Proposed Factors Influencing Strategic Inertia/strategic Renewal in Organizations

Abstract

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND PROPOSITIONS The model containing factors that we propose influence strategic inertia/strategic renewal in organizations is presented in Figure 1. In the next several sections of this paper, we define the concepts comprising the model and discuss theory associated with each. We then set forth propositions derived from the discussions. As indicated by P1 in the model, the relationship between the organizational of successful strategic renewal/diminished strategic inertia and middle management's commitment to this is our lead discussion. To facilitate this lead-in discussion, we define middle management as those positioned two or three levels below the CEO (Dutton & Ashford, 1993) and one level above the operating level (Huy, 2001). We define top management as the individual(s) whose actions and behaviors are the ultimate source of strategic inertia or strategic renewal in organizations (cf. Hambrick & Mason, 1984). We also note that the of successful strategic renewal is achieved when organizations have recombined their resources in such a way that they are in an improved position vis-a-vis their competitors (Burgleman, 1991; Ramirez & Wallin, 2000), and the of diminished strategic inertia is achieved when the rate of organizational change is in balance with the rate of environmental change (cf. Blettner, 2008; Hodgkinson & Wright, 2002; Gresov, Haveman & Oliva, 1993; Huff, et al. 1992). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Commitment Factor Exchange theory (March & Simon, 1958; Homans, 1958; Gouldner, 1960) is used in this paper as the theoretical foundation for middle management commitment. Within the context of organizations, a conclusion one might draw from this theory is that middle management's commitment to organizations depend on their perceived balance of reward utilities over input utilities. In other words, if middle managers perceive that there is a balance between their job performance and the rewards they receive for their job performance, the greater should be their commitment to the organization (cf. Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). Job satisfaction is concerned with the current balance of reward and input utilities, and is viewed as a main exchange variable (cf. Amernic & Aranya, 1983). Job challenge, as a component of job satisfaction, has been used to assess the current balance of reward and input utilities. The component of job challenge that is most relevant to our exploration is creating change, with individuals having a clear to change a situation, but a loosely defined role that gives them the freedom to determine how to accomplish the (cf. McCall, Lombardo & Morrison, 1988; McCauley, Ohlott & Ruderman, 1994; McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott & Morrow, 1999). Over the years, various definitions of commitment have derived from exchange theory. For example, managerial commitment has been defined as engaging in and maintaining behaviors that help others achieve a goal (Cooper, 2006). Similarly, organizational commitment has been defined as a strong belief in and acceptance of organizational goals (Porter, Steers & Mowday (1974). A component of this definition that is relevant to our exploration views a committed individual as one who also possesses a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and engages in and maintains the type of behaviors that help organizations achieve their goals. Drawing on these definitions, and for purposes of this paper, we define middle management commitment as a willingness to engage in and maintain the types of behaviors that help organizations to achieve the desired of successful strategic renewal/diminished strategic inertia. Achieving the of diminished strategic inertia may require organizations to undergo significant change to achieve the of strategic renewal (Floyd & Lane, 2000), and change management is viewed as being an integral, inescapable part of middle management's role in organizations (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.