Introduction
The taxonomies, typologies, and configurations are relevant in promoting organization research in organizations. The typologies offer critical propositions in providing appropriate streams of research on the organizational variables. Several authors have documented propositions of typologies in promoting organizational research. The authors perform qualitative studies to determine the implications of organizational research among the different organizational structures. The initial literature provides both strategic and organizational frameworks towards the significance of typologies in organizations. It occurs through three dimensions including formalization, centralization, and complexity variables (Doty, & Glick, 1994). In addition, the typologies rely on effects empirical theory to illustrate their organizational studies and research. The paper will seek to determine the role of the typologies within organizational research and evaluate how the typologies influence research in organizations.
According to Fiss (2011), the importance of typologies is developed through causal theories that are consistent with the variables for organizational research. He argues that typologies are significant in an organization’s various cause-effect relationships that are relevant in building blocks of strategy and organization literature. He also found out that high-technology firm uses empirical investigation in configuration to determine the typologies of qualitative comparative analysis. For example, the aspects of cause-effect relationships are crucial in determining the strategic focus of the organizations (Short, Payne, & Ketchen, 2008). The aspects related to the cognitive aspects that drive organizational performance and competitiveness. Furthermore, cause-effect relationships are crucial in developing effective organizational design in organizations. Typologies also act as crucial ways of formatting complex webs among the cause-effect relationships.
The typologies relate to the causal relationships through the structural and strategic factors through configurations in order to predict variance. The typologies rely on terms of forming pillars for organizational development. Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) argue that their typologies are important in the field of research to evaluate considerable the efficiency of organizational research. Theoretically, the typologies are multi-dimensional in nature. Since the typologies relate to the configuration arguments to enhance complexity and independence of the organizations. As a result, the typologies are significant in promoting integrative models for the many causal relationships. The causal –effects relationships relate to the organizational structure, strategy, and environment.
Based on the researchers and practitioners, the theoretical attractiveness is reliable in determining the effectiveness of the cause-effect relationships. The typologies have similar aspects in the identification of the relevant configuration arguments. However, few researchers do not agree on the theoretical constructs. Prior to the typologies, the scholars consider an overall ideal configuration. The research study by Fiss (2011) identifies the logic behind the holistic nature of the typologies. The formation of the typologies faces various challenges that include the determination of the typologies related to causal structures. The notion of causal and periphery expand to the thinking that implies causal asymmetry. Causal asymmetry leads to the outcome of interest that is different from the correlation aspects of typologies. The typologies and configuration are significant in the identification of the complex theoretical models to merge the unique blocks of forming the functions of theory.
Based on the results of Fiss (2011), it provides descriptive statistics and correlations offer appropriate measures that include correlations between formalization, size, and complexity of the organization structures. The variables are significant in determining the significance of typologies in organizational performance and research. For example, formalization and centralization perspectives are relevant in achieving high performance in organizations. This defines the cost leadership strategy in the organizational structures. However, environmental changes have effects on the organizational complexity and configurations (Rich, 1992). Therefore, the typologies are significant in influencing organizational research and performance among organizations.
Each of the following articles has contributed relevant information on the usage of typologies among the organizations. Firstly, the article, “Fiss, P.C. (2011) Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2), 393-420.” The article provides a fundamental understanding of the typologies. The article also provides a clear distinction between the taxonomies and typologies in the organizations. It also records the concepts and definitions of the different configuration approaches on the study of the organizational structure. This relates to the adequate literature and citations available on the various typologies. Generally, the article by Fiss (2011) provides a comprehensive analysis of the organizational dimensions. These include formalization, centralization, and complexity aspects in the organizations.
Next, the article “Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. and Ridderstrale, J. (2002) Knowledge as a contingency variable: Do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science, 13 (3), 274-289” provides a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of organizational structure. This includes the characteristics of knowledge used in determining the typologies. The article also incorporates the knowledge constructs and their dimensions as contingency variables. Generally, it evaluates the connections between contingency theories and the configurationally approaches in the organizations. The next article is “Short, J.C., Payne, G.T. and Ketchen, D.J. (2008) Research on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34 (6), 1053-1079.” The article promotes the use of topologies by comparing the configuration approaches with other approaches to organizational performance. This illustrates the relationship between taxonomy and typology aspects involving the organizational configurations.
In addition, “Rich, P. (1992) the organizational taxonomy: Definition and design. Academy of Management Review, 17 (4), 758-781” provides a clear analysis of the organizational classifications that affect the use of typologies in the organizations. Other articles in evaluating the use of typologies in organizations include “Doty, D. H. & Glick, W.H. (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 230-251”, “Drazin, R. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1985) Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4), 514-539”, and “Gresov, C. & Drazin, R. (1997) Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design; Academy of Management Review, 22 (2), 403-428 DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9707154064” among others.
Based on the readings of the module, the critical analysis of the articles by Fiss (2011) and Birshinshaw, Nobel, and Ridderstrale (2002) provides significant literature and information to support the use of typologies. Both articles involve a comprehensive analysis of the organizational dimensions to evaluate the typologies. However, the article by Birshinshaw, Nobel, and Ridderstrale (2002) uses the constructs of contingency variables that are more valuable in comparing the contingency and configuration approaches in the organizations. Fiss (2011) relies on adequate literature to determine the use of typologies among organizational structures. Both articles would be more relevant including current research works by scholars and researchers. The article lacks adequate models and frameworks to illustrate the use of typologies in organizations. However, the two authors of the article introduced new elements of strong arguments to determine the contingency variables in the organizations.
Based on the readings, there are certain recommendations on future strategies for the use of typologies in organizational research. Firstly, social goals are relevant in determining the future use of typologies in organizational research. The social goals relate to the construction of social goals and objectives that identifies the social changes. Considering the changing models of production, the integration of social goals in typologies is relevant for organizational research. Also, the future aspects should incorporate relevant strategies that rely on reporting, conceptualization, and understanding of unique aspects of society. The use of reporting and conceptualization approaches provides adequate research on appropriate interventions on organizational research. The reading also proposes clear descriptions of the configuration approach as leads to greater contributions in the organizations. This will influence human resource management, entrepreneurship, and ethical fields of organizational research. Generally, these aspects determine the future aspects of the use of typologies in organizational research.
References
Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. and Ridderstrale, J. (2002). Knowledge as a contingency variable: Do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science, 13 (3), 274-289.
Doty, D. H. & Glick, W.H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 230-251.
Drazin, R. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4), 514-539.
Fiss, P.C. (2011) Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2), 393-420.
Gresov, C. & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design; Academy of Management Review, 22 (2), 403-428 DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9707154064”
Rich, P. (1992). The organizational taxonomy: Definition and design. Academy of Management Review, 17 (4), 758-781
Short, J.C., Payne, G.T. and Ketchen, D.J. (2008). Research on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34 (6), 1053-1079.