Gresov, Christopher; Drazin, Robert. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review; Briarcliff Manor Том 22, Изд. 2, (Apr 1997): 403-428.
Выберите один или несколько элементов.
Чтобы использовать цитирование, отправку по электронной почте, сохранение и экспорт, сначала выберите элементы результатов.
У вас может быть доступ к полной статье.
Попробуйте войти через свое учреждение и проверьте, есть ли у него доступ к полному тексту.
Theorists have often acknowledged the importance of equifinality in organization design, and, in recent years, several studies have demonstrated the concept empirically. This article exposes the assumptions regarding function and structure that underlie contingency theory and develops a functional equivalence view of design. By examining the degree of conflict in functional demands together with the latitude of structural options available, we reveal and describe three different types of equifinality: suboptimal, tradeoff, and configurational. The functional equivalence approach implies a different agenda and emphasis for research on structure and design and has normative implications for how managers should design to achieve performance.
The concept of equifinality has become increasingly important to researchers interested in organizational structure, strategy, and design. As originally defined by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, equifinality is said to be a general property of open systems such that " . . . as far as they attain a steady state, this state can be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways; it is thus equifinal!" (1968). To von Bertalanffy and his students, equifinality was closely tied to the concept of homeostasis: [O]pen systems, in contrast to closed systems, exhibit a principle of equifinality, that is, a tendency to achieve a final state independent of initial conditions. In other words, open systems tend to 'resist' perturbations that take them away from some steady state. They can exhibit homeostasis. (Rapaport, 1972: 53, emphasis added)
Early use of the concept in organization theory tended to mirror the von Bertalanffy approach. For example, Katz and Kahn (1978: 30) stated that equifinality in organizational settings occurs when "a system can reach the same final state, from different initial conditions and by a variety of different paths."
More recently, the concept of equifinality has come to mean that the final state, or performance of an organization, can be achieved through multiple different organizational structures even if the contingencies the organization faces are the same (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1994; Hrebiniak & Joyce,1985; Nadler & Tushman,1988; Pennings, 1992; Scott,1981; Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985). Equifinality thus implies that strategic choice (Child, 1972) or flexibility is available to organization designers when creating organizations to achieve high performance.'
The concept of equifinality presents a quandary to traditional.
