This article describes a role-playing simulation that demonstrates how organizational structure is influenced by organizational and departmental technologies. Students act as employees of firms that must manufacture either a range of innovative products or a large number of standardized products. The simulation can be used in organizational behavior courses to introduce basic concepts about structure and contingency theory or can be used in organizational theory courses to reinforce more-advanced material regarding production technologies, departmental technologies and interdependencies, competitive strategies, boundary spanning, information technology, and knowledge management.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure . Academy of Management Review, 2, 217-230.
2.
Andersson, L.M., & Bateman, T.S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 548-570.
3.
Baligh, H.H., Burton, R.M., & Obel, B. (1996). Organizational Consultant: Creating a useable theory for organizational design. Management Science, 42, 1648-1662.
4.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
5.
Burris, B.H. (1998). Computerization of the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 141-157.
6.
Carson, P.P., Lanier, P.A., Carson, K.D., & Guidry, B.N. (2000). Clearing a path through the management fashion jungle: Some preliminary trailblazing. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1143-1158.
Duncan, R.B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Killman , L.R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 167-188). New York: North-Holland.
9.
Ford, J.D., & Slocum, J.W. (1977). Size, technology, environment and the structure of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 77, 561-575.
10.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.
11.
Kelley, M.R. (1990). New process technology, job design, and work organization: A contingency model. American Sociological Review, 55, 191-208.
12.
Kvam, P.H. (2000). The effect of active learning methods on student retention in engineering statistics. The American Statistician , 54, 136-140.
13.
Liker, J.K., Haddad, C.J., & Karlin, J. (1999). Perspectives on technology and work organization . Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 575-596.
14.
Lyons, P.R., & Nichol, D.M. (2001). Structuring-by-the-numbers: A process for discovering and understanding organizational structure. Journal of Management Education, 25, 726-736.
15.
Madsen, H., Sinding, K., & Ulhøi, J.P. (1997). Sustainability and corporate environmental focus: An analysis of Danish small and medium sized companies. Managerial and Decision Economics, 18, 443-453.
16.
Miller, C.C., Glick, W.H., Wang, Y., Huber, G.P. (1991). Understanding technology-structure relationships: Theory development and meta-analytic theory testing. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 370-399.
17.
Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 280-308.
18.
Miller, D., Hartwick, J., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2004). How to detect a management fad—and distinguish it from a classic. Business Horizons , 47(4), 7-16.
19.
Nemetz, P.L., & Fry, L.W. (1988). Flexible manufacturing organizations: Implications for strategy formulation and organization design. Academy of Management Review, 13, 627-638.
20.
Parthasarthy, R., & Sethi, S.P. (1993). Relating strategy and structure to flexible automation: A test of fit and performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 529-549.
21.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of complex organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.
22.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
23.
Priem, R.L., & Rosenstein, J. (2000). Is organization theory obvious to practitioners? A test of one established theory. Organization Science, 11, 509-524.
24.
Ramus, C.A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal,43, 605-626.
25.
Reimann, B.C. (1980). Organization structure and technology in manufacturing: System versus work flow level perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 61-77.
26.
Ruekert, R.W., & Walker, O.C. (1987). Interactions between marketing and R&D departments in implementing different business strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 233-248.
27.
Schoonhoven, C.B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of “contingency theory.” Administrative Science Quarterly,26, 349-377.
28.
Semb, G.B., & Ellis, J.A. (1994). Knowledge taught in school: What is remembered?Review of Educational Research, 64, 253-286.
29.
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.
30.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20, 936-960.
31.
Taylor, C., & Taylor, S. (1987). Teaching organizational team building through simulation. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 11, 136-138.
32.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.
34.
Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1989). Effects of environmental scarcity and munificence on the relationship of context to organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 131-156.
