Análisis de la congruencia tecnología-estructura a nivel organizacionalimplicaciones para el rendimiento

Referencias bibliográficas

• Alexander, J.W. y Randolph, W.A. (1985). The fit between technology and structure as a predictor of performance in nursing subunits. Academy of Management Journal, 28(4), 844-859.
• Amber, G.S. y Amber, P.S. (1962). Anatomy of Automation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Ancona, D.G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
• Argote, L. (1982). Imput uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27,420-434.
• Campbell, K.S. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. En P.S. Goodinan y J.M. Pennings (eds): New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. S. Fco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 13-55.
• Central de Balances. (1990). Banco de España. Madrid.
• Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance. Joumal of Management Studies, 11, 175-189.
• Child, J. (1977). Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice. New York: Harper and Row.
• Cohen, J., y Cohen P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (2a ed).
• Cohen, W.M., y Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
• David, F.R., Randolph, W.A. y Pearce, J.A. (1989). Linking technology and structure to enhance group performance Journal of Applied Psichology, 74, 2, 233-241
• Dewar, R. y Werbel, J. (1979). Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee satisfaction and conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 426-448.
• Ford, J.D. y Slocum, J.W. (1977). Size, technology, environment and the structure of organizations. Academy Management Review, 2,561-575.
• Frr, L.W. (1982). Tecnology structure research: three critical issues. Academy of Management Joumal, 25(3),532-552.
• Fry, L.W., y Slocum, J.W. (1984). Tecnology, structure, and workgroup effectiveness: A test of a contingency model. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 221-246.
• Galbraith, J.R. (1977). Organizational Desing: An Infonnation Processing View. Re ding, Mass: Addison'Wesley.
• Gerwin, D. (1979). The comparative analysis of structure and tecnology: A critical appraisal. Academy of Management Joumal, -4, 41-5 1.
• Gerwin, D. (1981). Relationships between structure and technology. en P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck (eds), Handbook of Organizational Desingn, New York: Oxford University Press, 2, 3-38.
• Gresov, CH. (1989). Exploring f1t and misfit with multiple contingencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, Sep., 34(3), 431-453.
• Hage, J. y Aiken, M. (1967). Program change and organizational properties. Administrative Science Quarlerly, 72, 503519.
• Hage, J. y Aiken, M. (1969). Routine tecnology, social structure and organizational goals. Administrc�tive Science Quarterly, 14, 366-376.
• Hall, R.H. (1988). Organizaciones: Estructura y Proceso. Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana (3a ed).
• Hammer, E.R. (1990). Foundations of technology- structure research. Social Science Information, 29, 55- 100.
• Harvey, E. (1968). Technology and the structure of organizations. American Sociological Review, 33, 241-259.
• Hickson, D.J. (1971). A strategie contingencies theory of intM organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 16.
• Hickson, D.J., Pugh, D.S. y Pheysey, C. (1969). Operations technology and organization structure: An empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 378397.
• Hoffinan, J.J., Cullen, J.B., Carter, N.M., y Hofacker, CH.F. (1992). Altemative methods for measuring organization fit: Technology, structure and performance. Journal ofManagement, 18,45-57.
• Ito, J.K., y Peterson, R.B. (1986). Effects of task difficulty and interunit interdependence on information processing systems. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 139-149.
• Joyce, W., Slocum, J.W. y Von Glisow, M.A. (1982). Person situation interaction: Competing models of fit. Joumal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 265-280.
• Keller, R.T. (1994). Techonology information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Joumal, 37, 167-179.
• Khandwalla, P.N. (1974). Mass output orientation of opeMtions technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 74-97.
• Lincoln, J.R., Hanada, M. y McBride, K. (1986). Organizational structures in Japanese and U.S. manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 3, Sep., 338364.
• Marsh, R.M. y Mannari, H. (1981). Technology and size as determinants of the organizational structure of Japanese factories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 33-57.
• Miller, C. Chet, Click, W.H., Wang, Yandde y Huber, G.P. (1991). Understanding Technology-Structure relationship: Theory development and Meta Analysis theory testing". -Academy of -Management Journal, 34, 2, 370-399.
• Neter, J., Wasserman, W., y Kutner, M.H. (1983). Applied linear regression models. Hornewood, IL: Irwin.
• Perrow, CH. (1967). A franiework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194208.
• Perrow, CH. (1970). Organization Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. y TURNER, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization struture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 33-51.
• Quinn, R.E. y Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122-140.
• Quinn, R.E. y Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competillg values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science.
• Robbins, S.P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Applications. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J: Pretice-Hall (3a ed).
• Sánchez, J.C. (1992). Qué significa hoy ser una empresa eficaz para los directivos españoles. Aedipe, Sept. 19-26.
• Sánchez, J.C. (1993). Dimensionalidad estructura, de las empresas españolas. En L. Munduate y M.Baron (comp). Psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones. Sevilla: Eudema, pp. 411-421.
• Sánchez, J.C., Fernández Ríos, M., y Garrido, M. (1995). Aportaciones a la evaluación de la eficacia organizacional. En L.González, A. de la Torre y J. de Elena (comp.). Psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones, gestión de recursos humanos y nuevas tecnologias. Salamanca: Eudema.
• Schoonhoven, C.B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26,349-377.
• Singh, J.V. (1986). Technology, size and organizational structure: A reexamination of the 0kayarna study data. Academy of Management Joumal, 29, 800-812.
• Tracy, P. y Azumi, K. (1976). Determinants of administrative control: A test of a theory with Japanese factories. American Sociological Review, 41, 80-94.
• Van de Ven, A.H. y Drazin, R. (1985). The concept of fit in contingency theory. en B.M Staw y L.L. Cummings (eds), Research-in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 7, 333-365.
• Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14, 423-444.
• Venkatraman, N. y Camilus, J. (1984). Exploring the concept "fit" in strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 9,513-525.
• Withey, M., Daft, L.R. y Cooper, W.H. (1983). Measures of Perrow's work units technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 26(1), marz., 45-63.
• Woodward, J. (1965). Indus1rial Organization: Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press.