TY - JOUR
T1 - Polycentric organizing and performance
T2 - A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK
AU - Gil, Nuno
AU - Pinto, Jeffrey K.
N1 - Funding Information:
We acknowledge the time and knowledge of all professionals who agreed to participate in this study. We give special thanks to Don Ward who introduced us to top management of the London megaprojects. We are also grateful to Carliss Baldwin who first saw value in deploying collective-action theory to illuminate this complex form of organizing work. Finally we appreciate the thoughtful comments from Graham Winch, our editor Paul Nightingale, and the anonymous reviewers who helped us sharpen our arguments. We also thank the support of the Alliance Manchester Business School research fund . We are solely responsible for any errors, omissions, and inaccuracies.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/5
Y1 - 2018/5
N2 - This study sheds light on polycentric forms of organizing and corresponding performance implications. Organizations with a polycentric architecture supplement their internal hierarchical decision-making structures with egalitarian, local structures in order to encourage collaboration with legally independent stakeholders. We ground our study on the planning stage for four capital-intensive infrastructure development projects (megaprojects) in the UK. We first establish that megaproject planning is carried on by polycentric organizations. We show that in this form of organizing the promoter has decision-making authority over the high-order choices, but shares the authority over the local choices with groups of autonomous stakeholders. We also show how this organizational architecture addresses local disputes and pressures to relax performance targets. Our main contribution is a contingency model that proposes four conditions linking performance to polycentric organizing, whether or not: i) the institutional environment empowers an ‘umpire’ to referee disputes; and ii) the system leader can mobilize substantial slack resources to reconcile conflicting interests. We argue that the four conditions reveal very different classes of managerial problems, and draw implications for practice and policy including but not limited to megaprojects.
AB - This study sheds light on polycentric forms of organizing and corresponding performance implications. Organizations with a polycentric architecture supplement their internal hierarchical decision-making structures with egalitarian, local structures in order to encourage collaboration with legally independent stakeholders. We ground our study on the planning stage for four capital-intensive infrastructure development projects (megaprojects) in the UK. We first establish that megaproject planning is carried on by polycentric organizations. We show that in this form of organizing the promoter has decision-making authority over the high-order choices, but shares the authority over the local choices with groups of autonomous stakeholders. We also show how this organizational architecture addresses local disputes and pressures to relax performance targets. Our main contribution is a contingency model that proposes four conditions linking performance to polycentric organizing, whether or not: i) the institutional environment empowers an ‘umpire’ to referee disputes; and ii) the system leader can mobilize substantial slack resources to reconcile conflicting interests. We argue that the four conditions reveal very different classes of managerial problems, and draw implications for practice and policy including but not limited to megaprojects.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042918019&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042918019&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001
DO - 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85042918019
SN - 0048-7333
VL - 47
SP - 717
EP - 734
JO - Research Policy
JF - Research Policy
IS - 4
ER -