Organizational Module Design and Architectural Inertia: Evidence from Structural Recombination of Business Divisions

References

• Albert D, Kreutzer M, Lechner C (2015) Resolving the paradox of interdependency and strategic renewal in activity systems. Acad. Management Rev. 40(2):210–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison PD (2014) Event History and Survival Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS (1995) Technology strategy, governance structure and interdivisional coordination. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 28(3):337–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Astley WG, Zajac EJ (1991) Intraorganizational power and organizational design: Reconciling rational and coalitional models of organization. Organ. Sci. 2(4):399–411.Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JAC, Singh JV (1994) Organizational hierarchies and evolutionary processes: Some reflections on a theory of organizational evolution. Baum JAC, Singh JV, eds. Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations (Oxford University Press, New York), 3–20.Google Scholar
• Bidwell MJ (2012) Politics and firm boundaries: How organizational structure, group interests, and resources affect outsourcing. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1622–1642.Link, Google Scholar
• Binham C, Dunkley E (2015) Banks win fresh concession on ringfencing rules. Financial Times (October 15), https://www.ft.com/content/f977bb5e-7351-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc.Google Scholar
• Bouquet C, Birkinshaw J (2008) Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. J. Management 34(3):477–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brusoni S, Prencipe A, Pavitt K (2001) Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(4):597–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA (1983) A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28(2):223–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carbó Valverde S, Rodríguez Fernández F (2007) The determinants of bank margins in European banking. J. Bank Finance 31(7):2043–2063.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR, Hannan MT (2000) The Demography of Corporations and Industries (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler AD (1962) Strategy and Structure (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Cleves M, Gould W, Gutierrez RG, Marchenko YV (2010) An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, 3rd ed. (Stata Press, College Station, TX).Google Scholar
• Cox DR (1975) Partial likelihood. Biometrika 62(2):269–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap Methods and Their Application (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeYoung R, Torna G (2013) Nontraditional banking activities and bank failures during the financial crisis. J. Financial Intermed. 22(3):397–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Brown SL (1999) Patching: Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Bus. Rev. 77(3):72–82.Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Zbaracki MJ (1992) Strategic decision making. Strategic Management J. 13(S2):17–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ernst & Young (2009) IFRS 8 Operating Segments Implementation Guidance. Standard, Ernst & Young Global Limited, London.Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004a) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004b) Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(3):404–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S (1992) Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Management J. 35(3):505–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Sorenson O (2001) Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Res. Policy 30(7):1019–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaba V, Joseph J (2013) Corporate structure and performance feedback: Aspirations and adaptation in M-form firms. Organ. Sci. 24(4):1102–1119.Link, Google Scholar
• Galbraith J (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR (1974) Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR, Lawler EE (1993) Organizing for the Future (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1229–1249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Greve HR, Levinthal DA, Ocasio W (2012) The behavioral theory of the firm: assessment and prospects. Acad. Management Ann. 6(1):1–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource vs. routine rigidity. Acad. Management J. 48(5):741–763.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Girod SJG, Whittington R (2015) Change escalation processes and complex adaptive systems: From incremental reconfigurations to discontinuous restructuring. Organ. Sci. 26(5):1520–1535.Link, Google Scholar
• Gresov C, Stephens C (1993) The context of interunit influence attempts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(2):252–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guadalupe M, Li H, Wulf J (2013) Who lives in the C-suite? Organizational structure and the division of labor in top management. Management Sci. 60(4):824–844.Link, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ. Sci. 20(2):422–440.Link, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Management Rev. 9(2):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Eisenhardt KM (2004) Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management J. 25(13):1217–1232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
• Jackson SE, Dutton JE (1988) Discerning threats and opportunities. Admin. Sci. Quart. 33(3):370–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joseph J, Ocasio W (2012) Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: General Electric from 1951 to 2001. Strategic Management J. 33(6):633–660.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karim S (2006) Modularity in organizational structure: The reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management J. 27(9):799–823.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karim S (2012) Exploring structural embeddedness of product market activities and resources within business units. Strategic Organ. 10(4):333–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karim S, Kaul A (2015) Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking intraorganizational knowledge synergy through structural change. Organ. Sci. 26(2):439–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Kauffman SA (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Lachman R (1989) Power from what? A reexamination of its relationships with structural conditions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 34(2):231–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 12(1):1–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(Winter):95–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacDuffie JP (2013) Modularity-as-property, modularization-as-process, and “modularity”-as-frame: Lessons from product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy J. 3(1):8–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Menz M (2012) Functional top management team members: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Management 38(1):45–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1995) Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational-change in manufacturing. J. Accounting Econom. 19(2–3):179–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller D, Friesen PH (1984) Organizations: A Quantum View (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1979) The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of Research (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Pettigrew AM (1973) The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making (Tavistock, London).Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1981) Power in Organizations (Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA).Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1992) Managing with Power (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1974) Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Admin. Sci. Quart. 19(2):135–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(6):61–78.Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Raveendran M, Knudsen T (2012) Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):419–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raveendran M, Puranam P, Warglien M (2015) Object salience in the division of labor: Experimental evidence. Management Sci. 62(7):2110–2128.Link, Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Sci. 49(3):290–311.Link, Google Scholar
• Romanelli E, Tushman ML (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Acad. Management J. 37(5):1141–1166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):63–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Steensma HK (2001) The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1149–1168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N (2001) Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. Acad Management J. 44(4):838–857.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N (2002) Evolution toward fit. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(1):125–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ. Sci. 14(6):650–669.Link, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 106(6):467–482.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1987) Bounded rationality. Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P, eds. The New Palgrave: Utility and Probability (Macmillan, London), 15–18.Google Scholar
• Stern I, Henderson AD (2004) Within‐business diversification in technology‐intensive industries. Strategic Management J. 25(5):487–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Tushman ML (1977) A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale. Acad Management Rev. 2(2):206–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villalonga B (2004) Diversification discount or premium? New evidence from the business information tracking series. J. Finance 59(2):479–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Admin. Sci. Quart. 21(1):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Zhou YM (2013) Designing for complexity: Using divisions and hierarchy to manage complex tasks. Organ. Sci. 339–355.Link, Google Scholar