IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ucdbpl/91.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The logic of heterarchies: Making organizations competitive for knowledge-based competition

Author

Listed:
  • Reihlen, Markus

Abstract

An increasing number of firms are moving into a new form of competition which can be described as knowledge-based competition. Firms in knowledge-based rivalry are competing mostly on their learning capabilities. The relative importance of capital and labor as a key input factor in the production process is diminishing in favor of knowledge. Accordingly, firms in knowledge-based competition can be labeled as knowledge-intensive in contrast to capital- or labor-intensive firms (Starbuck, 1992). However, in deciding whether a firm really can be characterized as knowledge-intensive, it has to create unique expertise instead of widely shared public knowledge. Knowledge-intensive firms actively choose the terrain on which to compete. They do not seek to maximize profits simply by minimizing costs, but pursue competitive advantage on the basis of innovation in products, processes, and organization. Superior competitive positions and high monopolistic rents are a result of firm's learning abilities that allow faster and more valuable knowledge creation for problem-solving than competitors (Best, 1990). The credo of knowledge-based competition is, as TOM PETERS (1990) puts it: "Get innovative or get dead." This paper focuses on how knowledge-intensive firms should organize its operations which depend highly on innovative problem-solving. After a quick review and critical discussion of some organizational principles which were put forward by the traditional management literature, a new organizational model will be proposed for mastering the challenges of the new competition. In contrast to the rigid hierarchy, a flexible self-governed organizational form will be suggested that is labeled as heterarchy. The basic idea and underlying assumptions will be summarized. In addition, some leverages for managing heterarchies will be outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • Reihlen, Markus, 1996. "The logic of heterarchies: Making organizations competitive for knowledge-based competition," Working Paper Series 91, University of Cologne, Department of Business Policy and Logistics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ucdbpl:91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/59784/1/71823040X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Toward an Economic Model of the Japanese Firm," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 18, pages 315-341, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Ouchi, William, 1981. "Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 82-83.
    3. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    4. Robert A. Burgelman, 1988. "Strategy Making as a Social Learning Process: The Case of Internal Corporate Venturing," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 74-85, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reihlen, Markus, 1998. "Die Heterarchie als postbürokratisches Organisationsmodell der Zukunft," Working Paper Series 96, University of Cologne, Department of Business Policy and Logistics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Augsdorfer, Peter, 2005. "Bootlegging and path dependency," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Pascal Aurégan & Patrick Joffre & Thomas Loilier & Albéric Tellier, 2007. "L’approche projet du management stratégique:quelles contributions pour quel positionnement ?," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 10(4), pages 217-250, December.
    3. Metin M. Cosgel & Thomas J. Miceli, 1998. "On Job Rotation," Working papers 1998-02, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    4. Thomas Schaefer & Thomas Guenther, 2016. "Exploring strategic planning outcomes: the influential role of top versus middle management participation," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 205-249, May.
    5. Ballot, Gerard, 2002. "Modeling the labor market as an evolving institution: model ARTEMIS," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 51-77, September.
    6. Heinrich, Ralph P., 1999. "Complementarities in Corporate Governance - A Survey of the Literature with Special Emphasis on Japan," Kiel Working Papers 947, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Hanibuchi, Tomoya & Murata, Yohei & Ichida, Yukinobu & Hirai, Hiroshi & Kawachi, Ichiro & Kondo, Katsunori, 2012. "Place-specific constructs of social capital and their possible associations to health: A Japanese case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 225-232.
    8. Benoît Pigé, 1998. "CEOs entrenchment and shareholders' wealth [Enracinement des dirigeants et richesse des actionnaires]," Post-Print hal-02175777, HAL.
    9. Kaja Prystupa, 2017. "The Role of Organizational Culture in KnowledgeManagement in Small Companies," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 13(3), pages 151-173.
    10. Sirén, Charlotta & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction between strategic planning and learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 653-663.
    11. Cabrera, Elizabeth F., 1998. "A computer-based aid for the design of a strategic organizational culture," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6541, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    12. Malen, Joel, 2015. "Motivating And Enabling Firm Innovation Effort: Integrating Penrosian And Behavioral Theory Perspectives On Slack Resources," Hitotsubashi Journal of commerce and management, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 49(1), pages 37-54, October.
    13. Matsuno, Ken & Kohlbacher, Florian, 2020. "Proactive marketing response to population aging: The roles of capabilities and commitment of firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 93-104.
    14. Sinem AYDOGDU & Baris ASIKGIL, 2011. "The Effect of Transformational Leadership Behavior on Organizational Culture: An Application in Pharmaceutical Industry," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 1(4), pages 65-73.
    15. Hisako Matsuo, 2012. "Transfer of Japanese Human Resource Management to US Subsidiaries: Resource Dependence Theory and Institutionalism," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 2(6), pages 34-46, November.
    16. Nathalie Greenan & Emmanuelle Walkowiak, 2005. "Informatique, organisation du travail et interactions sociales," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 387(1), pages 35-63.
    17. Caligiuri, Paula & Bonache, Jaime, 2016. "Evolving and enduring challenges in global mobility," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 127-141.
    18. Lise Arena & Anthony Hussenot, 2021. "From Innovations at Work to Innovative Ways of Conceptualizing Organization: A Brief History of Organization Studies," Post-Print hal-03290300, HAL.
    19. Lichtenberg, Frank R. & Pushner, George M., 1994. "Ownership structure and corporate performance in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 239-261, October.
    20. Andre van Stel & Lendert Baljeu & Roy Thurik & Ingrid Verheul, 2006. "The Contribution of Business Ownership in Bringing Down Unemployment in Japan," Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2006-05, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ucdbpl:91. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wskoede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.