لطفا منتظر باشید ...
7.5 A Grammatical Research Agenda
As suggested in the introduction, grammatical models create a variety of opportunities in organizational research by providing a novel way to describe the sequences of actions that make up organizational processes. More important, the grammatical metaphor has explanatory power because of the way it connects structures and possible actions. This connection suggests the possibility of several interesting kinds of research questions. Because the grammatical metaphor applies most clearly to processes that occur repetitively with relatively little change over time (i.e., synchronic rather than diachronic processes), I have chosen to emphasize those examples here.
7.5.1 Classification of Processes
Organization theorists have been concerned with the classification of organizational structures and forms (McKelvey 1982; Rich 1992). Grammars provide a conceptual framework for classification that is quite different from the typologies and taxonomies that are prevalent in organization theory. Instead of classifying organizations based on their structural features (M-form, U-form, etc.), their industry (e.g., by SIC code), their strategy (prospector, defender, etc.), or some other variable property, the grammatical metaphor suggests the possibility of classifying organizational units according to their internal processes. There are two main ways in which processes can be differentiated within the grammatical framework: differences in the lexicon and differences in the constraints.
Differences in the lexicon of a process are easy to identify, because they would show up immediately in the domain analysis as described above. For example, some customer service processes can dispatch a technician to your location (e.g., to fix your computer), while others cannot. Processes that have the ''dispatch''move in their lexicon could be called ''field service,''whereas processes without this move might be ''walk-in''or perhaps just ''hot lines.''Similarly, in a retail sales operation, there may be a variety of lexical differences that create whole new possibilities for interaction and service, as in the case of catalog stores that allow customers to enter their orders directly using a computer terminal. Sequential differences are also important, as Salancik and Leblebici (1988) illustrated in their restaurant grammar. In a sit-down restaurant, the sequence is order, cook, serve, eat, pay, but in a fastfood restaurant, it is usually cook, order, pay, serve, eat. The grammatical metaphor makes classification relatively easy because it isolates differences within syntactic constituents. For example, most retail stores have an overall pattern similar to a supermarket. But in a clothing store the ''select item''constituent often involves a specialized sequence required to try on the clothing. This syntactic specialization provides a formal way to identify clothing stores as a kind of retail store, and to further differentiate kinds of clothing stores, and so on.
7.5.2 Explaining the Variation and Distribution of Processes
As one starts to develop a taxonomy of processes, it becomes possible to start asking questions about what explains the observed distribution of instances, a problem that parallels the classic problem of explaining the distribution of organizational forms (Singh and Lumsden 1990). Furthermore grammatical models make it is possible to predict organizational forms that have not yet been observed (Salancik and Leblebici 1988). This is a unique and potentially very interesting contribution that is not possible with existing ways of modeling organizations. Given a set of unobserved forms, one might attempt to explain their absence.To explain the observed distribution of processes, there are several strategies that one can adopt that roughly mirror the kinds of explanations used for organizational forms. For example, economic effciency, institutional legitimacy, or resource availability might all be used as explanatory constructs. To the extent that the processes under consideration here are core business processes that transform inputs to outputs, economic effciency is clearly a critical consideration. One interesting feature of the grammatical metaphor is that it suggests the possibility of separating this consideration from the internal structure of the process itself. To see why this is so, recall that the theory of the firm treats organizations as black boxes, without much if any consideration for internal structure. Economic theories are largely indifferent to the possible ways of organizing, except insofar as organizing effects effciency. Likewise pragmatics is largely indifferent to syntax, except insofar as syntax effects the force of an utterance. Excluding economic considerations from grammar does not exclude them from organization theory, but it does simplify the theoretical work to be done by each. We can begin to imagine piecing together a set of modular, interacting components that would explain the existence of observed organizational forms. Consider, again, Salancik and Leblebici's (1988) restaurant grammar. Their grammar explains the variety of possible restaurants without any reference to whether one form is more economically viable. This makes sense because these are logically separate questions. Implicitly Salancik and Leblebici (1988) are relying on the modularity of their grammar. If we were to ask questions concerning the competitiveness of the restaurants that their grammar generates, or whether the food is tasty, we would need to look elsewhere because these questions are outside the scope of the grammar.
7.5.3 Comparative Statics — Why Do Processes Differ?
The grammatical framework outlined here contains no endogenous explanation for change. Following the traditions of structural linguistics, grammars are generally treated as synchronic; they can be used as indicators of diachronic change but cannot be used to explain such changes. Within the grammatical framework one can formulate a variety of testable hypotheses concerning the effects of changing constraints on organizational processes. For example, ''as constraint X changes, what new patterns or classes of action are predicted?''This is the logic underlying Malone and Rockhart's (1991) analysis of the effects of information technology on organizational processes. As the cost of this technology goes down, it reduces certain kinds of coordination constraints. As a result new organizational forms are possible.The grammatical method suggested here is particularly well suited to the empirical comparison of ''discrete structural alternatives''(Williamson 1991) as they are actually practiced. Williamson (1991) maps out the structural alternatives that economize on transaction costs under various institutional regimes. While one can gain considerable insight through the study of hypothetical or idealized contracts, Leblebici (1992) suggests that differences in transactions under various institutional regimes can be conveniently expressed by using grammatical models similar to the kind proposed here. In using these models, it may be interesting to observe the sequential structure of various kinds of transactions within markets, hierarchies, and hybrid forms, to see how they differ empirically. Does the lexicon or sequence of moves in a market transaction differ from the sequence of moves in a hierarchy or a hybrid form? What accounts for the differences or lack or differences? It would be quite interesting, for example, if we learned that institutional structures have relatively little effect on the configuration of transactions compared to technological or cultural considerations.
7.5.4 Design of Organizational Processes
On a more practical level, grammatical methods may offer insights into the design and redesign of organizational processes (Malone et al. 1993). To the extent that syntactic constituents can be identified that generalize across organizational settings, a grammar provides a framework for generating and comparing alternatives. For a given syntactic constituent (or covering term), it may be possible to substitute a functionally equivalent alternative. By studying the syntax of a wide variety of processes, it may be possible to start predicting which specific kinds of routines are more effective in various situations. Malone et al. (1993) have initiated an effort to accumulate just such a Handbook of organizational processes that would not only classify existing processes but help design new ones. A closely related practical question confronting managers is how to measure the relative performance of existing processes. While so-called benchmarking studies are widely used, there is often little systematic basis for assessing the validity of the comparison. By using the idea of syntactic constituents, persons interested in comparing parts of larger processes should be able to gain a firmer point of reference on which to base comparisons.
