Antecedentes

Having examined various perspectives as to the factors that determine degrees of organisational fit it becomes necessary to consider those factors, which can impede and influence the attainment of fit. Chapter two examined the wide range of externalities that can impact on management’s ability or inclination to adapt, yet there are a range of management and organisational characteristics that may similarly influence the extent to which fit is achieved. The following represent some of the more significant impediments

It was earlier contended that the relative size complexity and maturity of an organisation determine degrees of management latitude in effecting structural change. This suggests that regardless of management orientation, attempts at fit, and the extent to which it is achieved, may be predicated by prevailing circumstances rather than the strategic direction per se. It also points to issues of actual or perceived control on the part of management also mentioned earlier.

Earlier sections of this chapter also pointed to the dichotomy between an organisation with highly complex, formalised and centralised structure and that characterised by a simple, organic, autonomous structure in terms of strategic constraints. The suggestion that highly formalised structures are, by nature, not conducive to diverse input of ideas suggests that strategy formulation in such an environment will typically be less creative, entrepreneurial, or open to change. Since the attainment of fit is arguably almost entirely predicated on openness to change and an ability to respond, the prevailing structure of the organisation can be either a key catalyst in achieving fit or a significant impediment. To some extent this is viewed as lending weight to the argument that structure dictates [or at least significantly influences] strategy.

Zajac et al (2000, p.430) contend that fit is a multi-dimensional concept which raises issues of the difficulties associated with conceptualising fit in organisations with more than one product orientation. “Simple bivariate approaches [one strategy] do not permit an accurate conceptualisation or measurement of strategic fit given that organizations face multiple environmental and organizational contingencies that can affect strategic fit” (p.430).

demand for individual products or services. That said the objectives, strategies, and measurement of fit will logically differ from product to product. At any one time, therefore, organisations with a number of products may be attempting fit on a number of concurrent fronts requiring high degrees of innovation. Conversely, as was suggested earlier, organisations built around a single product characteristically have narrow and consistent strategies with correspondingly low levels of innovation.

Although it would be easy to conclude that the management of fit on a number of concurrent plains presents the greater challenge, the fragility of fit in a single product domain is arguably more pronounced rendering the management of fit a more critical objective. Either way product orientation appears to present some recognisable challenges in the management of fit

Such complexities also extend to the environment itself. Depending on resources and corresponding degrees of operational sophistication the ability of respective organisations to ‘read’ environmental shifts arguably differs markedly between individual organisations. The ability or inclination to engage in market intelligence or broader environmental scanning, which are the very basis of preemptive action, will likewise vary between individual firms and individual managers. If nothing else this creates a divide between those organisations that can anticipate environmental change and take preemptive action, and those that simply react to shifts. A divide can also be conceptualised between early stage preemptive strategy and delayed action that may be partly proactive and partly reactive in nature. As such, the combined factors of knowledge and timing are viewed as significant limitations to the achievement of fit.

The prevailing scope and scale of competition is also viewed as a significant influence in the attainment of fit. Although this may be dismissed as simply one of a number of externalities impacting on the ability of an organisation to adapt it assumes particular importance because of the emotive quality that the actions of competitors have on strategic direction. For example, it may be contended that organisations operating in highly competitive environments requiring continuous product innovation may unwittingly assume an over competitive focus which fails to recognise resource or structural limitations. As suggested earlier, the compulsion to be highly innovative may infer diminished focus on one strategic direction rendering lasting fit more difficult to achieve. Such an observation has particular resonance in the context of a study of

visitor attractions given the focus on innovation, which characterises this sector of the tourism industry.

Scope and scale are also important considerations in the context of change itself. Given that organisational fit, or degrees thereof, is seen to be vested in an organisation’s ability to adapt to change, the pace and severity of such change clearly become defining factors. To some extent this is allied to the opening observation in this section with regard to knowledge and timing, since the rapidity and severity of change may largely dictate its visibility and malleability. This is seen as a significant impediment to the attainment of fit since it may diminish the ability of management to respond in a timely and effective way.

The opening observations with respect to organisational complexity also raise issues of the impact of organisational structure on both the decision making process and the implementation of strategy. Although the formulation of strategy is viewed as being the domain of the ‘dominant coalition’, its effective implementation at a functional level (Bartol, Martin, Tein, and Matthews 1998) can vary considerably depending on communication, autonomy, and such like. The willingness and ability of various levels of management to implement strategic vision is likewise variable. The ability of management to communicate strategic values and to achieve consensus of vision can have a significant influence on attempts to achieve organisational fit.

Similar differences in perspective can also be conceptualised when considering the means by which success [measured in perceived degrees of fit] is measured or evaluated. Since conceptually, if not actually, responsibility for the formulation of strategy is not necessarily vested in one individual the attitudes and perceptions of joint decision makers, both in terms of strategy formulation and outcomes will almost instinctively vary. The process of conceptualising fit as a set of objectives, framing appropriate strategies directed at their achievement, and adjudicating on the most appropriate ‘indicators’ of success may thus be complicated by the almost instinctive subjectivity of individual views.

This may be further complicated by varying degrees of expertise, conditioning as a result of previous experience, and even conflict arising from other issues. Although it is conceded that in most organisational domains the achievement of consensus on these

The last and arguably most significant impediment to the achievement of organisational fit is that of the vast range of externalities confronting the typical organisation in general and tourism organisations in particular. These were discussed in considerable detail in chapter 2. In the context of organisational fit however the distinction needs to be made between external changes that impact directly on the subject organisation, and indirect influences that despite being oblique can also impact on fit.

Since, in a conceptual sense attempts at achieving fit are essentially directed at responding to direct influences, the tendency to ignore or marginalise broader change in the process of strategic thinking should be assiduously avoided. Either individually or collectively, change which appears to be irrelevant in the context of specific issues of organisational or product adaption can often emerge as significant barriers to the realisation of strategy and subsequently to the attainment of fit.

3.2.5 A dimensional perspective: measuring and evaluating fit

It is also relevant to observe that fit, “although fundamental to organisation success is enormously difficult to achieve and/or maintain” (Miles and Snow 1984. p. 125) rendering it more a critical objective of management than an attainable state. The realisation that neither an organisation nor the environment with which it interacts are in any way static, suggests a more or less constant process of attempted alignment. As Glaser (1994, p.31) observes, “If markets are dynamic and uncertain how can it be possible to establish canons of strategic behaviour?” As discussed earlier even the attainment of minimal fit seems a key determinant in organisational success.

Further, one of the principal criticisms of Chandler’s thesis, (1962) and to the range of configurational theories that followed it (see for example Mintzberg 1979, 1983: Miles and Snow, 1978) is that there has been little in the way of empirical investigation seeking to measure degrees of fit. Some valuable work has been undertaken in an attempt to address this shortcoming (Naman and Slevin, 1993; Doty Glick and Huber, 1993) but quantifying fit remains an elusive objective. Some common threads are evident in the literature with indicators of fit being described as “successful organisations” (Miles and Snow 1984), “performance” (Chandler 1962), “unique competitive situation” (Chorn 1991), “economic success” (Engdahl et al 2000), and

“economic efficiency” (Chandler 1962), yet clearly quantitative measures need to be applied to this terminology if attainment of fit is to be an estimable entity.

Although, as previously stated the central argument relates to the determinants of fit, the success or otherwise of management in achieving this objective seems predicated on an ability to offer some means of evaluation. Earlier discussion alluded to a body of literature that adopted various perspectives as to the indicators of fit (Miles and Snow 1984; Chandler 1962; Chorn 1991; Engdahl et al 2000; Chandler 1962) mostly in terms of qualitative outcomes.

The earlier suggestion, however, that attempting fit is a dynamic process which is “enormously difficult to achieve and maintain” (Miles and Snow, 1984, p.125) suggests that there is need to consider not only perceptual and evaluative outcomes but also degrees or dimensions. If it is possible to contend that the attainment of fit can either be partial or total then a bipartite approach that includes some degree of conceptual scaling seems appropriate.

Miles and Snow (1984, p. 124) conceptualised fit as having four dimensions.

• Minimal fit among strategy, structure and process • Tight fit both internally and externally

• Early fit though the articulation of new patterns of strategy providing powerful competitive strategy

• Fragile fit characterised by vulnerability to shifting external conditions and inadvertent internal unraveling

Although at face value this may appear to somewhat simplistic it is viewed as having strong conceptual value in that it:

• Articulates a clear link between the internal dimensions of strategy structure and process, which, they contend, “is essential for all organisations operating in competitive environments” (p.125). “If a misfit occurs for a prolonged period the result usually is failure” (p.125). Given earlier criticism of the linear nature of organisational theory with respect to the strategy/structure nexus, the fact that the authors obviously seem to view these elements as being interdependent is of

• Expands the concept of fit beyond the unidimensional perspective of an organisations fit with its external environment to suggest that both internal and external fit is necessary for organisational success. Described as a key causal dynamic in ‘tight fit’, the “essential flow from fit with the environment [to] strategy structure and process” (p.130) is advanced as being central to organisational excellence.

• Adds a temporal dimension by suggesting that fit involves different strategic orientations at different stages of the organisational life cycle. This is also echoed in the broader literature with Koehler (1990, p.17) observing, “the organisations evolutionary stage is another important consideration”, “the structure should fit the unique requirements of a particular time”. Such a perspective has particular relevance in the context of this study given the contention that direct correlations can be established between strategic stance and stages of product development

• Makes a clear distinction between degrees of fit and the nature of fit by acknowledging that even organisations with minimal fit are capable of survival in the short term but that “sooner or later they must adjust their behaviour or fail” (p.126)

Based on earlier studies (Drucker, 1954; Peters and Waterman, 1982), the same authors proceed to articulate a set of causal dynamics for tight fit, foremost amongst which is the “discovery of basic structure and management processes necessary to support a chosen strategy”. Such a perspective is supportive of Chandler’s seminal thesis (1962) mentioned earlier in the chapter and falls generally within the theoretical position, which posits that structure follows strategy.

3.2.6 Conclusion

Discussion in this section focused on the more or less constant process of adaption to changing sets of circumstances towards attainment of what has been termed ‘organisational fit’.

Although at face value such a process may seem both a logical and instinctive function of management, the sheer diversity of organisational types, and an equally diverse taxonomy of products, suggests that degrees of success will vary markedly across the

organisational spectrum. Such complexity also questions the ability or inclination of management to achieve organisational fit. The supposition that there is any one ‘ideal type’ of organisation, or a generic ‘best practice’ approach to product management seems logically flawed.

A number of configurational theories which posit greater success for ‘ideal types’ of organisations (see for example Miles and Snow 1978; Mintzberg 1979; Porter 1980), were examined in the process. Although the discussion was characterised by theoretical differences over the comparative influences of strategy and structure, the conclusion was drawn that strategic orientation is more directly instrumental in achieving environmental ‘fit’ than is organisational structure. Further, it was recognised that the attainment of fit and the extent to which it can be achieved are subject to a wider range of variables than simply particularities of strategy and structure.

The foregoing discussion pointed to a diverse range of variables which, it was suggested might impact on, and in some cases impede the attainment of fit. It was suggested that a dynamic model of fit which recognises the link between both organisational and environmental contingencies, the desirability of change, and the specifics of implementation would add much to an understanding of the process. Fig. 3.2 depicts what Zajac et al (2000) view as the key contingencies [antecedents] and consequences [resultant actions and orientations of management] which dictate fit or misfit and thus organisational performance.

The synergies between this contemporary view of strategic fit, and Miles and Snow’s articulation of a dynamic model of the adaptive process (1978, p.9) which offered a range of strategic ‘options’ best suited to various contingencies, are notable. Identification of these contingencies and how they shape management orientation becomes a central element of this research. More particularly, it should be possible to identify how specific responses to environmental conditions or change are successful or otherwise.

Fig. 3.2 Adapted from Zajac et al (2000): “Towards a generic model of dynamic strategic fit: Antecedents and consequences”

Further, with respect to Miles and Snow’s model in particular the question of whether various types of attractions fit within their typology of successful orientations is worthy of examination. Closing sections of the work will broadly juxtapose their theoretical perspective of fit with the structural and strategic specifics of attractions in an attempt to validate certain practices [critical success factors], and to identify impediments to successful operation.

Given the opening assertions as to the diversity of attraction types it may be possible to identify particular types of attractions with unique operational contingencies and structural characteristics. By so doing, the dynamics of strategic fit may best be demonstrated.

Research Questions

Chapter 2 examined the nature of attractions and emphasised the complex environments within which they operate. The suggestion that successful operation is largely vested in an ability to anticipate, or respond to change, raises issues of what, if anything, constitutes a ‘best approach’. The point was made, however that the diversity of attraction types and operating environments rendered any such attempt

problematic at best. Further, the apparent absence of any attraction centric model of management suggested a need for both a specific research context, and a framework of organisational adaption drawn from the wider literature.

With respect to the latter objective, this chapter was directed at an examination of broader management theory with respect to management functions, and that specifically related to organisational adaption, of ‘fit’, in an attempt to identify an appropriate research framework with which to guide the research. The juxtaposition of widely accepted theories of organisational adaption or fit, in the context of attractions appears to offer significant explanatory possibilities. More particularly

it becomes possible to articulate a set of specific research questions directed at addressing the research problem outlined in chapter 1, namely:

To what extent does organisational fit contribute to successful operation in visitor attractions?

Towards a fuller understanding of the problem, the fundamental assumptions of broader theories of fit were examined particularly as they relate to the relative importance of strategy structure and process in achieving internal and external consistency. In addition, key performance indicators were identified as were major impediments to the adaptive process. Although not necessarily sequential the research findings are to be interrogated by means of the following four specific research questions.

RQ1:

What are the key performance variables that determine degrees of organisational fit in heritage visitor attractions?

In addressing this question the research seeks to identify those elements of strategy structure and process which, in the view of the research respondents, are critical determinants of successful operation.

RQ2:

What are the main impediments to the achievement of organisational fit in heritage visitor attractions?

Just as the key determinants of high levels of performance have some prescriptive value in setting a potential agenda for successful operation, identifying what respondents view as barriers or impediments to achieving alignment with the environment is of equal importance. Despite the almost intuitive logic of assuming that these were simply predicated on a lack of performance in the areas identified in RQ1, the principal aim of the research in this respect is to obtain as an inclusive view as possible such that the findings could be synthesised into key factors.

RQ3:

In the context of heritage visitor attractions what respective roles do strategy, structure, and process play in higher levels of organisational fit and organisational performance?

In addressing this question the aim of the research is to examine one of the basic tenets of Miles and Snow’s theory of organisational adaption (1978; 1984), which advances strategy as the basic alignment mechanism. Structure and process, they contend is simply a process of arranging resources internally to support the chosen strategy. Although this generally appears to be supported by their early research, primarily conducted in manufacturing organisations, the exercise of this research in a new context begs the question as to whether this can be assumed in the case of service industries generally, and visitor attractions in particular. The researcher was alerted by these authors’ concession that structure and process can constrain strategy suggesting that structural inadequacies may be a defining factor in the extent to which