Diseño organizativo y knowledge performanceun estudio empírico

  1. Claver Cortés, Enrique
  2. Pertusa Ortega, Eva M.
  3. Zaragoza Sáez, Patrocinio del Carmen
Revista:
Intangible Capital

ISSN: 1697-9818

Año de publicación: 2008

Volumen: 4

Número: 3

Páginas: 166-190

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3926/IC.2008.V4N3.P166-190 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Intangible Capital

Resumen

El propósito de este trabajo es analizar cómo las variables tradicionales de la estructura organizativa (formalización, complejidad y centralización) influyen en el knowledge performance, entendido éste como el grado en que una empresa genera nuevo conocimiento y lo utiliza para alcanzar una ventaja competitiva. Tras revisar la literatura, se formulan tres hipótesis que son contrastadas en una muestra de 164 grandes empresas españolas. Los resultados muestran que la complejidad y la centralización se asocian de forma positiva y negativa, respectivamente, con el knowledge performance, confirmando las dos hipótesis relacionadas con estas variables. Sin embargo, no se ha encontrado evidencia empírica que confirme la hipótesis que vinculaba positivamente la formalización y el knowledge performance.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ADLER, P.S.; BORYS, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1):61-89.
  • AHN, J-H.; LEE, D-J.; LEE, S-Y. (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development. Long Range Planning, 39(5):525-542.
  • AIKEN, M.; BACHARACH, S.; FRENCH, J.L. (1980). Organizacional structure, work process, and proposal making in administrative bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4):631-652.
  • AMASON, A.C.; THOMPSON, K.T.; HOCHWARTER, W.A.; HARRISON, A.W. (1995). Conflict: an important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2):20-34.
  • ARMSTRONG, J. S.; OVERTON, T.S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3):396-402.
  • BASKERVILLE, R.; DULIPOVICI, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4:83-105.
  • BECERRA-FERNÁNDEZ, I.; SABHERWAL, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: a contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1):23-55.
  • BECKER, M.; LAZARIC, N.; NELSON, R.; WINTER, S. (2005). Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5):775-791.
  • BIERLY, P.; CHAKRABARTI, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the USA. Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter special issue):123-135.
  • BONTIS, N.; CHUA, W.; RICHARDSON, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1):85-100.
  • CLAVER-CORTÉS, E.; ZARAGOZA-SAEZ, P.; PERTUSA-ORTEGA, E. (2007). Organizational structure features supporting knowledge management processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4):45-57.
  • COHEN, W.; LEVINTHAL, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1):128-152.
  • CORDÓN-POZO, E.; GARCÍA-MORALES, V.J.; ARAGÓN-CORREA, J.A. (2006). Interdepartmental collaboration and new product development success: a study on the collaboration between marketing and R&D in Spanish high-technology firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 35(1/2/3/4):52-79.
  • CROSSAN, M.M.; LANE, H.W.; WHITE, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3):522-537.
  • DAMANPOUR, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3):555-590.
  • DAMANPOUR, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5):693-716.
  • DAMANPOUR, F.; SCHNEIDER, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17:215-236.
  • DEWAR, R.; HAGE, J. (1978). Size, technology, complexity and structural differentiation: toward a conceptual synthesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1):111-136.
  • DILLMAN, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys. The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley.
  • DRUCKER, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, 66 (1):45-53.
  • FELDMAN, M.; PENTLAND, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1):94-118.
  • FREDRICKSON, J.W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11(2):280-297.
  • GOLD, A.; MALHOTRA, A.; SEGARS, A. (2001). Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1):185-214.
  • GOVINDARAJAN, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4):828-853.
  • GRAHAM, A.B.; PIZZO, V.G. (1996). A question of balance: case studies in strategic knowledge management. European Management Journal, 14(4):338-346.
  • HANDY, C. (1992). Balancing corporate power: a new federalist paper. Harvard Business Review, 70(6):59-72.
  • HEDLUND, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15:73-90.
  • KOGUT, B.; ZANDER, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7:502-518.
  • LAM, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21(3):487-513.
  • LEE, H.; CHOI, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1):179-228.
  • LEE, J.; MILLER, D. (1996). Strategy, environment and performance in two technological contexts: contingency theory in Korea. Organization Studies, 17(5):729-750.
  • LIAO, Y.S. (2007). The effects of knowledge management strategy and organization structure on innovation. International Journal of Management, 24(1):53-60.
  • MANDEVILLE, T. (2005). Collaboration and the network form of organization in the new knowledge-based economy, in ROONEY, D., HEARN, G., NINAN, A. (eds) Handbook on the knowledge economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • MASON C.; PERREAULT, W.D. Jr. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3):268-280.
  • MILLER, D.; DRÖGE, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4):539-560.
  • MINTZBERG, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • MORENO-LUZÓN, M.D.; LLORIA, M.B. (2007). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and coordination as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, (doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8551.2007.00544.x).
  • NAHAPIET, J.; GHOSHAL, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2):242-267.
  • NONAKA, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: accelerating information creation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 29(3):9-18.
  • NONAKA, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6):96-104.
  • NONAKA, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1):14-37.
  • NONAKA, I.; KONNO, N. (1998). The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3):40-54.
  • NONAKA, I.; TAKEUCHI, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • PODSAKOFF, P.M.; MACKENZIE, S.B.; LEE, J.Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5):879-903. POPADIUK, S.; CHOO, C.W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: how are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 26:302-312.
  • POWER, J.; WADDELL, D. (2004). The link between self-managed work teams and learning organisations using performance indicators. The Learning Organization, 11(2/3):244-259.
  • PUGH, D.S.; HICKSON, D.J.; HININGS, C.R.; TURNER C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1):65-105.
  • ROBBINS, S.P. (1990). Organization theory: structure, design, and applications (3rd ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • SALLAN, J.M. (2006). Caracterización de los grupos informales de transmisión de conocimiento mediante el análisis de redes sociales. Intangible Capital, 2(11): 21- 36.
  • SÁNCHEZ, M.; SARABIA, F.J. (1999). Validez y fiabilidad de escalas, en Sarabia, F.J. (coord.), Metodología para la investigación en marketing y dirección de empresas. Pirámide: 363-393.
  • VAN DEN BOSCH, F.; VOLBERDA, H.W.; DE BOER, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5):551-568.
  • WANG, C.L.; AHMED, P.K. (2003). Structure and structural dimensions for knowledge-based organizations. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1):51-62.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet