The following reviews some of the earlier work that is useful in explaining the origins of existing organisational theories. Four themes were identified within the literature:

1 - The ways in which organisational structures enable/disable a global approach.

2 - The co-ordination mechanisms and micro-structural tools employed by managers.

3 - The characteristics of people who work in a global environment?

4 - How an organisations strategic process may assist managers working within a global environment.

These were seen to be particularly relevant to the research as each focused upon a different yet mutually supportive aspect of what Bartlett et al (1989) call the 'transnational company'.

The development of organisations, and the ways in which they may be used to support strategy are recognised by Mintzberg (1979) as important area of management study. It would appear that over time research into organisational development has evolved in parallel with the organisations it sought to describe and influence. There is evidence that much of the early literature appears to be both informing and revealing (Mintzberg 1983), and an understanding of this work appears a useful foundation upon which to build this review, however Mintzberg observes:

Although Mintzberg considered this early research to be widely dispersed, and presented in an academic style it was felt necessary to understand this work as it appeared to introduce some of the fundamental concepts in organisational development; their origins and proponents.

The end of the 20th century saw the emergence of Multinational Companies (MNCs) as a dominant force in worldwide business (Shapiro 1992). The term MNC is used by Shaprio to describe any company:

MNCs represented a new set of challenges to those engaged in organisational development, such as whether a centralised or decentralised structure was more or less likely to deliver the requirements of a particular strategy (Chandler 1962). Although they appeared at times dysfunctional many of the early theories were still perceived as useful and frequently observed in these new organisations (Huczynski et al 1991 p301).

Mintzberg's synthesis of the then current research (1979) appears to represent a watershed in the study of organisational development. Building upon the findings of authors such as Taylor, Chandler, and Fayol a set of working hypotheses and the identification of a new form the 'Adhocracy', it appears that the subsequent synthesis was one of the first works attempting to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners (Mintzberg 1983).

It would seem that the 'Systems approach' espoused by early authors such as Von Bertalanffy (1956) and Beer (1972) was both slow to evolve and be acknowledged (Mintzberg 1979), however this work started to address many of the problems of organisational development from a systems perspective and is acknowledged by Pedler et al as:

The concepts of 'Whole Systems Development' and organic structures appears to have grown alongside what can be considered 'traditional theories'. More recently Senge (1990) identified the importance of these principles as applied through the concepts of the 'learning Organisation'.

Research by authors such as Johnson et al (1993), highlight the importance of understanding and interpreting the 'Culture' or ideological glue that binds organisations together in explaining their reactions to environmental change. The work of Kanter (1989b) appears to build upon this concept arguing that structural change is less effective than cultural change in modern organisations.

Organisational culture appears to be a recurring theme, reflected in what Chandler (1962) and Bartlett et al (1989) identify as an organisations 'Administrative Heritage'. Whilst identifying the current forms of worldwide company as either International, Multinational or Global their work identifies a new form, the 'Transnational Organisation' which they suggest is the form of the future.

In attempting to identify the key attributes for the transnational organisation Bartlett et al 1989) appear to draw upon a range of qualities identified both in past and current research. These concepts were investigated in greater depth in order to support much of the subsequent research.

The earliest attempts to understand and deal with organisational development may be traced to the 1900s where for the first time both academics and practitioners attempted to tackle the problems associated with large complex organisations, employing new technologies (Huczynski et al 1991). Two main schools of though appear to have emerged from this period.

The 'Scientific management' approach headed by F.W. Taylor (1947) relied on the analysis of tasks. These were broken down into standardised units and a single most efficient way was determined in which each should be performed. This approach relied heavily on hierarchical organisational structures, where managers designed the tasks, which workers were expected to perform, as Taylor said "...in the one best way" (Taylor 1947).

As Huczynski et al (1991) observe, even during Taylor's time this approach appeared highly controversial; relying only on financial incentives. Taylor considered that workers were only motivated by financial gain which lead him to conclude that the self interest of each worker would ensure greater productivity if only shown how. In this way Taylor ignored all other forms of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors in his studies. To this day the term 'Machine Model' is commonly used to describe organisations that in some way characterise Taylor's ideology (Mintzberg 1979).

Taylor's 'Machine Model' appears to fit well with the ideas of Weber (In Huczynski et al 1991) who identified the bureaucracy as the most efficient way of running large organisations. Although it is currently fashionable to use the term bureaucracy in a derogatory sense, Weber identifies specific efficiencies that he felt were only obtainable by adopting the concepts of specialisation, rules, and procedures. This appears to have led to the hierarchical approach which has tended to dominate the structures subsequently adopted by 'large' organisations (Huczynski 1991).

In contrast to Taylor's 'machine model' the 'Classical Management' school originally based upon the work by Fayol (1916) appeared to rely on management experience as opposed to empirical research. Fayol's top down approach and five functions of management were a significant step in identifying management as a distinct profession. In common with others from the 'Classical Management' school such as A.P. Sloan and A. Morita, Fayol was an experienced and successful manager (Montrose in Gray 1984). Although this work lacked what could be called 'academic rigour' (Huczynski 1991) the natural skills of Fayol should not be underestimated, and these enabled him to write in an informed style on the subject of management. As Montrose says:

Classical management theories considered the entire organisation to arrive at a universalist approach with which to develop organisations. This 'structural universalist' approach was characterised by the belief in a set of core principles with which to approach organisational design. Of Fayol's original 14 principles a core of six common principles emerged as common to a majority of these writers:-

- Scalar chain

- Unity of command

- Exception principle

- Span of control

- Division of work

- Application of scientific method

Although the classical management school is criticised for its 'formalisation of behaviour' or 'universalist approach', in common with Taylor's (1947) work application of many of the principles are still evident in current management practice (Mintzberg 1979). It appears that Fayol never intended slavish following of his principles saying:-

Maybe less commonly recognised but more significant are Fayol's recognition of 'Initiative' and 'Esprit De Corps' as a principle of management. Fayol appears quick to identify the benefits of teamwork good communication and the skills involved in motivating employees, saying:

It would appear that in the absence of a viable alternative the classical management school determined many of the organisational decisions of the early 20th century. However the latter half of the 20th century saw a growing number of companies facing the type of administrative problems that previously only a handful of the largest of companies had previously encountered (Chandler 1962).

Although the work of Chandler (1962) displays an historical bias it was useful in identifying the evolution in large businesses towards what he describes as a 'multidivisionalised structure'.

Faced with growing and diversifying businesses during the early 20th century, managers were previously faced with two organisational options. The first option was to include any new business under the existing centralised administrative system however, as Chandler observed:

The second was to create a separate concern to deal with the new business. The problem with the first solution was that the business was sometimes so different that attempting to control it under a common administrative system designed to control the existing business could lead to failure of the business. Creating a separate concern meant loosing control and possible synergies, as the lines of communication were as important as the resultant structure (IBID).

Chandler observed the common response to this problem by companies such as General Motors, Du Pont, Standard Oil, and Sears, which was to create what he termed the 'multidivisional structure' saying:-

It would appear that Chandlers recognition of Strategy [In this context deciding how to grow], environment and structure, and the interdependence of this relationship broke new ground in interpreting these problems. The historical nature of Chandlers work enabled him to observe the effects of environmental change on these companies, as Chandler says:

Although biased towards occidental companies Chandler (1962) appeared to recognise the contribution of administrative history in his work, and was a first step towards a more objective and analytical approach to the subject of organisational structures.

It would appear that in common with Chandler (1962) much of the research conducted after the second world war challenged the existing classicist paradigm. Companies appeared to develop new structures to deal with the complexity and dynamism that marked this period.

This early work was fragmentary in nature and it was only by the late 1970 that Mintzberg (1979) felt that he could draw some meaningful conclusions from previous research through his synthesis.

As previously mentioned Mintzberg's original works (1979, 1983) appear to represent a watershed in the study of organisational forms, building upon the findings of a broad range of authors such as Chandler, Fayol, and Taylor. Much of this early work is evident in the structural forms and forces identified in Mintzberg's original synthesis (1979). This was integrated with more recent works to arrive at a set of working hypotheses because, as mintzberg observed:

Unlike previous works Mintzberg (1979) sought to understand not how organisations structure themselves, but initially how they function and communicate within their respective environments and industries [In this context mintzberg equates industry to age and includes administrative history]. In this way the five parts of an organisation, five co-ordinating mechanisms, and five structural configurations lead mintzberg to generate a new model within which to describe the organisational forms he observed.

It is argued by Mintzberg that most organisations are a mixture of these five forms, yet what he attempted to show was that for pure forms the hypotheses held. This enabled him to draw some meaningful conclusions from his research.

It would appear that of Mintzberg's five structural configurations four were already familiar to most practitioners -

Small entrepreneurial businesses in an early stage of development.

An efficient form for large businesses where specialisation and standardisation of work is driven by the efficiencies of scale.

Driven by standardisation of skills and a recognition of the independence and authority of professionals.

A Progression from the machine bureaucracy to enable administration of a broad range of functions towards diverse markets.

It is the fifth configuration 'Adhocracy' that Mintzberg identified as the most recent to appear and the one that he admitted he understood the least (Mintzberg 1979). Arguing that the four other forms could be equated to older industries where time had enabled them to standardise their work Mintzberg says:-

Recognising the increasing complexity facing modern organisation Mintzberg viewed the strength of adhocracies or Kanter's (1989a) "post entrepreneurial organisations" in their ability to innovate and change.

Adhocracies are characterised by their organic structures, the professionals within these organisations grouped in arbitrary functional units (Mintzberg 1979). These flexible structures that sought to co-ordinate temporary work teams (Toffler 1980) relied on the concept of matrix management and projects formed for short periods to deliver an output (Mintzberg 1983).

Typified by a lack of formal structure and disregard for the classicists rules such as unity of command and scalar chain, adhocracies reverted to mutual adjustment for their co-ordinating mechanism. Their ability to change and adapt represents both a strength and weakness. This new form is not applicable to some industries and Mintzberg (1979) argues that imposing an adhocracy on what may be an hierarchical organisation is unnatural and should not be attempted. However Baden-Fuller et al say:

It would therefore appear that established bureaucracies have little choice over whether to move towards a more adhocratic approach if they wish to survive in a market that may be re-defined by more innovative organisations, and as Baden-Fuller et al say:

There would appear to be drawbacks in running adhocracies as not everyone is comfortable in a decentralised organisation. The constant change, and ambiguity means that there is always a pull towards reverting to either the professional bureaucracy or machine bureaucracy (Mintzberg 1979). Kanter (1989a) is critical of what she describes as a 'segmentalist approach' to problems. Bureaucratic organisations attempt to break them into smaller parts in an attempt to solve them, whereas the integrative approach of these postentrepreneurial organisations is likely to be more effective as their lines of communication enable them to synthesise problems and prepare accordingly (Kanter 1985). In recognition of the connection between systems thinking and his adhocracy Mintzberg says:-

Another feature of the adhocracy or decentralised organisation is the emergence of multiple centres of power. This may be seen a drawback by some, who perceive the politics at all levels of these organisations to be inefficient and costly. However, as Mintzberg (1979) observes, the resultant consensus is a part of the ability of the organisations systems thinking:

It would appear that in addressing the resultant politics and power experienced within adhocracies Checkland's (1993) Soft Systems Methodology has become an effective way in which to approach many of the messy problems these organisations faced.

In approaching the problem of organisational design from an organic perspective it would appear that authors such as Von Bertalanffy (1968) and Beer (1979) started to look at organisational structures from a systems as opposed to a functional perspective. The early theories considered organisations as open systems, maintaining an existence or overcoming 'entropy' by importing more energy that they expended, the surplus being used to generate growth or reserves of energy. By maintaining dynamic homeostasis or an ability to maintain stability in a changing environment (Von Bertalanffy 1968) these systems appeared to be able to tolerate changes in their environments.

In order to maintain homeostasis in a system, it is argued by Beer (1979) that the system must be able to match requisite variety. The 'law of requisite variety' (Ashby 1965) would appear to be counter to the reductionists approach to problems and (Pedler et al 1997) identify this as significant in linking systems thinking to that of Revans (1983) and the learning organisation.

Arguably one of the more controversial approaches to the systems in organisational design is the neuro-cybernetic or viable systems model (VSM). Conceived by Beer (1979,1996), the world cybernetic can be literally translated from the Greek as 'steersmanship' and it is the control systems surrounding organisations that Beer (1979) focused on in the viable systems model. Based upon the human body [Identified by Beer as the most viable system.] the VSM comprises five core elements:

1 - The operational area.

2 - Regulatory Centre

3 - Inside and Now

4 - Outside and Future

5 - Policy

A core concept of this model was that of recursion and the existence of these five elements at each level of recursion. Beer argues that without each of these elements and an identity a system would not be survival worthy, the resultant dysfunctionality leading to its eventual demise.

Unlike previous approaches to organisational design Beer's VSM appears to approach the problem philosophically as demonstrated when Beer gives an explanation of intent through action in the system:

In this way it would appear that in common with the theory of self actualisation (Maslow 1954), Beer had identified what may make an organisation function efficiently, not through an observation of existing dysfunctionality; but by creating an analogy to what Beer considered the most viable system, the human being [Although Beer argues that the model is more than an analogy]. It would appear that Beer's VSM did much to integrate many of the existing 'systems thinking' concepts yet his model is critiqued by Mintzberg (1979) as being tied to and dictating an hierarchical approach to the structural design of organisations.

It would appear that a weakness of Beer's VSM was in its application and analysis to existing organisations. Although application of the VSM is described in some detail (Beer 1979), many proponents of this model seem to have failed to integrate this work through application. It would appear that there is still plenty of work left in improving the approachability and esoteric nature of the VSM.

Central to the systems approach to organisational design is the concept of cycles and interrelatedness (Pedler 1997). Systems work started to address many of the problems of organisational development from this perspective and is acknowledged by Pedler et al as:

The concepts of 'Whole Systems Development' and organic structures appears to have grown alongside what can be considered 'traditional theories'. More recently Senge (1990) identified the importance of these principles as applied through the concepts of the 'learning Organisation'.

The interrelatedness of effective change and organisational learning now seem as important as an understanding of the environment and the ability to manage strategy at multiple levels. It would appear that only recently has the work on systems thinking started to converge with more traditional theories of strategy and fit through what could be described as 'creative tension' and the leaders new work (Senge 1990).

The emergence of Multinational Companies follows the establishment of a number of international institutions after the second world war. The relatively stable conditions enabling domestic companies to expand; and international companies to alter the way in which they operated (Krugman 1994).

It would appear that in addressing the problems of global expansion Bartlett et al (1989) recognised the importance in what they identify as administrative history in the various approaches that companies across the world employed in the pursuit of efficient multinational forms.

The work of Chandler (1962) highlights the approaches of North American companies and would thus appear centred on an occidental paradigm. North American Companies were marked by the fact that they had not grown internationally. Up to the end of the second world war their home markets were large enough to sustain growth and not until the 1970s did US companies address the problems of international operations (Krugman 1994).

At the time these North American companies started to pursue worldwide strategies the divisionalised form dominated their approach.

It is therefore not surprising that these North American companies tended to rely on the formalisation of systems, policies, and standards to address their strategic objectives. Thus a common approach was to create an international division in which to concentrate these activities. However the weakness of this approach is highlighted by Taggart et al (1993) because whilst domestic activities may be organised on a product line basis international operations may occur on an area basis making co-ordination difficult.

Another common approach taken by these occidental companies was the global product division structure where different subsidiaries within the same country reported to different groups in the home country. However in contrast to the first approach the weakness of this system was its inability to deal with co-ordination on an area basis (Bartlett et al 1989).

As an alternative approach the dominant process in Japanese companies was to rely on a centralised system of co-ordination and control (IBID). This process facilitates rapid decision making, and is relatively simple to implement in the correct culture (Taggart et al 1993).

However this oriental approach would not appear easy to implement in occidental companies where alternative processes dominate. In addition, centralisation is seen as extremely costly to run and eventually limits the size of the organisation as information overload eventually compromises the decision making process (Bartlett et al 1989). In contrast to this approach a third process seems to dominate European business.

With a history of international trade driven by small domestic markets, many European companies were the first to encounter the challenges of creating organisational structures for cross border operations (Taggart et al 1993). These companies developed during an era when communication was slow and expensive. The solution formulated by these companies was to relying on a network of trusted employees who remained loyal to the centre. Unfortunately this process is the most expensive of the three, relying heavily on a slow process of indoctrination and socialisation to create the managers required (Bartlett et al 1989).

However successful each co-ordinating structure appeared, like Mintzberg's five forms very few companies could be described as pure forms e.g. Bartlett et al (1989) describe Matsushita as a mixture of co-ordinating mechanisms.

They also recognised the propensity of companies to "stretch a particular mechanism to its limits" (IBID p165).

Although the structures derived from these forms were more or less successful within their particular industries attempts were made to ascertain which were the correct structures for particular world wide companies. Prahalad et al (In Carnall 1997) suggest that making a trade off between local responsiveness and global integration forces a unidimensional approach that belies an inability to undertake strategic redirection. In these circumstances the very processes that generated the previous efficiencies acts to impede changes (IBID 1997).

As a final approach to addressing the structural enigma of organisations, managers were eventually drawn towards a matrix structure. The logic of the matrix seems to make it an irresistible option (Bartlett et al 1989). The original study by Stopford and Wells (1972) identified a model of diverging stages towards the matrix form. They argue that whether a company pursues a product or area driven structure the ultimate destination will be the global matrix or grid.

Unfortunately within the paradigm of the 1970s multinational company the matrix was a failure (Bartlett et al 1989). Instead of nurturing multiple management perspectives the matrix forced issues through dual chains of command:

With the recognition that the matrix structure had failed to live up to its promises of enabling a balance between local responsiveness, globalisation, centralisation and decentralisation many companies retreated to the simpler forms of administration they were familiar with. However for many companies their environments proceeded to become both more dynamic and complex. Although the Divisionalised Adhocracy was the preferred structural from for many multinational companies (Mintzberg 1979) in such environments the challenge was still to build companies with the correct mix of abilities (Bartlett et al 1989).

In attempting to understand what limited these companies Bartlett et al (1989) concluded that administrative heritage or culture transcended structure:

Building the organisation of the future or what Bartlett et al (1985) term 'The Transnational Organisation' involves changing the culture more than the structure. In attempting to understand culture and strategic change a number of cultural analysis tools were developed. Johnson's (1992) 'culture web' is one such example.

In attempting to understand culture in a more multinational mode Perlmutter (In Taggart et al 1993) suggests world wide companies adopt four style modes of orientation. This model appears more applicable to the multinational environment. Thus by identifying a companies Ethnocentric, Polycentric, Regiocentric or Geocentric (EPRG) style of orientation a prediction and interpretation of its strategic intent may be obtained.

Although these cultural analysis techniques may not enable organisations to formulate strategy (Porter 1987), it appears that they do represent a useful way in which to diagnose organisations and build towards a credible strategic analysis.

It appears that the term multinational is often used in its broadest sense to describe any company involved in world wide operations, however Bartlett et al (1989) are more specific identifying three types of world wide company; the international company, the multinational company, and the global company.

Described as a "decentralised federation" (IBID p49) multinationals were predominantly European in focus and are seen as having grown from a past where an hostile geo-political climate forced resilience into the structure of the company. Typical examples of this type of organisation were ITT and Unilever who in response to these forces decentralised their assets. Subsidiaries enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy whilst the parent company utilised personal relationships and financial reports to manage what they saw as a portfolio of offshore operations.

With a predominantly North American focus international companies were a product of the post war period. The centralised nature of these organisations enabled the parent company to direct operations according to procedures. Although these organisations resembled the multinational, their subsidiaries were more dependent on the centre for transfer of knowledge.

The innovations from this company were generated at the centre and as a consequence of this parent company decision making tended to be parochial in nature treating subsidiaries as mere operational appendages (IBID).

No description of the global company would be compete without a reference to a possible future painted by Levitt (Levitt in De-Wit et al 1994) where products homogenise through cost and quality drivers. Pursued by companies that specialise in the production of their products and building cost advantages through global scale operations, global companies rely on supplying products that have a high need for global integration with a low need for local responsiveness (Prahalad et al in Carnall 1997). Thus in some industries Prahalad et al (IBID) recognise that the task of the global company goes further than producing low cost high quality goods as:

In recognition of the cultures that tended to dominate each form of world wide company Bartlett et al (1989) recognised that the search for simplicity had concluded, and the challenge facing many organisations was:

It would appear that increasing complexity and change in many industries may drive worldwide companies to consider alternate forms. A characteristic of the 'Transnational Company' is its complex dynamic environment and therefore it is towards this form that these companies will eventually migrate (IBID).

Although Bartlett et al (1989) identify the 'Transnational Company' as a specific form there appears to be very few works directly supporting this thesis. Authors such as Hedlund (in Taggart et al 1993), Perlmutter (in Taggart et al 1993), Prahalad et al (in Carnall 1997) appear to have researched this area, and Bartlett et al (1989) indicate that this work was used to inform their research. A review within this domain may therefore appear biased due to the lack or information refuting these theories.

In approaching the problems facing organisations when dealing with complexity many resort to the first available solution which is structural change, yet this would appear to be a highly disruptive activity creating information dislocations that may take months to re-build (Kanter 1989a), and as Bartlett et al confirm:

Frequent reorganisations over a decade failed to bring order out of the chaos that was Corning Glass and as Bartlett et al observed:

However it eventually became clear that building and managing the most appropriate decision process was what was required. Work by Bartlett et al (1990) seems to highlight the deficiencies of existing world wide companies in their attempt to pursue the Strategy Structure Paradigm (SSP) proposed by Chandler (1962) in favour of an Heterachical structure.

An Heterarchy is a network of individuals or groups, characterised by its lack of formal hierarchy. For each opportunity the best equipped group within the network will take the lead (Pedler et al 1997).

In attempting to identify the characteristics of the transnational company Prahalad et al (1986) revisit the matrix. Not from the unidimensional perspective of the 1970s when it is argued by Bartlett et al (1989) the concept failed to deliver, but from an heterachical perspective. As Prahalad et al say:

This is described by Bartlett et al (1989) as a matrix, not as an organisational structure but one within the minds of managers. Clearly these concepts appear to transcend traditional approaches to structure requiring more than a unidimensional hierarchical reporting system.

To address the problems associated with the resultant heterarchical structures Bartlett et al (1989) suggest the transnational company must build shared vision. "Shared visions emerge from personal visions" (Senge 1990 p211). Creating shared vision is the third discipline of the Learning organisation. One of the barriers to creating the learning organisation is in their leaders who must be their designers teachers and stewards (IBID). This appears to be a fundamental barrier to creating the transnational company in a western culture where Senge says:

This traditional top down approach to creating a vision may be inappropriate in an hierarchical organisation but within a learning organisation it appears to be totally unworkable.

However creating shared vision is only one dimension of the leaders task, the other is generating 'Creative tension'. By holding a vision and communicating the truth or current reality against that vision Senge (1990) says:

This would appear to be one way in which to create the conditions necessary to develop the transnational organisation. Bartlett et al (1989) emphasise the importance of three conditions which must therefore be a product of strategic tension; clarity, continuity, and Consistency of Purpose.

By following the suggestions of Kanter (1989a), Bartlett et al (1989), and Prahalad et al (1986) and abandoning the structural approach to change, managers must turn to a different model.

In approaching the problem of organisational development Bartlett et al (IBID) suggest a biological analogy is most appropriate. The model consists of three elements:

1 Anatomy - Physical structure and responsibilities.

2 Physiology - personal relationships and processes.

3 Psychology - Individual attitudes.

The traditional approach is to force a change in the physical structure of the organisation. This in turn forces managers to create new networks and relationships (IBID) the resultant dislocation for individuals being managed by a variety of HRM tools as suggested by Armstrong (1992).

Bartlett et al (1989) recognise the importance of creating the correct organisational structure as:

However an analysis of the processes employed in predominantly European and Japanese companies revealed that they reversed the order in which to approach this biological model.

(IBID P206)

Thus organisational change was achieved through educational programmes and individual assignments, to change their understandings and perceptions. This is followed by changes aimed at the decision processes. Only after this has been achieved is the resultant structural change implemented (IBID).

Naturally in reaction to a crisis structural change may be employed on a one off basis however the resultant dislocations must also be considered (IBID).

The first task in building the transnational company appears to bear similarities to those of the learning organisation thus it would appear that the transnational is a learning organisation on a global scale. Fundamental to this model is the concept that if the manger thinks and acts in a certain way this will transcend the physical organisation (IBID).

As decision making decentralises Prahalad et al (1986) argue that mangers fall back on decision making through ad hoc teams. However "The focus of managers must be broad" (Prahalad et al in Carnall p254). This would appear to describe the way in which transnational companies compete in a global context as:

This appears to be further supported by Bartlett et al (1989) who identify that lacking the macrostructural tools with which to make changes managers in the transnational companies rely on a number of microstructural tools which they describe as, task forces, committees and project teams (IBID).

The resultant form would appear to be towards the heterarchical model described by Pedler et al (1997). In line with this biological organisational form, the resultant style appears to transcend the multinational EPRG model towards hetrocentricity.

Just as a shift in the world geo-political climate appears to have created the multinationals, the challenge of increasing complexity and dynamism appears to have marked the emergence of the transnational organisation.

Much of the early work on organisational; structures appears to be centred on the hierarchical structures which seems to reflect the management style during this period. It is clear that during this time management was first identified as a distinct profession, however the first examples of management and organisational texts were produced by practitioners and appeared to lack academic rigour. This work seemed to report current practices as opposed to creating and testing theories through research and analysis.

Although the classical management school had plenty to offer it was clear that even by the mid 20th century organisations were more experimental in their approach to organisational design and that the literature appeared to report new phenomena such as the divisionalised company.

The work by Chandler (1962) started a trend towards more rigorous forms of analysis and this work was useful in highlighting the interrelationship between strategy and structure.

The relatively stable Geo-political conditions after the second world war marked the emergence of multinational companies and subsequent attempts to determine suitable structures for these. This period appeared to be distinguished by failed attempts to find the one best structure in which to compete and although the matrix structure seem the answer, this was eventually abandoned in favour of a trade-off between a structure biased towards product and area with a centralised or decentralised administrative system.

By identifying the adhocracy, a link to learning cultures, and systems thinking, Mintzberg's synthesis appears to have exposed all of the elements necessary to build the next generation of world wide companies. It appears that Bartlett et al (1989) were left to challenge the strategy structure paradigm and identify what they term the "transnational company ".

Much of the evidence supporting the emergence of transnational companies appears to be based upon a thesis by Bartlett et al (1989). This work appears to be grounded, and in addition to a wealth of primary research appears to be supported by a number of other sources.

This literature review represented an important part of this dissertation exposing the similarities between Ericsson and the globalisation of its customers to the transnational company as a possible organisational response.

Ashby, W, R., (1965) Introduction to Cybernetics, (Chapman and Hall, London).

Ansoff, H., (1979), Strategic Management, (The Macmillan Press Ltd).

Armstrong, M., (1992), Human Resource Management, Strategy and Action, (Kogan page).

Bartlett, C. A., and S. Ghoshal, (1989), Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, (Harvard Business School Press, New York).

Beer, S., (1979), The Heart of Enterprise, (Wiley).

Beer, S., (1996), Diagnosing the System for Organizations, (Wiley).

Burgoyne, J. Pedler, M. and T. Boydell, (1994), Towards The learning Company, (McGraw-Hill Book Company).

Chandler, A. D., (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the Hisory of the American Industrial Enterprise, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

Checkland, P. and J. Scholes, (1993), Soft Systems Methodology In Action, (Wiley).

Carnall, C. A., (1997), Strategic Change, (Butterwoth Heinemann).

Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R. and A. Lowe, (1996) management Research - An Introduction, (Sage Publications).

Fayol, H., (1916), Administration industrielle et generale (Refer to Gray, I (1984)).

Gray, I., (1984), General and Industrial management., Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York - (A Translation of: Administration industrielle et generale by Henri Fayol - First published in 1916).

Hirst, P. and G. Thompson, (1996), Globalisation in question, (Blackwell).

Hucynzki, A. and D. Buchanan, (1991), Organizational Behaviour, Second Edition (Prentice Hall International).

Hussey, J. and R. Hussey, (1997), Business Research - A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, (Macmillan Business).

Johnson, G. (1992), Managing Strategic Change-Strategy, Culture and Action, Long Range Planning, Vol 25 pp 28 to 36, Pergamon Press plc.

Johnson, G. and K. Scholes, (1993), Exploring Corporate Strategy, (Prentice Hall).

Kanter, R.M., (1989a), The New Managerial Work, Harvard Business Review, November - December 1989 p85 - 92.

Kanter, R.M., (1989b), When Giants Learn to Dance, (Simon and Schuster).

Krugman, P. and M. Obstfeld, (1994), International Economics Theory and Policy, Third Edition, (Harper Collins)

Maslow, A., (1954) Motivation and Personality, Third Edition, (Harper and Row).

Mintzberg, H., (1979), The Structuring of Organisations, (Prentice-Hall International).

Mintzberg, H., (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organisations, (Prentice Hall International).

Morgan, G. and L. Smircich, (1980) The case for Qualitative Research', Academy of Management Review, 5, pp491 - 500.

Pedler, M. Burgoyne, J. and T. Boydell, (1997) The Learning Company - A Strategy for Sustainable Development, (Second edition, McGraw-Hill, London).

Popat. S, (1996), Competition in the UK Telecommunications Services Market, A Dissertation presented in part consideration for the degree of Master of Business Administration, Ericsson Intranet http://www

Porter, M. E., (1980), Competitive Strategy, (Free Press).

Porter, M. E., (1987), Corporate Strategy - The State of Strategic Thinking, (The Economist) May 23 1987 pages 21 - 28.

Revans, R,W., (1983), The ABC of Action Learning, (Chartwell-Bratt).

Senge, P.M., (1990), The Fifth Discipline - The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, (Century Business).

Smith, A., (1991), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations -An adaption from the original text 1776, (Everyman).

Shapiro, A., (1992), Multinational Financial Management, Fourth Edition, (Allyn and Bacon).

Shoemaker, P., (1995) Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking, (Sloan Management Review), Winter 1995.

Stopfort, J. M., and L. T. Wells, (1972), Managing the Multinational Enterprise (Basic Books, New York).

Taylor, F. W., (1947) Scientific management, (Harper and Row) First Published 1911.

Taggart. J. H., and T. McDermott, (1993), The Essence of International Business, (Prentice-hall).

Toffler, A., (1970), Future Shock - A Study of Mass Bewilderment in the Face of Accelerating Change, (Bodley Head).

Von Bertalanffy, L., (1968), General Systems Theory: Foundations Development, Application, (Brazillier, new York)

De Wit, B. and R. Meyer, (1994), Strategy Process, Content, Context - An International Perspective, (West).

Yip, G. S., (1992), Total Global Strategy - Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage, (Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ).