DYNAMIC ORGANIZATIONAL FIT AND PROCESS OF COEVOLUTION,Melita Rant University of Ljubljana Faculty of Economics,DYNAMIC ORGANIZATIONAL FIT AND PROCESS OF COEVOLUTION,Object of study Verbal theories Data gathering Sample characteristics Specification of model Use of ANOVA and factor analysis: Elaboration of structural relations: Relationships between factors Analysis of covaricances though networks Elaboration measurement relations: best indicators for factors,DYNAMIC ORGANIZATIONAL FIT AND PROCESS OF COEVOLUTION,Estimation of SEM model: Identification Estimation Fit diagnostics One step modification: exploratory approach Interpretation of model,Organiz. fit,Changes in environment,Organiz. struct. adapt.,Decrease in efficiency,Increase in efficiency,Organiz. misfit,Changes in continencies,Environment Strategy Technology Size Management Style,Donaldson (1999): SARFIT model,Organiz. fit,Changes in environment,Organiz. struct. adapt.,Decrease in efficiency,Increase in efficiency,Organiz. misfit,Changes in continencies,Environment Strategy Technology Size Management Style,SARFIT model modification,Network struct. adapt.,Increase in effectiveness,Dynamic organizational fit model,Decrease in effectivenesss,Object of study,Model: OBJECT OF STUDY,Environment, organizational and network structure adaptations difficult to measure. Possible to assess on Likert scale. Subjectivity problem: measurement errors and validity problem. Use of SEM.,Focus on contemp. trends,Network,structure,adaptations,Organizational,structure,adaptations,Environmental,developments,(,industry,society,),Proclivity,to,fit,indicated,as,improvements,in,efficiency,effectiveness,Poster 2,The extent of a specific organizational structure change was assessed according to on how many fields a specific change has been performed. If a specific organizational structure change hasnt been performed, it was assessed with 1. If it has been performed on only one field (i.e. production), it was assessed with 2, and so on. If it has been performed on more than five business functions, it was assessed with 7.,The extent of a specific network structure change was assessed according to how many groups of business partners was introduced to. For instance, if a specific network structure change like strategic partnering was introduced only to suppliers, it was assessed with 2. If it was introduced to suppliers and clients, it was assessed with 3, and so on. If it was introduced to all groups of strategic partners, it was assessed with 7.,Measurement construct: Environmental developments (trends),Measurement construct: Organizational structure adaptations (trends),The extent of a specific organizational structure change was assessed according to on how many fields a specific change has been performed. If a specific organizational structure change hasnt been performed, it was assessed with 1. If it has been performed on only one field (i.e. production), it was assessed with 2, and so on. If it has been performed on more than five business functions, it was assessed with 7.,Measurement construct: Network structure adaptations (trends),The extent of a specific network structure change was assessed according to how many groups of business partners was introduced to. For instance, if a specific network structure change like strategic partnering was introduced only to suppliers, it was assessed with 2. If it was introduced to suppliers and clients, it was assessed with 3, and so on. If it was introduced to all groups of strategic partners, it was assessed with 7.,Measurement construct of fitness: Indicators of effectiveness and efficiency,Reseach methodology:,Data gathering method: Questionnaires MNGMT boards (CEOs) Period: January 2000-January 2005 Last five year before EU admission Specific turbulent instit. environment Sample focus: All Slovenian companies with more than 50 employees 267 (of 1340); 20% response rate 237 (of 1340); 17% sample size,Sample profile: Services/products sales,Sample profile: Sales on foreign markets,Sample profile: State ownership,Model identification: Relationships between constructs,Developments in environment,Organiz. struct. adaptations .,Network struct. adaptations,Dynamic misfit area,Dynamic misfit area,Extent of organiz. adaptat.,Extent of environmental developments,1 2 3 4 5 6 7,7 6 5 4 3 2 1,Dynamic fit area,Dynamic misfit area,Dynamic misfit area,Extent of network adaptat.,Extent of environmental developments,1 2 3 4 5 6 7,7 6 5 4 3 2 1,Dynamic fit area,Distribution procedure: if firms average assessment of environmental developments (AED) minus average assessment of organizational adaptations (AOA) is lower of standard deviation of average difference (AED-AOA), than a firm falls into fit area,Distribution procedure: if firms average assessment of environmental developments (AED) mi