This week, in exploring the USC Libraries a little more, I
decided to give the academic article option a try. In the article “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive
Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration,” Robert M.
Grant explores what is needed for a company to be competitive. Grant believes
that for a company to be competitive, it must rely on knowledge. He claims that
this knowledge is a resource for a company and that “resources and
organizational capabilities are the principal source of sustainable competitive
advantage” (Grant, 1996. P. 375)
While Grant’s article does shed light on important elements
of a competitive organization, it overlooks another big element—organizational
structure. Organizational structure is a huge aspect regarding the success—and
ultimately the competitiveness—of a company. In this week’s reading, Daft
demonstrates the vital role of organizational structure in the article
“Fundamentals of Organizational Structure.”
Daft summarized the various structures used in businesses
and gave examples of their implementation. It seemed obvious to me that having
the right organizational structure leads to the success of a company. The
examples used—from Ford Motor Company to Blue Bell Creameries, Inc.—clearly demonstrated
the various structures and showed how changing markets called for changes in
company organization. Functional, divisional, hybrid, matrix: all of these organizational structures have different benefits and challenges for organizations. Daft's article did a great job of demonstrating how each of these structures could be utilized.
Perhaps Grant took this information on organizational
structure for granted, but after reading Daft’s article, it is clear that
having the right structure is vital for a company to survive and be
competitive. I do agree that knowledge is important, but without the framework
to build an organization, no amount of individual knowledge would produce a
successful business.
References
Daft, R. (2007) "Fundamentals
of Organizational Structure." Organization Theory and Design
(9th ed.), pp. 88-125 (Chapter 3)
Grant, R. (1996) “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive
Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration.” Organization
Science. 7:4, pp.375-387
Megan,
ReplyDeleteIt does appear that having the right type of organizational structure is critical to success. I too found Draft's real world examples of Ford and Blue Dell Creameries quite fascinating. One thing you learn is that different companies needs require different solutions, or organizational structures for that matter.
I am curious a bit more about Grant's take on how vital knowledge is within an organization structure. You state in Grant (1996) that he advocates knowledge as a means of competitiveness. Do you feel he was dismissing organizational structure by omitting a detailed discussion of it within his article? I mention this because in this week's application assignment, I too selected an article regarding knowledge and organizational structure. However, in my article the author discusses using knowledge to improve organizational structure (Walczake, 2005). Of course, my article differs from yours. I would, however, encourage you to take a look at my assignment and compare the two. Just a thought.
Reference:
Walczak, S. (2005). Organizational knowledge management structure. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 330-339.
Thanks for your feedback Joshua.
DeleteI do feel that Grant dismissed the importance of organizational structure by not including it in his article. I feel that the article you read by Walczak (which incorporates organizational structure)makes more sense for an organization to be competitive. While knowledge is an important aspect for successful companies, using that knowledge to improve organizational structure is key.
Very interesting. Being able to effectively manage knowledge resources is definitely a critical organizational capability. Beyond the fact that Grant didn't mention structure, how might you link this article back to some of the readings done so far? For example, based on your description it seems like Grant was more focused on exploring the "process" and "strategy" dimension of Gailbraith's STAR model. Would you agree? Building on what Joshua said, what do you think the relationship is between an organization's ability to effectively leverage knowledge resources and the organizational structure?
ReplyDeleteI do think that Grant focused more on specific dimensions like "process" and "strategy" on his take of competitive organizations. While these are two important aspects of Gailbraith's STAR model, structure is also a key aspect of it. I feel that Grant placed very little weight on this. For the STAR model to really be successful, all "points" of the star must be equally present. Based on the STAR model, Grant puts too much emphasis on only two "points" of the star. I think the article Joshua read allows for a more effective relationship between knowledge resources and organizational structure. Using this resource to improve structure would strengthen the organization.
ReplyDelete