High Performance Organization the Intent

High Performance Organization

The intent of this analysis is to evaluate the peer-reviewed article Bureaucracy vs. high performance: Work reorganization in the 1990s (Yang, 2008) including a description of the issues being studied, definition of the research questions, description of theories used, hypotheses, research design and short summary of findings.

Description of Issues Studied

The objective of this study is to evaluate the components of bureaucratic vs. high performance work systems, specifically focusing on the factors of degree of workplace formalization, level of hierarchy, number of departmentalization as the bureaucratic factors. The high performance factors included in the analysis include teamwork, skill enhancements and job autonomy. Additional high performance factors include innovative pay structures that were initially believed to be part of high performance work systems yet throughout the analysis were proven not to be. The analysis also indicates that high performance teams will seek to emulate high performance teams in their immediate areas of influence, with foreign market competitors being a powerful galvanizing force in creating a more unified work group that more willingly participated in training and development programs (Yang, 2008).

Research Question

The researcher looks to answer the questions of what the cultural factors that contribute most and least to high performance systems, specifically looking at the major differences between bureaucracies and high performance work systems. The second research question centers on how the adoption of systems of operation varies by bureaucracies vs. high performance work systems.

Description of Theories Used

The researcher and author concentrates on theories that will help to define the orthogonal nature of bureaucratic vs. high performance team behaviors. Using a series of theories to define the unique differences between and within groups on performance dimensions, the author relies heavily on the concept of mimetic isomorphism, institutional theories, economies of scale, and an entire foundation of theories dedicated to defining how organizational structure is dictated by the workplace size and speed of learning (Yang, 2008). The collection of theories provided in the analysis are used for defining the unique attributes or characteristics of bureaucratic vs. high performance teams, and the cultures necessary to nurture the former.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses for this study include the following (Yang, 2008):

H1. Bureaucratic organizations are indicated by the level of hierarchy, the lateral departmentalization, and workplace formalization.

H2. High performance work systems are indicated by teamwork, skill upgrading worker empowerment programs, and performance-based pay structures.

H3. The higher the domestic market competition, the more likely the organization use of high performance organizational practices.

H4. The higher the international market competition, the more likely the organization use of high performance organizational practices.

H5. The higher the domestic market competition, the less likely the organizations adopt bureaucratic structure.

H6. The higher the international market competition, the less likely the organizations adopt bureaucratic structure.

H7. The higher the percentage of organizations adopting bureaucratic structures in an industry, the more likely the organizations adopt bureaucratic structures in the same industry.

H8. The higher the percentage of other organizations adopting high performance work practices in an industry, the more likely the organizations adopt high performance work practices in the same industry.

Research Design

The researcher has chosen to use the 1996 -- 1997 data set from the National Organizations Study (NOS) that is based on a series of computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) completed by interviewers from the Minnesota Center for Survey Research (MCSR) at the University of Minnesota. The research is dealing with a ten-year-old data set yet does his bet to make it statistically relevant, using a stratified sample of 40 categories from Dun & Bradstreet to define company size ranges and revenue.

Findings