Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Organizational Configurations: Cohesion, Change, and Prediction

Danny Miller

University of Montreal

Recent studies have argued that the variety of organizational forms is limited and that certain common organizational configurations-alignments among strategy, structure and environment-occur with remarkable frequency and account-for a very significant fraction of organizations. This has been demonstrated empirically. The purpose of this paper is to probe into the cohesion, dynamics, and predictive implications of configurations. Ten propositions are derived by analyzing some representative configurations. It is proposed that the constrained variety and cohesion of configurations are caused by the interdependent, robust, cyclical, and reciprocal relationships among their parts. It is also argued that configurations vary in their first-order changes, but that all resist second-order changes, that is, changes in the direction of evolution. This makes them prone to long periods of momentum punctuated by brief periods of revolution. Finally, configurations are shown to vary in their internal relationships so that classification must precede prediction in organizational analysis. This suggests a middle range approach to paradigm development.

Human Relations, Vol. 43, No. 8, 771-789 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/001872679004300805
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organization ScienceHome page
H. Barki and A. Pinsonneault
A Model of Organizational Integration, Implementation Effort, and Performance
Organization Science, March 1, 2005; 16(2): 165 - 179.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organization StudiesHome page
V. Kisfalvi
The Threat of Failure, the Perils of Success and CEO Character: Sources of Strategic Persistence
Organization Studies, May 1, 2000; 21(3): 611 - 639.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
D. W. Roach and D. A. Bednar
The Theory of Logical Types: A Tool for Understanding Levels and types of Change in Organizations
Human Relations, June 1, 1997; 50(6): 671 - 699.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Management InquiryHome page
D. Miller, R. Greenwood, and B. Hinings
Creative Chaos versus Munificent Momentum: The Schism between Normative and Academic Views of Organizational Change
Journal of Management Inquiry, March 1, 1997; 6(1): 71 - 78.


Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
D. Miller
A Preliminary Typology of Organizational Learning: Synthesizing the Literature
Journal of Management, June 1, 1996; 22(3): 485 - 505.
[Abstract] [PDF]