The Experts below are selected from a list of 72 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John P Looney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
AMCIS - Knowledge as a Contingency Factor in Virtual Organizations
2011Co-Authors: John P LooneyAbstract:Organizational research shows how mismatches between organizational design characteristics and Contingency Factors lead to lower performance. This research explores knowledge as a structural Contingency Factor in virtual organizations. Employing a computational organization model to generate theory driven experiments, the performance effects of different types of knowledge (i.e., tacit and explicit) interacting with organizational coordination mechanisms (e.g., direct supervision and mutual adjustment) in complex environments where multiple organizations rapidly develop reciprocal interdependencies is explored. Should managers understand how performance is affected by the interaction of knowledge types available and various coordination mechanisms? This research shows that a mutual adjustment coordination mechanism is most fit when teams are made up of people with a high level of tacit knowledge. There are interesting interaction effects across the different performance variables; hence, managers in virtual organizations faced with reciprocal interdependencies should apprise themselves of the knowledge types associated with interacting boundary spanning teams.
-
knowledge as a Contingency Factor in virtual organizations
Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2011Co-Authors: John P LooneyAbstract:Organizational research shows how mismatches between organizational design characteristics and Contingency Factors lead to lower performance. This research explores knowledge as a structural Contingency Factor in virtual organizations. Employing a computational organization model to generate theory driven experiments, the performance effects of different types of knowledge (i.e., tacit and explicit) interacting with organizational coordination mechanisms (e.g., direct supervision and mutual adjustment) in complex environments where multiple organizations rapidly develop reciprocal interdependencies is explored. Should managers understand how performance is affected by the interaction of knowledge types available and various coordination mechanisms? This research shows that a mutual adjustment coordination mechanism is most fit when teams are made up of people with a high level of tacit knowledge. There are interesting interaction effects across the different performance variables; hence, managers in virtual organizations faced with reciprocal interdependencies should apprise themselves of the knowledge types associated with interacting boundary spanning teams.
Joyce S. Osland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Contextualizing leadership: a typology of global leadership roles
Journal of International Business Studies, 2017Co-Authors: B. Sebastian Reiche, Allan Bird, Mark E. Mendenhall, Joyce S. OslandAbstract:Enquanto a literatura sobre liderança global tem crescido rapidamente nos últimos anos, o contexto no qual a liderança global ocorre permanece mal definido e sub-conceituado. Esta falta de contextualização corre o risco de equiparar papéis de liderança global que são qualitativamente muito diferentes, e impede clareza suficiente para amostragem empírica. Para fomentar trabalhos teóricos e empíricos mais coesos, desenvolvemos uma tipologia de papéis de liderança global que considera o contexto como um fator contingente crítico. A partir das teorias do papel e da complexidade da liderança, propomos quatro papéis de liderança global ideais-típicos (liderança global incremental, operacional, conjuntiva, e integrativa) que diferem na (1) complexidade da tarefa - caracterizando a variedade e fluxo dentro do contexto das tarefas e na (2) complexidade dos relacionamentos - refletindo os limites e as interdependências dentro do contexto do relacionamento. Nós ainda delineamos como essas demandas contextuais se relacionam com conjuntos de comportamentos específicos e com as ações que permitem que os líderes globais cumpram os requisitos de seus correspondentes papéis de liderança global típica-ideal. Nosso artigo conclui com uma discussão sobre as implicações que a tipologia apresenta para a pesquisa e a prática sobre liderança global, para a contextualização do construto liderança de forma mais ampla, e para o campo dos negócios internacionais. Alors que la littérature sur le leadership global a connu un développement rapide ces dernières années, le contexte dans lequel le leadership global se produit reste mal défini et sous-conceptualisé. Ce manque de contextualisation risque d’assimiler les rôles de leadership global qui sont qualitativement très différents et empêche d’avoir une vision précise des échantillonnages empiriques. Afin de favoriser des travaux théoriques et empiriques plus cohésifs, nous développons une typologie des rôles de leadership global qui considère le contexte comme un facteur critique de contingence. S’appuyant sur les théories relatives au rôle et à la complexité du leadership, nous proposons quatre rôles types de leadership (leadership global incrémental, opérationnel, conjonctif et intégratif) qui se distinguent par (1) la complexité de leur tâche – qui caractérise la variété et le flux au sein du contexte de la tâche -, (2) la complexité de leur relation – qui reflète les limites et les interdépendances au sein du contexte de la relation. Par ailleurs, nous déterminons comment ces exigences contextuelles sont liées à des ensembles spécifiques de comportements et d’actions qui permettent aux dirigeants globaux de satisfaire aux exigences correspondant à leurs rôles types de leadership global. Notre article se termine par une analyse des implications que présente la typologie pour la recherche et la pratique relatives au leadership global, plus largement pour la contextualisation de l’élaboration du leadership et pour le domaine du management international. Mientras que la literatura en liderazgo global ha crecido rápidamente en los años recientes, el contexto en el cual el liderazgo global ocurre permanece pobremente definido y sub-conceptualizado. Esta falta de contextualización arriesga a que sean igualados los roles de liderazgo global que son cualitativamente muy diferentes e impide tener una claridad suficiente para muestreos empíricos. Para promover una mayor cohesión teórica y trabajo empírico, desarrollamos una tipología de roles de liderazgo global que considera el contexto como un Factor de contingencia crítico. Basándose en las teorías de rol y complejidad en liderazgo, proponemos cuatro roles de liderazgo global ideales o típicos (liderazgo global incremental, operacional, conectivo, e integrativo) que se diferencian en su (1) complejidad de tarea – caracterizando la variedad y flujo dentro del contexto de la tarea; y (2) complejidad de relación – reflejando los limites e interdependencias en el contexto de la relación. Adicionalmente delimitamos como estas necesidades contextuales se relacionan con un conjunto específico de comportamientos y acciones que permiten a los líderes globales cumplir con los requerimientos de los roles ideales o típicos de liderazgo global. Nuestro artículo concluye con una discusión de las implicaciones que presenta la tipología para la investigación y práctica en liderazgo global, contextualización del constructo de liderazgo más ampliamente, y el campo de negocios internacionales. While the global leadership literature has grown rapidly over recent years, the context in which global leadership occurs remains ill-defined and under-conceptualized. This lack of contextualization risks equating global leadership roles that are qualitatively very different and prevents sufficient clarity for empirical sampling. To foster more cohesive theoretical and empirical work, we develop a typology of global leadership roles that considers context as a critical Contingency Factor. Drawing on role and complexity leadership theories, we propose four ideal–typical global leadership roles (incremental, operational, connective, and integrative global leadership) that differ in their (1) task complexity – characterizing the variety and flux within the task context, and (2) relationship complexity – reflecting the boundaries and interdependencies within the relationship context. We further delineate how these contextual demands relate to specific sets of behaviors and actions that allow global leaders to fulfill the requirements of their corresponding ideal–typical global leadership roles. Our article concludes with a discussion of implications the typology presents for global leadership research and practice, contextualization of the leadership construct more broadly, and the field of international business.
B. Sebastian Reiche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Contextualizing leadership: a typology of global leadership roles
Journal of International Business Studies, 2017Co-Authors: B. Sebastian Reiche, Allan Bird, Mark E. Mendenhall, Joyce S. OslandAbstract:Enquanto a literatura sobre liderança global tem crescido rapidamente nos últimos anos, o contexto no qual a liderança global ocorre permanece mal definido e sub-conceituado. Esta falta de contextualização corre o risco de equiparar papéis de liderança global que são qualitativamente muito diferentes, e impede clareza suficiente para amostragem empírica. Para fomentar trabalhos teóricos e empíricos mais coesos, desenvolvemos uma tipologia de papéis de liderança global que considera o contexto como um fator contingente crítico. A partir das teorias do papel e da complexidade da liderança, propomos quatro papéis de liderança global ideais-típicos (liderança global incremental, operacional, conjuntiva, e integrativa) que diferem na (1) complexidade da tarefa - caracterizando a variedade e fluxo dentro do contexto das tarefas e na (2) complexidade dos relacionamentos - refletindo os limites e as interdependências dentro do contexto do relacionamento. Nós ainda delineamos como essas demandas contextuais se relacionam com conjuntos de comportamentos específicos e com as ações que permitem que os líderes globais cumpram os requisitos de seus correspondentes papéis de liderança global típica-ideal. Nosso artigo conclui com uma discussão sobre as implicações que a tipologia apresenta para a pesquisa e a prática sobre liderança global, para a contextualização do construto liderança de forma mais ampla, e para o campo dos negócios internacionais. Alors que la littérature sur le leadership global a connu un développement rapide ces dernières années, le contexte dans lequel le leadership global se produit reste mal défini et sous-conceptualisé. Ce manque de contextualisation risque d’assimiler les rôles de leadership global qui sont qualitativement très différents et empêche d’avoir une vision précise des échantillonnages empiriques. Afin de favoriser des travaux théoriques et empiriques plus cohésifs, nous développons une typologie des rôles de leadership global qui considère le contexte comme un facteur critique de contingence. S’appuyant sur les théories relatives au rôle et à la complexité du leadership, nous proposons quatre rôles types de leadership (leadership global incrémental, opérationnel, conjonctif et intégratif) qui se distinguent par (1) la complexité de leur tâche – qui caractérise la variété et le flux au sein du contexte de la tâche -, (2) la complexité de leur relation – qui reflète les limites et les interdépendances au sein du contexte de la relation. Par ailleurs, nous déterminons comment ces exigences contextuelles sont liées à des ensembles spécifiques de comportements et d’actions qui permettent aux dirigeants globaux de satisfaire aux exigences correspondant à leurs rôles types de leadership global. Notre article se termine par une analyse des implications que présente la typologie pour la recherche et la pratique relatives au leadership global, plus largement pour la contextualisation de l’élaboration du leadership et pour le domaine du management international. Mientras que la literatura en liderazgo global ha crecido rápidamente en los años recientes, el contexto en el cual el liderazgo global ocurre permanece pobremente definido y sub-conceptualizado. Esta falta de contextualización arriesga a que sean igualados los roles de liderazgo global que son cualitativamente muy diferentes e impide tener una claridad suficiente para muestreos empíricos. Para promover una mayor cohesión teórica y trabajo empírico, desarrollamos una tipología de roles de liderazgo global que considera el contexto como un Factor de contingencia crítico. Basándose en las teorías de rol y complejidad en liderazgo, proponemos cuatro roles de liderazgo global ideales o típicos (liderazgo global incremental, operacional, conectivo, e integrativo) que se diferencian en su (1) complejidad de tarea – caracterizando la variedad y flujo dentro del contexto de la tarea; y (2) complejidad de relación – reflejando los limites e interdependencias en el contexto de la relación. Adicionalmente delimitamos como estas necesidades contextuales se relacionan con un conjunto específico de comportamientos y acciones que permiten a los líderes globales cumplir con los requerimientos de los roles ideales o típicos de liderazgo global. Nuestro artículo concluye con una discusión de las implicaciones que presenta la tipología para la investigación y práctica en liderazgo global, contextualización del constructo de liderazgo más ampliamente, y el campo de negocios internacionales. While the global leadership literature has grown rapidly over recent years, the context in which global leadership occurs remains ill-defined and under-conceptualized. This lack of contextualization risks equating global leadership roles that are qualitatively very different and prevents sufficient clarity for empirical sampling. To foster more cohesive theoretical and empirical work, we develop a typology of global leadership roles that considers context as a critical Contingency Factor. Drawing on role and complexity leadership theories, we propose four ideal–typical global leadership roles (incremental, operational, connective, and integrative global leadership) that differ in their (1) task complexity – characterizing the variety and flux within the task context, and (2) relationship complexity – reflecting the boundaries and interdependencies within the relationship context. We further delineate how these contextual demands relate to specific sets of behaviors and actions that allow global leaders to fulfill the requirements of their corresponding ideal–typical global leadership roles. Our article concludes with a discussion of implications the typology presents for global leadership research and practice, contextualization of the leadership construct more broadly, and the field of international business.
Stewart Clegg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Architecture of Complexity
Culture and Organization, 2003Co-Authors: Martin Kornberger, Stewart CleggAbstract:What is the Contingency Factor here? Integration - according to Simon, to study organizations means to study coordination
Cut Arifah - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Organizational Structure of Bank Indonesia: Influences of Contingency Factors on Organizational Structure of Monetary Sector of Bank Indonesia
2020Co-Authors: Cut ArifahAbstract:This study deals with influences of Contingency Factors on organizational structure of monetary sector of Bank Indonesia. The researcher believes that there is no one best organizational structure. Every organization has its own condition which can influence the structure for the organization itself. Therefore, organization needs to identify these Factors and determine which of these Factors has the most influence in order to develop a suitable structure for the organization. The researcher took Bank Indonesia and focus on monetary sector as object of research because among other sectors this sector produce and perform the main products of Bank Indonesia-that is monetary policy and monetary policy implementation. The researcher analyzed five Factors which are believed have high influences on how organization should consider in developing a suitable organizational structure. These Factors were: size, technology, environment, strategy, and power. Objective of this study are to identify causes of current problems which occur along the business process of monetary sector, and related the problem to how each Contingency Factor affected organizational structure of monetary sector. Focus of this study is on coordinating mechanism among units involves in producing main outputs of monetary sector. The researcher found that some problems along the business process of monetary sector were related to the organizational structure of monetary sector. It was also found that one or some Contingency Factors have affected on how coordinating mechanism should be developed among units or business process players. These findings illustrated that the influences of Contingency Factors has not been well considered on current organizational structure of monetary sector.