Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK

Published on May 1, 2018in Research Policy5.42
· DOI :10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001
Nuno Gil12
Estimated H-index: 12
(University of Manchester),
Jeffrey K. Pinto34
Estimated H-index: 34
(Penn State Erie, The Behrend College)
View in Source
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.
  • References (80)
  • Citations (7)
#1Klaus HeineH-Index: 7
#2Maximilian KerkH-Index: 2
3 CitationsSource
#1Andrew DaviesH-Index: 1
2 Citations
#1Sunila Lobo (University of Reading)H-Index: 4
#2Jennifer Whyte (Imperial College London)H-Index: 24
10 CitationsSource
#1Sinziana Dorobantu (NYU: New York University)H-Index: 6
#2Aseem Kaul (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 9
Last.Bennet A. Zelner (UMD: University of Maryland, College Park)H-Index: 16
view all 3 authors...
50 CitationsSource
#1Lyra J. Colfer (Harvard University)H-Index: 2
#2Carliss Y. Baldwin (Harvard University)H-Index: 28
140 CitationsSource
#1Jeffrey K. Pinto (Penn State Erie, The Behrend College)H-Index: 34
#2Graham Winch (University of Manchester)H-Index: 30
18 CitationsSource
#1Nuno Gil (University of Manchester)H-Index: 12
#2Guilherme BiesekH-Index: 1
Last.Jim Freeman (University of Manchester)H-Index: 8
view all 3 authors...
5 CitationsSource
#1Philipp Tuertscher (VU: VU University Amsterdam)H-Index: 6
#2Raghu Garud (PSU: Pennsylvania State University)H-Index: 41
Last.Arun Kumaraswamy (WCUPA: West Chester University of Pennsylvania)H-Index: 15
view all 3 authors...
26 CitationsSource
#1Tammy E. Beck (UNCC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte)H-Index: 10
#2Donde Ashmos Plowman (NU: University of Nebraska–Lincoln)H-Index: 14
41 CitationsSource
#1Sharon DolmansH-Index: 4
#2J.C. van BurgH-Index: 5
Last.Georges RommeH-Index: 23
view all 4 authors...
22 CitationsSource
Cited By7
#1Terry Williams (University of Hull)H-Index: 32
#2Hang Vo (University of Hull)H-Index: 1
Last.Andrew Edkins (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 8
view all 4 authors...
2 CitationsSource
#1Bon-Gang Hwang (NUS: National University of Singapore)H-Index: 25
#2Ming Shan (CSU: Central South University)H-Index: 14
Last.Pramesh KrishnankuttyH-Index: 1
view all 4 authors...
#1Andrew Davies (UCL: University College London)H-Index: 32
#2Sam MacAulay (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 6
Last.Tim Brady (University of Brighton)H-Index: 23
view all 3 authors...
#1Juri Matinheikki (Aalto University)H-Index: 4
#2Kirsi Aaltonen (University of Oulu)H-Index: 13
Last.Derek H.T. Walker (RMIT: RMIT University)H-Index: 35
view all 3 authors...
1 CitationsSource