Six organisations were put through a comparative study. The selected organisations were all drawn from an industrial establishment of the same nature. In the comparative study, the researchers focused on a number of key subsystems so that the study could be undertaken in a more rigorous manner. The sub domains considered in the study included production, research and sales (Lawrence and Lorsch 4).
Each of these subsystems was differentiated in all of the organisations under study. In order to highlight the significance of each subsystem, the researchers explored the interpersonal orientation of members, their orientation time and their points of reference in terms of goals and objectives.
The various types of orientation were considered against the backdrop of subsystem’s formal structures. The needs of specific sub environment were related to the differentiation process that was carried out in each organisation.
There are also major concepts and questions that have been covered by the research article. It is evident that both integration and differentiation are key concepts used in organisations.
In fact, the research question addressed in the article revolves around the integration and differentiation patterns and how well established organisations can cope with the changing environmental factors in the course of seeking growth, impressive performance and profitability.
The environment within which an organisation operates is also a crucial factor addressed in the given research article. It is interesting to mention that the immediate environment of an organisation affects its wellbeing and sustainability. The authors assert that an organisation is a rather active system.
There also sub-environments that may influence the operations of an organisation. Moreover, a sub-environment and a sub-system are closely related. Therefore, the two concepts cannot be discussed in isolation.
In the case of formalised structures, it has been found out that teams and groups tend to be more productive when the available tasks are formerly organised. In other words, structures should be firmly put in place so that the productivity of employees can be assured. However, complexity should be avoided at all costs whenever teams and groups are allowed to work as units.
It is apparent that organisational performance is directly related to both integration and differentiation. Organisations that are complex cannot be easily understood when the concepts of integration and differentiation are not clearly articulated. For example, one of the hypotheses used in the article assumes that collaboration or effective cooperation is often cumbersome among groups.
According to some of the past literature reviews on the subject of collaboration at workplace, it has been established that integration is difficult to achieve whenever there are challenges with collaboration at workplace (Lawrence and Lorsch 17).
Hence, managements in organisations should seek means of attaining integration before they can even think of enhancing cooperation among employees. In any case, the top management team is responsible for attaining the integration goal.
The seventh hypothesis discussed in the article projects that integrative devices usually emerge when both integration and differentiation are executed at high degrees. However, such devices might not always be accurate and should be questioned before being adopted. It is also crucial to mention that there are other factors that affect organisational performance apart from integration and differentiation.
Seiler’s works quoted in the article attempt to highlight the effects of integrative subsystem. For example, lower status groups are readily influenced to boost their performance by high-status groups. As a result, open collaboration can be readily realised.
At the preliminary stage of the analysis, the research article points out that an integrative subsystem initiated most of the core activities in all the organisations that were under study. Needless to say, there must be a basis of influence in any type of environment that a business unit operates (Lawrence and Lorsch 26). For instance, a hierarchical position can be a major source of influence to employees in organisations.
The researchers carried out some field study by interviewing respondents in regards to the basis of influence. Comments gathered from the interviews revealed that one of the most profound bases of influence is the knowledge from coordinators or managers in organisations. The rest of the employees tend to believe that the top level management understands everything related to the wellbeing of organisations.
Rewards for integrators also stand out as a major integrative device according to the arguments presented in the article. Hence, integrators have their own perspectives and expectations when it comes to rewards.
On a final note, it is prudent to consider how performance in organisations is totally influenced by the environment. An effective integrative device is obviously affected by systems that dominate the operations of an organisation (Lawrence and Lorsch 39). Both the leadership and subordinate members in an organisation control the overall performance.
Besides, subsystems have a particular locus of influence that cannot be assumed under any circumstance. Similar to the other integrative devices discussed in the article, a suitable research question was formulated by the researchers in order to guide the research process.
Conflict resolution also stands out as a vital organisational issue that must be resolved expeditiously for smooth running of operations (Lawrence and Lorsch 46).
Works Cited
Lawrence, Paul and Jay, Lorsch. “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 12.1(1967): 1-47. Print.