Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some have to, and some want to: Why firms adopt a post-industrial form

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A number of organizational scholars have suggested that to compete in a “post-industrial” world firms must adopt specific structures and approaches to managing. In this article, we explore the why of post-industrial forms, as opposed to the what. Often work in this literature speaks as though in the future only a post-industrial form will allow firms to compete successfully. We argue instead that adoption of a post-industrial form is a contingency: some firms have to operate in this fashion, some firms may want to, and some firms never will adopt a post-industrial form. Based on Thompson’s (Organizations in action, Transaction, New Brunswick, 1967) conception of production processes, we suggest factors that, if present, require firms to be post-industrial as well as strategies that make them want to adopt this relatively new form.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for helping us develop this point.

  2. The authors would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for articulating this point.

References

  • Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8(3), 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achrol, R. S. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent environments. The Journal of Marketing, 55, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A. (2011). Post-Fordism: Models, fantasies and phantoms of transition. In A. Amin (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A reader (pp. 1–40). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10, 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragon-Sanchez, A., & Sanchez-Marin, G. (2005). Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and performance: A study of Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 43, 287–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press. (2010). P&G open to outside ideas, but no kitty swiffers. www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/01/business/AP-US-PG-Idea-Mill.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=innocentive&st=cse. Retrieved January 13, 2010.

  • Beans, M. (2009). Investigating modular organizations. Journal of Management & Governance, 13 (3), 163–192.

  • Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. (1983). A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8, 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). The era of open innovation. In D. Mayle (Ed.), Managing innovation and change (pp. 34–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croatia, A-M., & Bergeron, F. (2001). An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 10(2), 77–99.

  • D’Aveni, R., Bagnino, G., & Smith, K. (2010). The age of temporary advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1371–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories of new organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4(4), i–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G., Diekmann, K., & Tinsley, C. (1994). The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: The deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. American Sociological Review, 59(4), 547–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), The handbook of organization studies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., Qiu, J., & Luo, B. (2013). For rigour in organizational management theory research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Brown, S. (1998). Competing on the edge of chaos. Long Range Planning, 31, 786–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations (2d ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (2000). Building strategy from the middle: Reconceptualizing strategy process. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R., & Bowen, D. (2008). A service-dominant logic for management education: It’s time. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 224–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1973). Organization design: An information processing view. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Sanchez, J., Mesquita, L. F., & Vassolo, R. S. (2013). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: The evolution of competition and entry-order advantages in economically turbulent contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 1972–1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, R. (2004). Share of wallet’s role in customer profitability. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 8, 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershuny, J. I. (1977). Post-industrial society: The myth of the service economy. Futures, 9, 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golnam, A., Ritala, P., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition within and between value networks—A typology and a modelling framework. International Journal of Business Environment, 6(1), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Whetten, D. (2014). Rethinking institutions and organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 1206–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., deLeon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Karim, S. (2014). Fit between organization design and organizational routines. Journal of Organization Design, 3(2), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoetker, G. (2006). Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic Management Journal, 27, 501–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 420–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. (1984). The nature and design of post-industrial organizations. Management Science, 30, 928–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W., & Hatten, K. (1995). Further evidence on the validity of the self typing paragraph approach: Miles and Snow strategic archetypes in banking. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansson, J. O. (2009). The myth of the service economy—An update. Futures, 41, 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 995–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajili, K., & Mahoney, J. T. (2006). Revisiting agency and transaction costs theory predictions on vertical financial ownership and contracting: Electronic integration as an organizational form choice. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(7), 573–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & Warglien, M. (1999). Landscape design: Designing for local action in complex worlds. Organization Science, 10(3), 342–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. (1999). Application of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10, 215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowendahl, B., & Revang, O. (1998). Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattar, Y. (2008). Post-industrialism and silicon valley as models of industrial governance in Australian public policy. Telematics and Informatics, 25(4), 246–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. (2006). Beyond contingency: From structure to structuring in the design of contemporary organization. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8, 352–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. (2006). Are we living in a post-bureaucratic epoch? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19, 22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlino, J. P., Petit, J., Weisser, L., & Bowen, J. (2015). Leading with lean: Getting the outcomes we need with the funding we have. Psychiatric Quarterly, 86(3), 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C., & Gauthier, J. (2013). Navigating challenging fitness landscapes: Social entrepreneurship and the competing dimensions of sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C., Skaggs, B., Nair, S., & Cohen, D. (2015). Customer interaction uncertainty, knowledge, and service firm internationalization. Journal of International Management, 21(3), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C., Skaggs, B., & Youndt, M. (2014). Developing and deploying organizational capital in services vs. manufacturing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 26(4), 326–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1990). Organizations: New concepts for new forms. In A. Boynton, & R. Zmud (Eds.), Management information systems: Readings and cases: A managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

  • Mills, P. (1986). Managing service industries: Organizational practices in a postindustrial economy. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (2005). Towards a confirmatory model of retail strategy types: An empirical test of Miles and Snow. Journal of Business Research, 58, 696–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, P. (1993). Stock market reactions to related diversification moves by service firms seeking benefits from information asymmetry and economies of scope. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Normann, R. (1984). Service management: Strategy and leadership in service businesses. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penty, A. J. (1918). Old worlds for new: A study of the post-industrial state. New South Wales: G. Allen and Unwin Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

  • Riolli-Saltzman, L., & Luthans, F. (1993). After the bubble burst: How small high-tech firms can keep in front of the wave. The Academy of Management Executive, 15, 114–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomone, P. R. (1993). Trade secrets for crafting a conceptual article. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R. (2005). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherpereel, C. M. (2008). The option-creating institution: A real options perspective on economic organization. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 455–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmenner, R. W. (1986). How can service businesses survive and prosper? Sloan Management Review, 27, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaggs, B., & Huffman, T. (2003). A customer interaction approach to strategy and production complexity alignment in service firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 775–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Olson, E. M. (2010). Factors influencing the relative importance of marketing strategy creativity and marketing strategy implementation effectiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 724–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1937). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996a). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: Three concepts in search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996b). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stabell, C. B., & Fjeldstad, Ø. D. (1998). Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 413–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, M., & Youndt, M. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tansik, D. A. (1990). Balance in service systems design. Journal of Business Research, 20, 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). Dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. (1996). The two faces of competition: Dynamic resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive shift. Organization Science, 7, 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. K. (2000). Using data exploration to help marketers: How internet sites can learn from telephone companies. The Journal of Database Marketing, 8, 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). Organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H., & Romanelli, E. (1986). Convergence and upheaval: Managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kamp, P. (2014). Holacracy—A radical approach to organizational design. In H. Dekkers, W. Leeuwis, & I. Plantevin (Eds.), Elements of the software design process—Influences on project success and failure. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Ganco, M., & Hinings, C. (2013). Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 393–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermerwe, S., & Rada, J. (1989). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management Journal, 6, 314–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, B., & Stephens, C. (1994). The dark side of the new organizational forms: An editorial essay. Organization Science, 5, 479–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1985). Assessing contract. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 1, 177–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. J., & Taylor, S. L. (1996). The role of IT in the transformation of work: A comparison of post-industrial, industrial, and proto-industrial organization. Information Systems Research, 7, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. (2002). Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1123–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Hong, P., & Modi, S. (2011). Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 129(2), 251–261.

  • Youndt, M., & Snell, S. (2004). Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 337–360.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University, 45 Columbus Ave., New York, NY, USA

    Chris R. Meyer

  2. Department of Management and Business, Skidmore College, 815 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY, 12866, USA

    David G. Cohen

  3. Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada

    Sudhir Nair

Authors
  1. Chris R. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David G. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sudhir Nair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris R. Meyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meyer, C.R., Cohen, D.G. & Nair, S. Some have to, and some want to: Why firms adopt a post-industrial form. J Manag Gov 21, 533–559 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9353-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9353-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation