« テロリストのパラソル | Main | 修士論文の要旨Wordテンプレート »
January 13, 2005
Romanelli(1991)
Elaine Romanelli, "The Evolotionof New Organizational Forms", Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol.17, pp.79-103, 1991.
いま読んでいる安藤さんによるエクセレントな組織学習の体系づけから見ると，この論文は僕の研究においては不必要な，外れな論文であるらしいのだが，せっ
かく読んだのでメモる．
evolution according to their understandings about the contexts and
processes that tend to generate organizational form variationsの観点から(a)
An organizational genetics view，(b) An environmental conditioning
view，(c) an emergent social systems viewの3つに分類した論文．
これの(a)のNelson & Winterの研究はチェキっておいたほうがいいと思う．
The purpose of this review is to draw together and
organize this diverse body of literature on the evolution of new
organizational forms. I begin with a brief examination of the concept
of organizational form and and its implications for the study of
organizational form evolution. The body of the review organizes
perspectives on evolution according to their understandings about the
contexts and processes that tend to generate organizational form
variations. Three view are examinated: (a) An organizational genetics
view (e.g. McKelvey 1982, McKelvey & Aldrich 1983, Nelson &
Winter 1982) focuses attention on characteristic traits of
organizations; this biew considers variations to be random events
arising from the ongoing exchanges of everyday activity. (b) An
environmental conditioning view (e.g. Stinchcombe 1965a,b, Brittain
& Freeman 1980, 1986, Hannan & Freeman 1989, Romanelli 1989a,
Aldrich & Waldinger 1990) emphasizes that environments are more or
less conducive to organizational form variations and constraining of
the types of variations that can be invented. (c) Finally, an emergent
social systems view (e.g. Van de Ven & Garud 1989, Rappa 1989)
considers organizational form variations to be the products of embedded
social-organizational interactions. Research implications of each
perspective are discussed along the way. I conclude with an argument
that these many different emerging theories on the evolution of new
organization forms are themes are themselves part and parcel of a new
organizational theory.(pp.81)
いわゆるMarch系というやつっぽいorganizational genetics viewのNelson & Winterの説明．
As the basis of their theory of organizational evolution,
Nelson & Winter distinguished among three classes of routines: (a)
routines, called operating characteristics, that govern organizational
decisions and behaviors given a particular stock of resources; (b)
routines that augment or diminish the stock or resources in response to
change in the state of the organizaiton (e.g. growth,
increased/decreased profitability) or the environment; and (c) search
routines, including the organization's own R&D and its
investigation of what other firms are doing, that can modify various
aspects of teh operating characteristics. The particular search
routines of an organization constrain, in a probabilistic sense, what
is likely to be found. The organization will alter its operating
characteristics or not according to the firm's criteria for evaluating
new alternatives. These variations will then be subject to processes of
natural selection. At any given point, organizations will present for
selection a broad array of routines, some long-established and some
recently innovated. Those organizaitons whose routines are relatively
better fit for coping with environmental conditions will thrive; other
organizations will either imitate the more successful routines (i.e.
their search routines will discover them, and the firms' evaluation
criteria will permit adoption of the new routines), or they will
decline.
(pp.85-86)
organizational genetics viewのメリット．
There are at least two important practical implications of
these process theories of random variation. First, biological analogies
for the evolution of organizational forms are conceptually attractive
because they offer so complete a view of the processes of evolution. If
we could identify these characteristic organizational routines or
competence elements, we could more accurately and unambiguously
classify firms according to their similarities and differences. With
respect to variation, we would be able to tell more clearly when one
had occurred. Since routines and competencies are also the
characteristics of organizations that change when an organization is
involoved in the evolution of an organizational form, we might be able
to track the variation process itself.
(pp.86-87)
Posted by ysk5 at January 13, 2005 10:04 AM