2021年1月23日发(作者：轻盈)
The Use of Organizational Culture and Structure to Guide Strategic Behavior:
An Information Processing Perspective
John W. O'Neill
Johnson & Wales University
Laura L. Beauvais
University of Rhode Island
Richard W. Scholl
University of Rhode Island

ABSTRACT

This article presents a descriptive model explaining the roles and relationships of
organizational culture and organizational structure in guiding employee behavior
toward strategic objectives.
Using an information-processing view, we propose that
organizational culture and structure direct the behavior of employees through the
reduction of uncertainty and equivocality.
Furthermore, we propose that differing
levels of both cultural and structural influences are implemented in different
organizational types based on the level of skill, originality, and training required of
the tasks being performed by members of the organization, and based on the
geographical dispersion of the employees themselves.
We present the concept of the
“cosmopolis,” which is an
organization rich in both cultural and structural
elements.
Implications for both research and managerial practice are discussed.

Introduction

Individuals arrive at organizations with variant motivations, experiences, and
values.
These natural individual differences tend to direct behavior in numerous,
often divergent directions.
If an organization is to direct behavior toward the
accomplishment of a strategic mission, and is to present itself to stakeholders as a
unified form, mechanisms must be created for reducing this variability among
individuals and focusing employee efforts on the accomplishment of strategic goals.

Organizational structure has long been described as a mechanism through which
effort is integrated through the coordination and control of activities
(Child, 1977;
Weber, 1946; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979), and symbolic management,
or the management of organizational culture, has more recently been described as
a
mechanism that directs behavior through shared values, norms, and goals (Pfeffer,
1981; Louis 1985; Schein, 1985; Weick, 1987; Denison, 1990; Chatman & Jehn,
1994).
However, each mechanism is unique in its impact on individual behavior, and
therefore, the effects of each should be analyzed separately and then synthesized for a
deeper understanding of the functional roles of structural and cultural forces in the
workplace.

We believe that a model clarifying the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational structure in directing employee effort toward strategic goals is
needed.
In developing such a model to synthesize these two forces,
we will take the
perspective that organizations are essentially information processing entities that
develop different mechanisms in attempts to reduce uncertainty and equivocality in
achieving effectiveness (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973; Knight & McDaniel,
1979).
Effectiveness is obtained when employees enact behaviors in a consistent
manner to achieve strategic goals of the firm.
Uncertainty exists when there is a gap
between the amount of information possessed and that which is required to perform a
task (Galbraith, 1977), while equivocality means that there is ambiguity, confusion, or
poor understanding about a situation of which there may exist multiple and conflicting
interpretations (Weick, 1979).
The primary question that this article attempts to
answer is:
Under what conditions are culture, structure, both, or neither effective
mechanisms for managing information requirements of the organization and directing
employee behavior toward accomplishing strategic goals?
Specifically, the reasons
that such a model is needed are:

1)
A unified typology of organizations describing their impact on the control of
behavior based on cultural and structural mechanisms is needed.
While various
organization types have been identified and defined, among them mechanistic,
organic (Burns & Stalker, 1961), bureaucracy, machine bureaucracy, professional
bureaucracy, adhocracy, divisionalized form (Mintzberg, 1979), clan (Wilkins &
Ouchi, 1983), and network organizations (Quinn, Anderson, & Finkelstein, 1996), a
comprehensive model is needed to present a range of fundamental organization types,
with each type being a point on a multidimensional scale, but which clearly portrays
the

2)
Existing organizational typology models do not adequately describe how
many of today’s organizations that are increasingly geographically dispersed, due to
technological advances such as wide area networks (WANs), internet, and wireless
communication, manage information demands and
control strategic behavior of
employees .

3)
Existing organizational typology models do not describe organizations, that
aside from being geographically dispersed, must employ individuals who are often
lacking in basic education and skills, and for whom most traditional training
techniques may be inadequate.
This source of uncertainty is increasingly
characteristic of many mass service organizations today.

We will discuss and differentiate organizational structure and organizational culture
as information processing mechanisms, and develop a model describing their roles in
reducing uncertainty and equivocality so that employees can successfully direct their
behaviors toward achieving organizational goals.
In the literature, task complexity
has been recognized as an important source of uncertainty and equivocality in
organizations (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973; Van de Ven, Delbecq, &
Koenig, 1976).
In addition, we propose that geographical dispersion of
organizational units increases informational requirements by augmenting the amount
of information needed to operate effectively in different global environments, and by
increasing the ambiguity of available information and the number of different
interpretations to which this information is subject.
Therefore, our model will
consider the information processing requirements of tasks as well as the dispersal of
this information across employees who must work interdependently to accomplish the
goals of the organization.

In developing our model, we will first discuss structure and culture as mechanisms for
managing information demands of organizations and directing employee
behavior.
Next, we will identify the conditions of task complexity and geographical
dispersion under which structural and cultural mechanisms are effective for reducing
uncertainty and equivocality.
Then, we will present our model which describes
different organizational types based on different combinations of structure and culture
that are required to manage information requirements presented by varying levels of
task complexity and geographical dispersion.
In addition, we will provide examples
of different organizations that illustrate these types.
Lastly, we will conclude by
considering some implications for future research and managerial practice.

Organizational Structure as an Information Processing and Behavioral Control
Mechanism

Three fundamental mechanisms for reducing variability and instability of social
systems were cited by Katz and Kahn (1966):
(1) environmental pressures or task
requirements in relation to needs, (2) shared values and expectations, and (3) rule
enforcement.
If we add centralization (i.e., a system where supervisors maintain
consistency via actually making all decisions or by auditing/controlling all
decision-making) to these three, four elemental control mechanisms result:

1)centralization (of decision making),
2)formalization (rule enforcement),
3)output control (acceptance of only adequate task outcomes), and

4)shared values and expectations.

The first three mechanisms encompass structural elements, and the fourth is
essentially culture, which will be discussed later.
Structure has been further
identified by Mintzberg (1979) as the standardization of: (1) work processes - where
the contents of the work are specified or programmed, (2) output - where the results
and dimensions of the work product are specified, and (3) skills - where the kinds of
training required to perform work are specified.
Along with standardization,
according to Mintzberg, direct supervision exists where one individual takes
responsibility for the work of others and monitors their performance.
For the purpose
of this article, organizational structure will be defined using elements of definitions
developed by Mintzberg, Burns and Stalker, and Katz and Kahn.
Structure is the
degree of: centralization of decision-making, formalization of rules, authority,
communication, and compensation, standardization of work processes and skills,
and/or control of output by acceptance of only adequate outcomes.

Organizations vary in the degree to which these mechanisms are used to control
behavior.
Specifically, Burns and Stalker (1961) distinguishe the mechanistic
organization from the organic one.
High use of the above devices represents a
formalized and conspicuous type of control and has been described as a mechanistic
process (Burns & Stalker, 1961). The mechanistic organization is hypothesized to be
suitable for situations of high stability.
In an information processing view,
mechanistic organizations are comprised mostly of task situations that process routine
information (i.e., that which is repetitive, changes slowly over time, fits into a clearly
recognizable pattern, and is easily understood) (Knight & McDaniel, 1979).
The
technology involved in converting inputs into outputs in such tasks is highly
analyzable and low in variety (Perrow, 1967).
Other characteristics of the
mechanistic organization include specialized differentiation of tasks where the
functionaries tend to pursue the technical improvement of their task, and are held
accountable for the task performance.
Employees tend to work with specific job
descriptions and fall into a formalized hierarchy of control, authority, and
communication, and the majority of communication occurs in a vertical format where
instructions and decisions are issued by the manager.
Long term membership in the
organization is secured by the employee by obedience to the manager and loyalty to
the concern, and greater prestige is attached to local (internal rather than external)
knowledge, experience, and skill.
Rules, regulations, and standard operating
procedures are appropriate for managing the low levels of uncertainty and
equivocality in mechanistic organizations (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Knight & McDaniel,
1979).
Therefore, in an information-processing view of organizations, mechanistic
structures are most appropriate for organizations in which task complexity is low (i.e.,
the extent to which tasks involve the processing of routine information and require a
low level of skill, limited originality, high repetition, high uniformity, and little
training among employees).

As task complexity increases, reliance on structural mechanisms to control behavior
may not always be sufficient.
Task uncertainty and information processing
requirements increase when tasks that individual employees must perform become
more complex and interdependence between individuals performing such tasks
increases (Galbraith, 1973).
Burns and Stalker (1961) describe organic
organizations as those that face dynamic conditions which constantly produce new
problems and unpredictable requirements for action.
In an information processing
view, organic organizations are comprised mostly of task situations that process
nonroutine information (i.e., that which lacks a pattern, has a high degree of
uncertainty, is unfamiliar, and is difficult to understand) (Knight & McDaniel,
1979).
The technology involved in converting inputs into outputs in such tasks is not
easily analyzable and high in variety (Perrow, 1967).
Organic organizations are
characterized by tasks that require special knowledge and experience, as well as