Goals must be chosen that ensure the legitimacy and the viability of the organization within the context of its wider environment.
In a stable environment it may be possible to set static goals. In a highly uncertain and turbulent environment, goals will have to be more flexible and multiple, satisfying a variety of constrains.
The organizational structure employed will have to reflect the need for flexible goals if the environment is uncertain. Fuller discussion of goals from the organizations-as-systems perspective can be found in Thompson and McEwan (1958, Organizational goals and environment: goal-setting as an interaction process, in: People and Organizations, G. Salaman and K. Thompson, Longman, London, pp. 155-167.), Etzioni (1960, Two approaches to organizational analysis, ASQ 5:257), and Perrow (1961, The analysis of goals in complex organizations, ASR, 26:854).
Perhaps the most influential contribution, however, has been that by Chandler (1962, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.) who was able to demonstrate historically the necessity of a fit between strategy and structure. Donaldson (1996, The normal science of structural contingency theory, in: Handbook of Organizational Studies, S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.R. Nord, eds., Sage, London, pp.57-75) sums up his argument as follows:
Corporations need to maintain a fit between their strategy and their structure otherwise they suffer lower performance. Specifically, a functional structure fits an undiversified strategy, but is a misfit for a diversified strategy where a multidivisional structure is required for effective management of the complexity of several distinct product markets.
(Jackson, 2000. Systems Approached to Management.Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. pp111~112)
沒有留言:
張貼留言