New Forms of Work Organization: The Role of Institutional and Contingent Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study deals with new forms of work organization (NFWO). Whereas, in the past, this subject has been approached by many authors from the perspective of the impact of innovative practices on business performance (Arthur, 1994; Handel and Gittleman, 2004; Handel and Levine, 2004), this study rather sets out to study the diffusion and the determinants linked to work organization. Consequently, we can ask the following question: what differentiates firms having implemented new forms of work organization (NFWO)? To answer this question, two perspectives will be used: the institutional perspective and the contingent perspective. On the one hand, according to the institutional perspective, businesses could be tempted to imitate competitors and/or to follow the enthusiasm which increasingly, many industries show for NFWO (Dirsmith, Fogarty and Gupta, 2000). They might equally be compelled to adopt NFWO due to surrounding coercive forces. According to this approach, the choice would thus be rather the result of sectoral imitation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) limited or encouraged by the different groups of actors in the business. On the other hand, according to the contingency theory, businesses should be bound to their internal structure as well as to their policies and human resource management practices on their business strategies and their internal strategies. The choice to adopt or to implement NFOW would stem, from this perspective, from a rational and strategic choice (Dunphy and Bryant, 1996). Thus, businesses opting for participative management and having initiated a quality management approach would be more inclined to adopt new forms of work organization oriented towards autonomy and, conversely, those having adopted autocratic management and mass production without concern for quality would be less attracted by these practices (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Handel and Levine, 2004). The results of this study show that 27% of establishments surveyed chose to implement NFOW substantially, which is comparable to the results obtained by Osterman (1994a, 2000). Also, although we did not test for the presence of complete practice systems, it appears that few businesses chose to thoroughly implement several practices linked to work organization. To this end, we observe that autonomous work teams are less implemented than are the other selected practices. Our results suggest that the contingent perspective and mainly internal strategies better account for the presence of NFOW than does the institutional perspective. Concretely, we found that the presence of a leadership strategy by costs, of participative management, of a quality management approach, and a market culture based on performance are all linked to the presence of NFOW when the degree of penetration for these practices is considered. However, on the institutional perspective side, the sector to which the business belongs, the competitive pressure to which businesses are exposed, the governing mechanism and their level of growth are linked to the presence of NFOW only when these are superficially implemented. In conclusion, certain businesses implement NFOW in a way so as to be coherent with their strategies and values, while others seem rather to follow the style of the day, without achieving true change as concerns their work organization method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".