The Organizational Perspective Model: A Study in PT Starqle Indonesia

Authors

  • Albert Tommy Tanggo Chandra School of Business and Administration, Institut Teknologi Bandung
  • Jann H. Tjakraatmadja School of Business and Administration, Institut Teknologi Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.4.1.71-88

Keywords:

Creativity, Structure, Balance, Built-to-change approach, Knowledge Activity Cycle

Abstract

Balancing creativity and structure becomes an emerging issue, especially for companies whose competitive advantage is on creativity because failure in managing both creativity and structure will result in business losses, as experienced by Netscape, Xerox and Microsoft. PT Starqle Indonesia tends to experience the imbalance condition between creativity and structure, especially when the company plans to change its business focus from project-based to product-based. In project-based, structure is more emphasized. While to anticipate the business changing, Starqle must be able to manage both creativity and structure. The influence factors are company lifecycle, competency, ownership, self-motivation, leaders, and trust, while for structure; these factors are business process, organizational structure and policy. Builtto-change approach is used to balance both creativity and structure as continuous process. The approach focuses on 3 (three) core components: strategizing, creating value and implementing. Strategic intent should be aligned with identity to strengthen the creativity side. Creating value by leveraging learning is performed to improve the structure by means of conducting knowledge activity cycle to capture individual process in generating new knowledge. The last component i.e implementation is to improve creativity and structure by focusing on people, process and information technology. 

References

Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569–586. DOI: 0.1016/S1048-9843(03)00052-3.

Brown, John S., and Duguid, P. (2001). Creativity versus structure: a useful tension. MIT Sloan Management Review. Business Dictionary, n.d. Available at: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/structure.html. [Accessed March 2011]

Collison, C., and Parcell, G. (2007). Learning to fly: practical knowledge management from leading and learning Organizations. West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the physchology of discovery and invetion. New York: HarperCollins.

Davis, J., Eisenhardt, K., and Bingham, C. (2009). Optimal Structure, Market Dynamism, and the Strategy of Simple Rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 413-452. Availablev at: http://www.atyponlink.com/JGSCU/doi/pdf/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.3.413

Florida, R., and Goodnight, J., n.d. Managing for Creativity. Harvard Business Review.

Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4). 78-91.

Herford, Robert J., n.d. Inside Microsoft - balancing creativity and discipline. Harvard Business Review. 2-7.

Hesselbein, F., and Goldsmith, M. (2009). The organization of the future 2: vision, strategies, and insights on managing in new era. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.

Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization: a systems approach to quantum improvement and global success. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.

Oldham, G. R., & Cammings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

Oxford Dictionaries, n.d. Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0821990#m_en_gb0821990. [Accessed March 2011]

PT. Starqle Indonesia. (2010). 20100505 - Company Profile. Bandung. Unreleased document.

PT. Starqle Indonesia. (2010). 20100610 - Starqle Strategy Formulation. Bandung. Unreleased document.

Rasmusson, J. (2010). The agile samurai: how agile masters deliver great software. Texas: The Pragmatic Bookshelf.

Sagiv, L., Arielli, S., Goldenberg, J., and Goldschmidt, A. (2009). Structure and freedom in creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Available at: www.interscience.wiley.com.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sparx System. (2004). UML Tutorials: The Business Process Model. Enterprise Architect. p. 2. Available at: www.sparxsystem.com.au. [Accessed March 2011].

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.

The Free Dictionary, n.d. Available at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/structure. [Accessed March 2011].

Ulrich, D. (2011). The future of HR: a new vision of HR for value creation for investors and customers”. Jakarta.

Weldy, Teresa G. (2009). Learning organisation and transfer: strategies for improving performance. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 16(1). Available at: http://www.proquest.com/pdqweb [Accessed 4 April 2011].

Zhou, J. and Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on Employee Creativity: A Critical Review and Directions for Future Research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 165-217.

Downloads

Submitted

11/20/2025

Published

04/01/2011

How to Cite

Chandra, A. T. T., & Tjakraatmadja, J. H. (2011). The Organizational Perspective Model: A Study in PT Starqle Indonesia. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.4.1.71-88

How to Cite

Chandra, A. T. T., & Tjakraatmadja, J. H. (2011). The Organizational Perspective Model: A Study in PT Starqle Indonesia. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.4.1.71-88