Size, technology, complexity, and structural differentiation: toward a theoretical synthesis.

This paper proposes a theoretical synthesis of the concepts of organizational size, technology, complexity, and structural differentiation. It suggests and finds that the most important determinant of differentiation in the division of labor is the scope of an organization's task, a technological dimension, and not organizational size. Neither horizontal nor vertical differentiation is thought to be determined by size while the scope of the task is proposed as a determinant of horizontal differentiation. The findings, however, support only the inference of a moderate causal connection between either size or task scope and either form of differentiation. Throughout the analysis and discussion the contrast between causal inference based on associations of levels and change rates is discussed. When dealing with the organizational processes addressed in this paper, both associations must be examined to adequately portray the complexity of the causal processes inferred.     

Mexico and the United States: Common border,common negotiating orientations

With a growing cadre of people conducting business across the U.S.–Mexico border, there is a need for information about the negotiation orientations they are likely to encounter. While information on negotiating orientations is available, it is often anecdotal, stereotyped, and contradictory. Empirical work that systematically compares Mexico and the United States across a range of negotiating dimensions is scarce. We have clarified, refined, and operationalized 12 negotiation dimensions in a comprehensive conceptual framework proposed over 20 years ago by Weiss and Stripp (1985). Our findings suggest that U.S. and Mexican negotiators may have more in common than they think and that negotiation orientations in both countries may run counter to conventional wisdom. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Cultural tendencies in negotiation: A comparison of Finland, India, Mexico, Turkey, and the United States

In this era of increased global cooperation, a growing number of negotiators conduct business in multiple countries and, therefore, need access to a systematic comparison of negotiating tendencies across a wide range of countries. Empirical work systematically comparing variations across a range of cultures is scarce. A comparative analysis of negotiating tendencies in five countries is presented. This study establishes the utility of the [Salacuse, J. (1998) Ten ways that culture affects negotiating style: Some survey results. Negotiation Journal, 14(3): 221–235] framework in identifying country differences across five countries, representing five cultural clusters. Significant differences in negotiation orientations both between and within cultures were revealed at a level of complexity not found in previous empirical studies.     

FORMALIZATION AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE CYCLE[1]

The theoretical importance of formalization has often been obscured in empirical investigation. This article discusses two outcomes of formalization: administrative efficiency, and influence. As formalization contributes to administrative efficiency, it also bestows upon the administrator power and influence. While some theoretical attention has been paid to the efficiency theme, influence has been largely ignored. The article suggests that formalization as code, as channel, and as standard can be best understood in the context of the organizational life cycle. Formalization (as efficiency) is likely to contribute to effectiveness early in an organization's history. Later in the life cycle, however, formalization (as influence) may contribute to organizational ineffectiveness and decline.