Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Authority and communication in firms

dc.contributor.authorKatayama, Hajime
dc.contributor.authorMeagher, Kieron
dc.contributor.authorWait, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-17T01:16:58Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.updated2019-07-28T08:20:15Z
dc.description.abstractWe show that decision making in organizations is typically more complicated than simply choosing either to delegate or to centralize. Firms have to consider not only the level at which a decision is made (authority location) but also how many people are involved (authority diffusion), and the type of communication. Utilizing a unique data set, we estimate a latent-class model to identify frequently adopted combinations of decision-making rights and communication across different hierarchical levels relating to the implementation of a significant change. We identify four typical authority/communication structures that can be loosely categorized as: authoritarian centralization; team decision making; consultative centralization; and decentralization. We then explore the relationships between these four authority/communication structures and other characteristics of the firm, such as the size of the organization, worker skills, long-term employer-employee relationships, individual and group incentives and how close the firm is to the productivity frontier. These results are broadly consistent with recent advances in theory, although no one model is rich enough to fully describe all our findings.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn0167-2681en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/195632
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.publisherElsevieren_AU
dc.rights© 2018 Elsevier B.Ven_AU
dc.sourceJournal of Economic Behavior and Organizationen_AU
dc.titleAuthority and communication in firmsen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage348en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage315en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationKatayama, Hajime, Waseda Universityen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationMeagher, Kieron, College of Business and Economics, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationWait, Andrew, University of Sydneyen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidMeagher, Kieron, u3802067en_AU
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor140299 - Applied Economics not elsewhere classifieden_AU
local.identifier.absseo910299 - Microeconomics not elsewhere classifieden_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4485658xPUB2602en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume155en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jebo.2018.09.005en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85054599316
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.elsevier.com/en-auen_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Katayama_Authority_and_communication_in_2018.pdf
Size:
1.25 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format