Organization design: articles and videos

Nicolai’s post at O&M made me aware of a new journal, Journal of Organization Design.  I definitely think org design deserves to experience a renaissance/comeback, so I welcome a journal dedicated to the topic. (Though, I do think we have far too many journals in strategy/management – many of them are of suspect quality.)

 I just now checked out the web site of the journal and they have some killer features, including short videos of the authors describing their papers:

I like the video feature.  Nice.

3 Comments on “Organization design: articles and videos”

  1. stevepostrel says:

    OK, I listened to the Matthews video and was not encouraged. Leaving aside the shaky assertions he makes about organization design and economics, he leaps into a logically unrelated set of claims about green technologies, the Chinese automobile industry, and how understanding supra-firm architectures will help poor countries industrialize.

    The Carroll video is a nice brief intro explaining that his paper is a translational article about what some would call ambidextrous firms, presumably translating the academic literature for practitioners. That sounds worthy.

    The Miles video makes a bunch of sweeping historical claims and theoretical distinctions that seem highly contestable, but then ends briefly by describing an article that might be interesting without all the preceding setup.

    It sounds like they are trying to find ways to link academic and practitioner concerns, which is laudable. I’m not sure they are advancing the SRI goals, however. I’ll have to read the papers to get a better sense.

  2. teppo says:

    I didn’t watch the videos (just a couple sections) – but I definitely like the idea of including additional content like this. Great idea.

    In terms of “logically unrelated claims” – you can find those in any journal.

  3. stevepostrel says:

    Teppo: I like the video idea, too. A brief Powerpoint-y presentation might be even better. I wish them the best of luck with both the topic and their fresh approach. My critique is intended to be specific enough to give them useful feedback that will help them fulfill their mission–new journals have to be especially careful to get positive network effects going among writers and readers. Your own skepticism in the post about having too many strategy and management journals of iffy quality is a case in point.

    On the “logically unrelated claims” front, I doubt you would find very many good journals where somebody would be allowed to say (MY PARAPHRASE–CHECK THE VIDEO FOR YOURSELF TO SEE IF I’M ACCURATE) “The architecture of multi-firm networks is important; therefore the electric car industry and ‘green’ industry in general are good things,” much less “the fact that Chinese car firms also make motorcycles and electric cars indicates that novel, superior, supra-firm architectures are going to be important for developing countries’ economic progress.”

    It could be that the written article fills in the missing connective tissue, implying that the video’s apparent barrage of non sequiturs is a misleading guide to the article’s actual content, but that would argue for more careful editing of the videos.

    In any case, this seems like an interesting and potentially valuable venture that I intend to monitor for useful nuggets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s