8/3/2019 BEM31-Coursework 1

1/3

INTRODUCTION

There are three investigations were carried out in relation to organization structures. We are

asked to provide a synthesis of the three papers, so I am going to provide a combined essay

and suggest the relevance point of the researches and discuss the way these papers conveying

different ideas by exploring the aims, contents and the result of the findings.

DISCUSSION

The aim of first research which was conducted by Ozman (2010) was to explore the influence

of two dimensions of product knowledge bases on organizational structures, while Thomas et

al. (2010) study was to find out the variation in Individuals psychological contracts across

cultures. The third study, set out by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) to examine the impact of

organizational structures on organizational memory (OM).

The aims of these investigations clearly reveal that each of the study covers different views.

For instance, the first research focuses on complexity of the product and reusability of the

knowledge which can be utilized in different context, but the second study developed to

discover how the psychological contract forms are different in four countries based on their

national cultures. The research by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) was to explore the influence of

organizational structures on OM by examining of structural organizational factors and

organizational processes. Explicitly, the intention of each study is significantly different.

On the other hand, according to Ozman (2010) when the product is complex and knowledge

is reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product

companies. The impact of organisational memory in formation of firms is significantly

apparent. Thomas et al. (2010) states that OM is understood as a structure, in which the

knowledge is created, stored and reused. Thus, when the knowledge within organisations is

shared and retrieved between employees, then such firms can organise a multi-product

companies. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) state that the organisation structure is affected by the

way that the knowledge is utilized and reused in different context within an organisation.

The content of the papers discover different aspects of organisations structures as well. For

example, Ozman (2010) study looks at relationship between product and knowledge which

leads to organization formation. When the product is complex and the economies of scope is

rich and the reusability of knowledge is weak, then how the firms emerge. Further, the

8/3/2019 BEM31-Coursework 1

2/3

research examines the physical architecture of products that undermines the relationship

between the knowledge and product complexity which results in two categories, first, one-to-

many relationship which a piece of knowledge uses in different context, second, many-to-one

which many competences use for a single product. On contrast, Thomas et al. (2010) research

looks at different aspect of organizations, including prediction patterns (cognitive andmotivational mechanism) through which culture influence the employees expectations, and

psychological forms of contract (transactional and relational) which further combined by

symmetric and asymmetric power distribution through cultural dimensions (individualism

and collectivism).

On the other hand, the content of the research by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) covers different

direction of organizational structures, mainly the influence of organizational structures

factors, including standardization and specialization through the organizational processes,

such as codification, personalized information and electronic communication on OM.

Further, looks at the mediation degree between organizational structures factors and OM.

Subsequently, the content of each study follow different directions of the organization

structures.

Furthermore, the results of these researches are different as well, while the investigations

achieved the aims. Ozman (2010) found that when the product is complex and knowledge is

reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product

companies but with less inter-firm relationships. The specialized firms with intensive

interaction can be emerged, when the reusability of the knowledge is weak and product is

complex and deep. In a broader sense, the more the knowledge reused in different products,

the greater diversifications become. The results of Thomas et al. (2010) study strongly

suggest that psychological contract forms across cultures are different. French interviewees

(vertical individualist) described their psychological contracts as primarily exploitive,

Canadians (horizontal individualist) as primarily instrumental, Chinese (vertical collectivist)

as primarily custodial and Norwegians (horizontal collectivist) as primarily communitarian.

The results of Fiedler and Welpe (2010) findings reveal that it is codification of knowledge

indentified as a mechanism which completely mediates the relationship between

standardization and OM, while electronic communication partially mediates the relationship

between specialization and OM. The personalized information has positive effects on OM,

but it does not mediate the relationship between organizational factors and OM.

8/3/2019 BEM31-Coursework 1

3/3

CONCLUSION

Overall, through the review of the three papers I found that each paper follows different

direction as the aims, contents and the results of the findings shed lights on how these

investigations cover different areas, while there are some relevance points as well. To justify

the study by Ozman (2010) only focuses on knowledge bases of product, product complexity

and reusability of knowledge in different context on how the firms emerge. The research by

Thomas et al. (2010) examined how the psychological contract forms can be different based

on national culture. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) looks at the influence of organizational

structures factors on OM and how the organizational processes mediates the relationship

between such factors and OM. Regarding the aims, contents and outcomes, there is no

apparent relevance in the papers. However, the psychological contract impacts on OM and

subsequently OM has influence on knowledge bases of product.