Organizational Rigidity on Output Performance in an Organization
CHAPTER ONE
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The following are the objectives of this study:
- To examine the influence of organizational rigidity on output performance in an organization.
- To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of organizational rigidity.
- To find out the determinants of output performance in an organization.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL RIGIDITIES
The idea that it may be difficult to sustain radically different incentive regimes within the same organization is not a new one. One long-standing perspective on this problem focuses on the problem of equity, suggesting that internal norms make it difficult to offer the employees of a new unit incentives that are significantly more “high powered” than those offered to employees in the existing firm (Adams 1963; Block and MacMillan 1993; Block and Ornati 1987; Chesborough 1999; Lind and Tyler 1988). Closer in spirit to our core argument here, Foss (2003) notes that the difficulties managers encounter in what he calls “selective intervention” are likely to be even more extreme in turbulent industries, suggesting that an inability to commit to a new incentive regime may lie behind the difficulties in creating entrepreneurial ventures. Makadok (2003) argues that where agency problems are the most severe (in cases of risky bets), managers will tend to underinvest in the opportunity. Similarly Nelson and Winter (1982) assert that one of the reasons organizational routines evolve only incrementally is that they sustain an “organizational truce” between the members of the firm and, Hannan and Freeman’s (1984) focus on the importance of accountability – not only to external stakeholders but also to employees – suggests to us that stability in structure and process serves to reassure employees that their commitment to the organization will continue to be valued. More recently, Coriat and Dosi (1998) argue that routines can be interpreted as “a locus of conflict, governance and a way of codifying microeconomic incentives and constraints” (p. 104). Here we expand on these ideas by drawing on recent work in organizational economics to focus in detail on the dynamics that make incentive regimes so difficult to change in the face of radical technological shifts. We believe that by reinterpreting the formalizations introduced by this literature in the light of organizational theory and in relation to the uncertainties introduced by radical technological change we can extend the existing theory in exciting and unexpected ways. In particular, we provide a very specific language for understanding why incentive regimes cannot be understood separately from the cognitive frames and interests of both employees and employers in any complex organization and how these factors interact to produce the inertial effects we observe in example after example of companies facing change.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design
The researcher used descriptive research survey design in building up this project work the choice of this research design was considered appropriate because of its advantages of identifying attributes of a large population from a group of individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study sought to organizational rigidity on output performance in an organization
Sources of data collection
Data were collected from two main sources namely:
(i)Primary source and
(ii)Secondary source
Primary source:
These are materials of statistical investigation which were collected by the research for a particular purpose. They can be obtained through a survey, observation questionnaire or as experiment; the researcher has adopted the questionnaire method for this study.
Secondary source:
These are data from textbook Journal handset etc. they arise as byproducts of the same other purposes. Example administration, various other unpublished works and write ups were also used.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Introduction
Efforts will be made at this stage to present, analyze and interpret the data collected during the field survey. This presentation will be based on the responses from the completed questionnaires. The result of this exercise will be summarized in tabular forms for easy references and analysis. It will also show answers to questions relating to the research questions for this research study. The researcher employed simple percentage in the analysis.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was to ascertain organizational rigidity on output performance in an organization
In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations made which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefits in addressing the challenges of organizational rigidity on output performance in an organization
Summary
This study was organizational rigidity on output performance in an organization. Three objectives were raised which included: To examine the influence of organizational rigidity on output performance in an organization, to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of organizational rigidity, to find out the determinants of output performance in an organization. In line with these objectives, two research hypotheses were formulated and two null hypotheses were posited. The total population for the study is 200 staff of CADBURY PLC, Lagos. The researcher used questionnaires as the instrument for the data collection. Descriptive Survey research design was adopted for this study. A total of 133 respondents made up managers, cash specialists, financial analysts
and senior staff was used for the study. The data collected were presented in tables and analyzed using simple percentages and frequencies
Conclusion
In conclusion, a firm’s core capabilities are continually evolving, and the firm’s survival depends upon its successful management of that evolution. A firm’s adoption of new technologies and processes is a visible factor that may lead to rigidity and potential conflict between the need for new technology adoption and for retention of important capabilities within existing technologies
Recommendation
There should be a room for much more research on the specification of individual, group, and organizational effects of threat, as well as on effects that may cross levels of analysis. Our integration of prior findings and theoretical speculations, therefore, should be viewed as simply a starting point rather than a summary of work on this topic.
References
- Aghion, P., and J. Tirole. 1997. “Formal and real authority in organizations.” Journal of Political Economy 105:1-29.
- Ancona, Deborah G. Thomas A. Kochan, Maureen Scully, John Van Maanen and D. Eleanor Westney1999. Managing for the future: organizational behavior & processes. Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western College Pub.
- Argyris, Chris. 1990. Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning. Boston:
- Allyn and Bacon. Arrow, Kenneth. 1962. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, edited by NBER. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Baker, G, R Gibbons, and KJ Murphy. 2002. “Relational contracts and the theory of the firm.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117:39-84.
- Baker, G., R. Gibbons, and K. J. Murphy. 1999. “Informal authority in organizations.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15:56-73.
- Baker, George, Robert Gibbons, and Kevin J Murphy. 1994. “Subjective performance measures in optical incentive contracts.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 109:1125-1156.
- Barley, Stephen R., and Gideon Kunda. 2001. “Bring work back in.” Organization Science 12:76-95.
- Barnett, W. P., and G. R. Carroll. 1995. “Modeling Internal Organizational-Change.” Annual Review of Sociology 21:217-236.
- Barnett, William P, and Morten T Hansen. 1996. “The Red Queen in organizational evolution.” Strategic Management Journal 17:139.
- Barr, Pamela S., J. L. Stimpert, and Anne S. Huff. 1992. “Cognitive Change, Strategic Action, and Organizational Renewal.” Strategic Management Journal 13:15-36.
