How emergent roles and structures create trust In hastily formed inter-organizational teams

Many activities, from disaster response to project management, require cooperation among people from multiple organizations who initially lack interpersonal relationships and trust. Upon entering inter-organizational settings, pre-existing identities and expectations, along with emergent social roles and structures, may all influence trust between colleagues. To sort out these effects, we collected time-lagged data from three cohorts of military MBA students, representing 2,224 directed dyads, shortly after they entered graduate school. Dyads that shared organizational identity, boundary-spanning roles, and similar network positions (structural equivalence) were likely to have stronger professional ties and greater trust.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

Building organizational capability through a quality assurance program within a business school and encouraging organizational culture change

This study explores organizational capability and culture change through a project developing an assurance of learning program in a business school. In order to compete internationally for high quality faculty, students, strategic partnerships and research collaborations it is essential for Universities to develop and maintain an international focus and a quality produce that predicts excellence in the student experience and graduate outcomes that meet industry needs. Developing, marketing and delivering that quality product requires an organizational strategy to which all members of the organization contribute and adhere. Now, the ability to acquire, share and utilize knowledge has become a critical organizational capability in academia as well as other industries. Traditionally the functional approach to business school structures and disparate nature of the social networks and work contact limit the sharing of knowledge between academics working in different disciplines. In this project a community of practice program was established to include academics in the development of an embedded assurance of learning program affecting more than 5000 undergraduate students and 250 academics from nine different disciplines across four schools. The primary outcome from the fully developed and implemented assurance of learning program was the five year accreditation of the business schools programs by two international accrediting bodies, EQUIS and AACSB. However this study explores a different outcome, namely the change in organizational culture and individual capabilities as academics worked together in teaching and learning teams. This study uses a survey and interviews with academics involved, through a retrospective panel design which contained an experimental group and a control group. Results offer insights into communities of practice as a means of addressing organizational capability and changes in organizational culture. Knowledge management and shared learning can achieve strategic and operational benefits equally within academia as within other industrial enterprises but it comes at a cost. Traditional structures, academics that act like individual contractors and deep divides across research, teaching and service interest served a different master and required fewer resources. Collaborative structures; fewer master categories of discrete knowledge areas; specific strategic goals; greater links between academics and industry; and the means to share learned insights will require a different approach to resourcing both the individual and the team.

Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge : a competing values perspective in Australian context

A considerable amount of research has confirmed the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge sharing behaviours. However, less research has been conducted on the impact of project sub-cultures in relation to the sharing of knowledge between projects, particularly in project based organizations (PBOs). The unique structures and contexts characterized by PBOs indicate the need to investigate further the impact of cultures present within PBOs and their effect on knowledge sharing. We report on a rich case study of four large Australian-based PBOs whereby the cultural values of these large organizations were seen to impact significantly on whether project teams were more or less likely to improve inter-project knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this research demonstrates the utility of using Cameron and Quinn's (2005) Competing Values Framework to evaluate culture in the context of PBOs

Asking for it? Practices and structures that perpetuate employee silence in pursuing customised work arrangements

A component of broader scholarship addressing the social context in which individuals work, has focused on the role of ‘employee voice’ in determining flexible-work outcomes (Donnelly et al., 2012). Employee voice incorporates a spectrum of practices designed to give employees a say in organisational decisions (Dundon et al., 2004). This paper extends work on voice and workplace flexibility in two ways. First, it focuses not simply on ‘voice’ but on its antithesis, employee silence, which is defined (following Van Dyne et al., 2003) as the intentional withholding of ideas and opinions. We utilise an alternative reading of silence to the majority of literature which interprets it as a product of employee motivation, by focusing on the role of management and by adopting a framework which considers silence as a control dialectic (Donaghey et al., 2011). Second, the study examines silence with respect to preferences for customising the terms/conditions of employment beyond narrowly defined notions of ‘flexible work’ (e.g., reduced hours; home-working). The study utilises 30 telephone interviews with employees who had been previously identified as ‘discontent non-requesters’ (Skinner and Pocock, 2011: 75), that is they had expressed a desire to request flexible working provisions, but had not done so. Interviewees were asked to articulate the reasons for, and consequences of, their silence. The findings reveal nuanced workplace practices and structures that close down possibilities for employee voice and perpetuate silence on matters relating to customising work. They also illustrate a disjuncture between espoused organizational goals and everyday practices and norms encountered in workplaces.