Managers’ Interactions and Their Effect on Productivity: A Case Study on a Product-Design Organization

  • Norihiko Moriwaki
  • Dai Senoo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 185)


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.


F-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. 1.
    Mintzberg, H.: Crafting strategy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 65, 66–75 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B.: The Strategy Process, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G., Hornsby, J.S.: A model of middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theor. Pract. 29, 699–716 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S.A., Hennessey, H.W.: What do successful managers really do? An observation study of managerial activities. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 21, 255–270 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nonaka, I.: A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5, 14–37 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Floyd, S.W., Wooldridge, B.: Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance. J. Manage. Stud. 34, 465–485 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O’Neill, R.M., Hayes, E., Wierba, E.E.: Reading the wind: how middle managers assess the contest for selling issues to top managers. Strateg. Manage. J. 18, 407–425 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simons, R.: Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 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. 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. 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. 12.
    Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior. The Free Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galbraith, J.R.: Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces 4, 28–36 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    March, J.G., Simon, H.A.: Organizations. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar, J.A., Ganesh, L.S.: Balancing knowledge strategy: codification and personalization during product development. J. Knowl. Manage. 15, 118–135 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forrester, J.W.: Principles of Systems, 2nd edn. Productivity Press, Portland (1968)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sterman, J.D.: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, D.H.: Systems Archetypes at a Glance, The Systems Thinker, vol. 3. Pegasus Communications, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Research LaboratoryHitachi Ltd.TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations