企业间组织的跨层次分析——兼析企业专业化与集团多元化的关系被引量：7

A Cross-level Analysis on Inter-firm Organization:Exploring Relationship between Specialization and Diversification at Firm and Business Group Levels

原文传递

导出

摘要专业化与多元化代表了两种不同的经营模式,在已有文献中常被看做是一对互有冲突的"悖论"。本文从这对构念在企业与集团两个层次上的不同内涵及层次关联的分析入手,对企业间组织研究中引入跨层次分析视角的必要性及潜存的研究谬误进行了探讨,在借鉴"浴缸"模型之跨层分析框架的基础上,结合企业专业化与集团多元化方面的研究主题构建了几种跨层次的概念模型,为逻辑地分析作为复杂系统的企业间组织的层次结构及其相关课题的研究提供了方法论指导,并阐释了企业集团为什么可以在成员企业的专业化经营之上形成集团多元化经营的格局。 Specialization and diversification presents two kinds of business models, which are usually regarded as a paradox. Basing on the comparison of the meanings of this pair of constructs at the firm and business group levels, the paper explores the relationships between the two different but related business models specialization at the firm level and the resulted diversification at the business group level with the guidance of bathtub-typed model proposed by James Coleman, and identifies the underlying fallacies in the singlelevel and cross-level analysis. Centered on the theme, the paper proposes several cross-level concept models as frameworks to induce further studies on the hierarchical relationships in complex business systems. Besides its methodological values, the paper provides a logical explanation on the emergence of diversification business structures from the specialization counterparts at the lower-level.

作者王凤彬

机构地区中国人民大学商学院

出处《中国工业经济》 CSSCI 北大核心 2008年第3期49-57,共9页 China Industrial Economics

基金国家自然科学基金项目"超模块组织模式与网络节点自组织能力研究"(批准号70571082)

关键词跨层次分析企业集团专业化多元化还原谬误 cross-level analysis business groups specialization diversification atomistic fallacy

分类号 F270 [经济管理—企业管理]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献17

1Chang, S., and J. Hong. How Much Does the Business Group Matter in Korea [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2002, (23).
2Diez-Roux, A. V. Bringing Context Back into Epidemiology[J]. American Journal of Public Health, 1998, (88).
3Galtung, J. Theory and Methods of Social Research [M]. New York: Columbia UN Press, 1967.
4Gerlach, M. L. The Japanese Corporate Network [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992, 37(1).
5Goldstein, H. Multilevel Statistical Models [M]. New York: Halsted Press, 1995.
6Goodman, P. S. Missing Organizational Linkages [M]. London: Sage Publications Inc., 2000.
7Halfat, C. E., and K. M. Eisengardt. Inter-temporal Economics of Scope, Organizational Modularity, and the Dynamics of Diversity [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2004,(25).
8Larsson, R. The Handshake between Invisible and Visible Hands [J]. International Studies of Management & Organization, 1993, 23 (1).
9Klein, K. J., F. Dansereau, and R. J. Hall. Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis [J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19(2).
10Klein, K. J., H. Tosi, and A. A. Cannella Jr. Multilevel Theory Building: Benefits, Barriers, and New Developments [J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(2).

二级参考文献28

1雷良海,杜小娟.上市公司多角化经营程度与经营绩效关系的实证研究[J].上海理工大学学报,2003,25(4):341-345. 被引量：16
2徐康宁,韩剑.中国钢铁产业的集中度、布局与结构优化研究——兼评2005年钢铁产业发展政策[J].中国工业经济,2006(2):37-44. 被引量：124
3[1]Hofmann D A. Issues in multilevel research: theory development, measurement, and analysis. In: Rogelberg S G. ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Blackwell Publishers, 2002. 247～274
4[2]Kozlowski S W J, Klein K J. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein K J, Kozlowski W J ed. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000. 3～90
5[3]Lewin K. Field theory in the social sciences. New York: HarperCollins, 1951
6[4]Forehand G A, Glimer B H. Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological bulletin, 1964, 62:361～382
7[5]James L R, Jones A P. Organizational climate: a review of theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 1974, 81: 1096～1112
8[6]Morgeson F P, Hofmann D A. The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of management review, 1999, 24:249～265
9[7]Chan D. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. Journal of applied psychology, 1998, 83:234～246
10[8]Guzzo R A, Yost P R, Campbell R J, Shea G P. Potency in groups: articulating a construct. British journal of social psychology, 1993,32:87～106