and Row.
10.
Marquis, J. (1953). The Texaco story: Thefirstfifty years, 1902-1952. New York: The Texaco Company.
11.
McCleary, R., & Hay, R.A. (1980). Applied time series analysis for the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.
12.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H. (1980). Momentum and revolution in organizational adaption. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 591-614.
13.
Miller, D., & Friesen, RH. (1982). Structural change and performance: Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 867-892.
14.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formulation. Management Science, 24, 934-948.
15.
Montgomery Wards: Prosperity is still around the corner. (1960, November). Fortune pp. 138-138, 142-142, 147-147.
16.
Nevins, A., & Hill, F.E. (1963). Ford: Decline and rebirth: 1933-1962. New York: Scribner's.
17.
Rumelt, R.P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research.
18.
Scott, B.R. (1971). Stages of corporate development (Case No. 9-371-294, Part I). Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
19.
Steer, P., & Cable, J. (1978). Internal organization and profit: An empirical analysis of large U.K. companies. Journal of Industrial Economics, 2713-30.
20.
Teece, D.J. (1981). Internal organization and economic performance: An empirical analysis of the profitability of principal fmns. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 30, 173-199.
21.
Teece, D. (1980). The diffusion of an administrative innovation. Management Science, 26, 464-470.
22.
Watts, R.L., & Leftwich, R.W (1977). The time series of annual accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting Research, 15, 253-271.
23.
Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
We've changed our name. (1942, January). Texaco Star, p. 7.
25.
Williamson, O.W (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Macmillan Free Press.
