By way of research, our consulting services outline the business and economic practices, consider their theoretically predicted effects on organizational failure, success, and financial performance, and discuss the need for the kind of empirical investigation described. Although our research have yielded consistent results, we suggest that the best measure of performance that lead to superior performance are multiple, interacting forces, rather than singular forces,.
Our present study, an appropriate combination of design and control, motivation and culture management, and strategic analysis and choice, helps to remedy this performance deficiency.
Our modest body of evidence confirms the proof that an integration of overall business and economic task or these three areas - structure, leadership, and strategy - will maximize or lead to best, superior performance.
For example, though a well designed structure alone will help in many ways, it cannot single-handedly lead to a high performing organization.
Our contention is that a combination, adoption, and implementation of best practices of three areas – design and control, motivation and culture management, and strategic analysis and choice – will lead to a high performance organization. In the same vein, an appropriate combination of good ideas, good employees, and good management will maximize an organization’s performance levels, strategic choices, and outcomes.
Furthermore, it is expected that high performing organizations succeed only when all these three areas of business management practices are combined or brought together.
Although there are important literatures bearing on each of those points separately, almost no research has considered the integrative question of how to integrate structural systems, powerful leadership, and strategic choices for superior performance. However, many recent researches have focused on singular forces as measures of performance.
Unfortunately, a number of problems with previous research on business and economic practices may account for these conflicting findings and are addressed with us.
To directly affect intermediate outcomes, productive performance results, and returns from investments, a nation or firm’s business and economic practices must be related to three dimensions: best competitive structure and design, leadership, and strategy. Although the objectives and approaches of organizational performance studies vary, our study shares the assumption that business and economic practices have a great impact on organizational failure, success, and financial performance. Further, our focus of the research is on the degree of balance among these variables, as defined from the perspective of having the best influence on performance and on achieving certain competitive value and advantage.
We have done more empirical studies to examine and evaluate the link between systems of high performance business management practices and firm performance.
Our study begins to address each of these tasks by delivering a predictive performance implication of each of these variables in different environments. This may be especially appropriate where a performance contribution can be clearly defined and measured.
For many years, it is dominant, widely accepted, practical and favored collectively among academics and practitioners that high performance business and economic practices have a closer connection and logical relationship with organizational outcomes, strategic choices and firm-performance levels and effectiveness. For example, our work indicates and details the significance of business and economic practices in investment, production, and growth of firm-specific competitive advantage. The issue is how a firm can grow superior profitability as an indication of high performance.
We contend that business and economic practices are frequently underutilized and successful organizations are vulnerable because business and economic practitioners over-rely on standard products and services and on outmoded ways of doing things, and that these organizations are not applying the right structure and strategies that could help revitalize their companies.
We argue that business and economic practices could help restructure firms to meet changing competitive conditions, even large organizations, by understanding, diagnosing, and responding to emerging organizational needs and problems, and by continuously adapting to shifts in the external environments.
Examples of a firm’s efforts to increase and create greater profitability and better value by reducing cost of resources include the use of horizontal structures to design the organization to function effectively, to link adaptive cultures and empowered roles to information sharing and collaborative strategy, to develop new approaches to meet changing conditions, to cope with constant environmental chaos, and to accept and use leading challenges and changes in the organization’s design and management practices.
Our approach is desired to improve all areas of the firm and to redesign the nation or firm’s structures and management practices as well as contribute to increased production of desired effect, and drive innovation. Our approach will, also, give significant and better insight to managers, make them more competent and influential to be aware of how their firms work, and guide the firm in difficult times, especially to struggle and succeed in this new era.
This means that any organizaton that aspires to industry leadership and wants to compete favorably in this century must think in terms of coping and shifting to a newer paradigm, from mechanical assumptions and industrial era to living, natural, biological systems - that is, to be flexible, and to primarily focus on the type of information and knowledge that could enable the organization to continuously experience, increase and improve capabilities, seize opportunities, solve problems, and handle crisis during this time of complexity and transition.
Our primary conceptual foundation and framework is to foster innovation for a more extensive knowledge base and stronger technological capability. In other words, our combination of recent business and economic practices, policies, and ideas will yield innovation and produce technological growth. By combining these practices, procedures and ideas and by specifying the distinctive advantages of different types of business and economic practices and avoiding vague inferences that impute value to organizational performance, we added precision to our research.