Managers’ Interactions and Their Effect on Productivity: A Case Study on a Product-Design Organization
A new methodology for assessing managers’ face-to-face (F-to-F) interactions in a hierarchical organization is proposed, and its effect on productivity was tested. On the basis of the proposed methodology, the centrality of F-to-F interactions across hierarchical layers in an organization is calculated. Unlike the traditional survey method, the F-to-F interaction is automatically captured from socio-metric sensors. An empirical test at two product-design organizations demonstrated that the high-productivity organization has the proposed F-to-F centrality in the middle layer, whereas the low-productivity organization has the centrality in the top layer. By clarifying the whole KM process of the target organizations through document update histories, field observations, and interviews, it was found that the autonomous task execution in the lower layers and the future strategy planning in the top layers are the underlying behavioral cause producing F-to-F centrality in the middle layer. The proposed methodology is thus a suitable index for assessing managers’ behaviors that increase productivity and sustainability.
KeywordsF-to-F interaction Socio-metric sensors Product-design organization Behavioral index F-to-F interaction centrality KM process
We would like to thank members of the SocioInfo Project, led by Hitachi High-Technologies and Hitachi Central Research Laboratory, for their helpful comments and technical support.
- 1.Mintzberg, H.: Crafting strategy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 65, 66–75 (1997)Google Scholar
- 2.Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B.: The Strategy Process, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
- 8.Simons, R.: Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1999)Google Scholar
- 9.Wakisaka, Y, Ara, K, Hayakawa, M, Horry, Y, Moriwaki, N, Ohkubo, N, Sato, N, Tsuji, S., Yano, K.: Beam-scan sensor node: reliable sensing of human interactions in organization. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Sensing Systems, Pittsburgh, USA, June 2009Google Scholar
- 10.Moriwaki, N., Nomura, K., Senoo, D.: A behavior-based approach for analyzing knowledge-process dynamics. J. Serv. Sci. Manage. 6, 160–169 (2013)Google Scholar
- 11.Hinds, R., Aronson, J.: Developing the requisite organizational, attitudinal, and behavioral conditions for effective knowledge management: a review of current research. In: Proceedings of the 8th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, USA, August 2002Google Scholar
- 12.Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior. The Free Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
- 14.March, J.G., Simon, H.A.: Organizations. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
- 16.Forrester, J.W.: Principles of Systems, 2nd edn. Productivity Press, Portland (1968)Google Scholar
- 17.Sterman, J.D.: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
- 18.Kim, D.H.: Systems Archetypes at a Glance, The Systems Thinker, vol. 3. Pegasus Communications, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar