A multi-stage model of governance in ... - Cass Knowledge
A multi-stage model of governance in ... - Cass Knowledge
A multi-stage model of governance in ... - Cass Knowledge
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Cass</strong> Centre for Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Service Firms – Work<strong>in</strong>g Paper 004 - 2010<br />
their 1980 article, address the concept <strong>of</strong> organizational lifecyles more explicitly <strong>in</strong><br />
their 1984 article.<br />
Stages <strong>of</strong> organizational growth<br />
Lifecycle <strong>model</strong>s provide some useful <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to the question <strong>of</strong> how firms develop<br />
from their <strong>in</strong>itial entrepreneurial start-up <strong>stage</strong> to become large and mature<br />
organizations. These studies identify a number <strong>of</strong> key <strong>stage</strong>s <strong>in</strong> a firm’s development<br />
and emphasize the periodic ‘crises’ which precipitate a move to the subsequent<br />
<strong>stage</strong> (see Hanks, Watson, Jansen, and Chandler, 1993, and McMahon, 1998, for a<br />
detailed summary). The specific <strong>stage</strong>s identified vary accord<strong>in</strong>g to the focus and<br />
scope <strong>of</strong> the study (e.g. <strong>in</strong>dustry sector, aspect <strong>of</strong> management practice etc.) but<br />
tend to place emphasis on the earliest ‘entrepreneurial’ <strong>stage</strong>s <strong>of</strong> development.<br />
While lifecycle <strong>model</strong>s have been criticized on a number <strong>of</strong> counts 1 , they<br />
nevertheless represent a useful analytical lens for develop<strong>in</strong>g a more nuanced<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>governance</strong> <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional service firms. Gre<strong>in</strong>er’s <strong>model</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>stage</strong>s <strong>of</strong> organizational growth (1972, 1998) is the most widely cited <strong>of</strong> these <strong>model</strong>s<br />
(with a current ISI Web <strong>of</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong> citation count <strong>of</strong> almost 350 published articles)<br />
Gre<strong>in</strong>er’s <strong>model</strong> is based on five key assertions (which are consistent with<br />
Greenwood and H<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gs’, 1988, concept <strong>of</strong> tracks):<br />
1 A recent review <strong>of</strong> the lifecycle literature identifies 33 dist<strong>in</strong>ct <strong>model</strong>s, which share many fundamental<br />
premises but present variations on established typologies (Phelps, Adams, & Bessant, 2007). Two<br />
factors help expla<strong>in</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> convergence on a common <strong>model</strong>: the lack <strong>of</strong> specificity about the<br />
concept ‘life<strong>stage</strong>’ (Aldrich, 1999; Hanks et al., 1993) and the lack <strong>of</strong> empirical foundations to many <strong>of</strong><br />
the studies (Draz<strong>in</strong> & Kazanjian, 1993; Levie & Hay, 1998; Miller & Friesen, 1982). Lifecycle <strong>model</strong>s<br />
can also be criticized for blurr<strong>in</strong>g the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between description and prescription (Andersen,<br />
2008). Whereas Gre<strong>in</strong>er and Malernee (2005, p. 275) argue quite modestly that lifecycle <strong>model</strong>s<br />
‘provide a roadmap (<strong>of</strong>) what lies ahead’, Phelps et al., 2007 suggest that all firms should, and <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
must, pass through the specific <strong>stage</strong>s if they are to grow and mature.<br />
10