10. Making the transition from entrepreneurial to professional management in small and medium-sized ICT businesses in Slovenia and Germany
10. 斯洛文尼亚和德国中小型信息通信技术企业从创业管理向专业化管理转型

Janez Prašnikar, Karl-Heinz Rau, Marko Pahor and Monika Klinar
扬·普拉什尼卡尔、卡尔-海因茨·劳、马尔科·帕霍尔和莫妮卡·克利纳尔

INTRODUCTION 引言

Organizational growth and development models offer a useful framework for assessing and analysing the growth of a company and the connected management imperatives. Several models have been postulated, ranging from three to 10 stages (Churchill and Lewis, 1983: 31; Scott and Bruce, 1987: 47; Greiner, 1998: 58; Adizes, 1999: 88), with most models identifying five stages.
组织成长与发展模型为评估和分析企业成长及其相关管理挑战提供了有用的框架。已提出多种模型，涵盖 3 至 10 个阶段（Churchill 和 Lewis，1983: 31；Scott 和 Bruce，1987: 47；Greiner，1998: 58；Adizes，1999: 88），其中大多数模型识别出五个阶段。

While the models are distinct in the number of phases and their clarification, most of them propose that in the life cycle of organizations the transition from an entrepreneurially to a professionally managed organization may be necessary. There are many reasons for this. As Olson and Terpstraand (1992: 27) and Flamholtz and Randle (2000: 10) explained, when an organization reaches a certain size, its resources become stretched and an insatiable need for more funding arises, while operating systems are overwhelmed by the sudden surge of activity. The same applies to the entrepreneur, who will spend more and more time on administrative work and everyday activities, which has implications for the time spent on strategic issues (Barth and Hörte, 1999: 3). Roberts (1999: 389) noticed that, due to the increasing size of the organization, the entrepreneur will be unable to supervise the efforts of the workers. Finally, circumstances such as when the management is not developing, and the founder maintains close relationships with key customers, suppliers and loyal personnel instead of transferring skills to other people, create bottlenecks in operations and inhibit the organization’s further development (Harper, 1995: 38; Wilson and
尽管这些模型在阶段数量及其界定上存在差异，但大多数模型都提出，在组织生命周期中，从创业型组织向专业化管理型组织过渡可能是必要的。这背后有诸多原因。正如奥尔森和特普斯特拉（Olson and Terpstra, 1992: 27）以及弗拉姆霍尔茨和兰德尔（Flamholtz and Randle, 2000: 10）所解释的，当组织达到一定规模时，其资源将面临紧张，对资金的持续需求变得无法满足，而运营系统则会被突如其来的活动量所淹没。同样的情况也适用于企业家，他们将越来越多的时间投入到行政工作和日常事务中，这将影响他们用于战略问题的时间（巴特和霍尔特，1999: 3）。罗伯茨（1999: 389）指出，由于组织规模的扩大，企业家将无法监督员工的工作。最后，当管理层未能发展，创始人继续与关键客户、供应商和忠诚员工保持密切关系而非将技能转移给他人时，运营中会形成瓶颈，阻碍组织进一步发展（Harper，1995: 38；Wilson 和

Bates, 2003: 119). Life-cycle organizational model researchers usually refer to the point in the life cycle described above as the transition between the second and third stages. For example, Lester et al. (2003: 346) use these stages - existence, survival, success, renewal and decline - and relate an entrepreneurially managed organization to the survival stage, while the success stage is already characterized by a professionally managed organization. Greiner (1998: 60) proposed the same: the change between an entrepreneurially managed organization to a professionally managed one should occur between the second (direct supervision) and the third (delegation) phases.
贝茨，2003：119）。生命周期组织模型研究者通常将上述生命周期中的某个点视为第二阶段与第三阶段的过渡点。例如，莱斯特等人（2003: 346）使用了存在、生存、成功、更新和衰落这五个阶段，并将创业型管理组织与生存阶段相关联，而成功阶段则已呈现出专业化管理组织的特征。格雷纳（1998: 60）提出了相同观点：从创业型管理组织向专业化管理组织转变应发生在第二阶段（直接监督）与第三阶段（授权）之间。

How is the transition from entrepreneurial to professional management made in the high-technology context, which includes information and communication technology (ICT) organizations? ICT represent a relatively new industry in which data on such a transformation are scarce. Could it be that this industry is so specific that even this transition differs from the one seen in a ‘traditional’ economy? It is not uncommon for ICT organizations to grow from start-up to maturity in just a few years and that the entrepreneurial culture, established at the beginning, prevails over the whole life cycle of the organization (Hanks et al., 1993: 18). As shown by Hitt et al. (1998: 22) and Nagel et al. (2006: 228), companies from high-tech industries are, among other things, characterized by less formal organization and a flatter organizational structure. On the other hand, high-tech companies frequently rely on a product focus, driven by innovations in technology rather than by the needs of the customer; the ‘engineering mentality’ of many high-tech companies leads to a ‘product focus’ and not a ‘business focus’ (Berry, 1996: 496).
在高科技领域，特别是信息与通信技术（ICT）组织中，如何实现从创业型管理向专业化管理的转型？ICT 作为一个相对新兴的行业，关于此类转型的数据较为匮乏。是否因为该行业具有特殊性，以至于这种转型与传统经济中的转型存在差异？ICT 组织从初创到成熟仅需数年时间，且初创阶段形成的创业文化往往贯穿整个组织生命周期（Hanks 等，1993: 18）。如 Hitt 等人（1998: 22）和 Nagel 等人（2006: 228）所示，高科技行业的企业在组织形式上较为非正式，组织结构较为扁平。另一方面，高科技公司常常依赖于产品导向，这种导向由技术创新驱动，而非客户需求；许多高科技公司的“工程思维”导致了“产品导向”而非“业务导向”（Berry，1996: 496）。

In our chapter we present an in-depth study of six ICT organizations, three from Germany and three from Slovenia, each having both a considerable history and a firmly established position in the market. In addition to the above questions we shall also address the differences between German and Slovenian companies and, in particular, between German and Slovenian engineers. Ulijn et al. (2001: 21-52) and Shaw et al. (2003: 489) show that there is a significant cultural dimension in the behaviour of engineers from different countries as well as a difference in the behaviour of engineers compared to other groups (that is, marketers) in the company.
在本章中，我们对六家信息与通信技术（ICT）组织进行了深入研究，其中三家来自德国，三家来自斯洛文尼亚，每家均拥有悠久的历史和在市场上牢固的地位。除上述问题外，我们还将探讨德国与斯洛文尼亚企业之间的差异，特别是德国与斯洛文尼亚工程师之间的差异。Ulijn 等（2001: 21-52）和 Shaw 等（2003: 489）指出，不同国家工程师的行为存在显著的文化维度，同时工程师与公司内其他群体（即市场营销人员）的行为也存在差异。

The study is organized as follows. The following section provides a description of the transition from entrepreneurial to professional management and the main hypothesis. The third section presents the methods used and the variables. In the fourth section, the results are reported while in the fifth section we discuss and summarize our findings. The final section concludes.
本研究的结构如下。第二部分将描述从创业管理向专业管理过渡的过程，并提出主要假设。第三部分将介绍研究方法及变量。第四部分将报告研究结果，第五部分将讨论并总结研究发现。最后，结论部分对全文进行总结。

THE TRANSITION FROM ENTREPRENEURIAL TO PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIN HYPOTHESES
从创业管理向专业管理转型及主要假设

The existing literature relates the transition from an entrepreneurial firm to a professionally managed one to factors such as changes in the organizational structure, the management style and the level of formality of internal systems and strategy (Barth and Hörte 1999: 3; Deakins 1999: 203; Lester et al., 2003: 346). Once a company reaches the stage in which the existing infrastructure no longer supports the growth and development of the company, the organization will encounter transformational growing pains, and the transition from entrepreneurial to professional management will become a necessity.
现有文献将创业型企业向专业化管理型企业的转型归因于组织结构、管理风格以及内部系统和战略的正式化程度等因素（Barth 和 Hörte 1999: 3；Deakins 1999: 203；Lester 等 2003: 346）。当企业达到现有基础设施已无法支撑公司进一步增长与发展的阶段时，组织将面临转型带来的阵痛，而从创业型管理向专业化管理转型将成为必然选择。

There are at least three main dimensions of such a transition. The key results in the area of organization describe a change in the organizational structure; leadership, culture and management development are all part of the management style dimension while the dimension of the level of formality of internal systems and strategy is defined by the results in the key areas of planning and control. In Table 10.1 we summarize the findings on the most important differences between the two structures of entrepreneurial and professional management.
此类转型至少包含三个主要维度。组织领域的主要成果描述了组织结构的变革；领导力、文化与管理发展均属于管理风格维度，而内部系统与战略的正式化程度则由规划与控制领域的关键成果所定义。表 10.1 总结了创业型管理与专业型管理两种结构在最重要差异方面的研究发现。

Three sets of hypotheses are developed as the basis of our investigation. The first set relates to the change in the organizational structure. In order to transform the organization from an entrepreneurially to a professionally managed one, various specialized functions have to be developed and a more hierarchical organization has to be adopted. The management takes on functional specialization (H1a; see Table 10.2 for description of hypotheses and proxies). The current organizational structure has to be evaluated and adjusted, an organization chart has to be developed, a written job description has to be formulated and a more sophisticated operating system established (H1b). Everyday operating activities have to change, especially in the context of decision making, where more formal methods of making decisions should be implemented (H1c). As the number of employees increases, communication channels will become more formal and indirect (H1d).
我们提出了三组假设作为本次调查的基础。第一组假设与组织结构的变革相关。为了将组织从创业型管理转变为专业化管理，必须发展各种专业职能并采用更具层级化的组织结构。管理层将承担职能专业化（H1a；见表 10.2 中对假设及代理变量的描述）。当前的组织结构需进行评估与调整，制定组织架构图，编制书面岗位职责说明，并建立更完善的运营系统（H1b）。日常运营活动需进行变革，尤其在决策层面，应实施更正式的决策方法（H1c）。随着员工数量增加，沟通渠道将趋于正式化与间接化（H1d）。

Concerning changes in the management style, the entrepreneur has to learn how to delegate authority. In a professionally managed organization most decisions are delegated to employees who are responsible for the area affected by the decision (H2a). In addition, delegating could raise questions of trust by entrepreneurs in the sense of doubting whether the managers will perform their tasks as well as the entrepreneur would. The same question is also posed by customers, suppliers and even employees used to
关于管理风格的转变，企业家必须学会如何授权。在专业化管理的组织中，大多数决策都会授权给负责决策影响范围的员工（H2a）。此外，授权可能会引发企业家对管理层的信任问题，即怀疑管理者是否能像企业家一样出色地完成任务。同样的问题也来自客户、供应商，甚至习惯于企业家直接管理的员工。
Table 10.1 Comparison of entrepreneurial and professional management
表 10.1 创业管理与专业管理比较

Dimensions 尺寸	Key area of results 关键成果领域	Entrepreneurial management 创业管理	Professional management 专业管理
Organizational structure 组织结构	Organization 组织	Informal structure with overlapping and undefined roles; people are expected to do whatever is necessary 非正式结构，角色重叠且界限模糊；人们被期望根据需要完成任何必要的工作。	Formal, explicit role descriptions that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive 正式、明确的角色描述，这些描述是相互独立且全面的。
Management style 管理风格	Leadership 领导力	Styles may vary from very directive to laissez-faire 风格可能从非常严格到完全放任。	Consultative or participative styles, also consensus or teamorientated styles 咨询式或参与式风格，也称为共识式或团队导向式风格。
	Culture 文化	Loosely defined, 'family'-orientated culture, which is not explicitly managed by the organization 广义上讲，以家庭为导向的文化，这种文化并非由组织明确管理。	Well-defined structure, treated as a variable to be managed and transmitted 结构清晰明确，被视为需要管理和传递的变量。
	Management development 管理发展	Ad hoc development, principally through on-the-job training; with growth managers work more, but faster than in the past 临时性发展，主要通过在职培训；随着业务增长，管理者需要投入更多时间，但工作效率比以往更高。	Conscious effort to develop managerial skills, the way of thinking and to prepare a pool of managers for the future 有意识地培养管理技能、提升思维方式，并为未来培养一批管理人才。
Level of formality 正式程度	Planning 规划	Informal, superficial, ad hoc planning in the entrepreneur's head 非正式的、肤浅的、临时性的规划存在于企业家的脑海中。	Regular formal, systematic planning cycle with strategic, operational and contingency planning 定期、正式、系统化的规划周期，涵盖战略规划、运营规划及应急规划。
Level of formality 正式程度	Control 控制	Partial, ad hoc control, seldom uses formal measurements, lacking in formal measurement or performance appraisal systems 部分性、临时性控制，很少采用正式测量方法，缺乏正式的测量或绩效评估体系。	Formal, planned system of organizational control, including explicit objectives, targets, feedback, evaluations and rewards 正式的、有计划的组织控制系统，包括明确的目标、指标、反馈、评估和奖励。

Source: Adapted from Flamholtz and Randle (2000: 38-42).
来源：改编自 Flamholtz 和 Randle（2000: 38-42）。
Table 10.2 Dimensions used to define the professionalizing stage
表 10.2 用于定义专业化阶段的尺寸

Hypotheses 假设	Dimension 尺寸	Abbreviation 缩写	Stat. - top manag $^{a}$ 统计。 - 高级经理 $^{a}$	Stat. - middle manag. & engin $^{b}$ 统计 - 中层管理人员及工程师 $^{b}$
H1a	Functional specialization 功能专业化	FSPECF: Finance FSPECM: Marketing FSPECRD: R&D FSPECHRM: HRM FSPECIA: Implementation, Assembling FSPECSMC: Support, Maintenance, Consulting FSPECF：财务 FSPECM：市场营销 FSPECRD：研发 FSPECHRM：人力资源管理 FSPECIA：实施与组装 FSPECSMC：支持、维护与咨询	finance marketing R&D HRM other 财务市场营销研发人力资源管理其他
H1b	Formal job description 正式职位描述	JOBDC	My subordinates perform only those tasks that are described in their formal job descriptions 我的下属仅执行其正式岗位职责描述中明确规定的任务。	I perform only those tasks that are described in my formal job description 我仅执行正式岗位描述中明确列出的任务。
H1c	Formalization of taking decisions 决策的正式化	FORMDEC	Most of my decisions are taken based on the results of expert analyses 我的大多数决策都是基于专家分析的结果做出的。
H1d	Formal communication 正式沟通	COM	The communication between me and my customers (or other workers) is documented 我与客户（或其他员工）之间的沟通已记录在案。
H2a	Delegation of decision making 决策权的下放	DELEG	Most decisions I delegate to my subordinates who are responsible for the 我将大多数决策权下放给我的下属，他们负责	My supervisor delegates most of the decisions that are 我的主管将大部分决策权委托给我。

H2b

area of those decisions
这些决策的范围

my responsibility 我的责任

Trust 信任

TRST

I trust that my subordinates will do everything as agreed, if possible
我相信我的下属会按照约定尽全力完成任务。

I believe that my supervisor trusts me in performing what was agreed
我相信我的主管信任我能够完成我们所达成的协议。

H2c

Respecting rules 遵守规则

RESPRUL

Breaking the predefined rules is not tolerated
违反既定规则的行为绝不姑息。

H2d

Further training and education of employees
员工的进一步培训和教育

ADTR

I always enable my subordinates to obtain additional training and education when a need is recognized
我始终确保下属在识别出需求时能够获得额外的培训和教育。

My supervisor always enables me to obtain additional training and education when I recognize a need for it
我的主管总是支持我，让我在意识到有必要时获得额外的培训和教育。

H3a

Clear direction (strategy and goals)
明确方向（战略与目标）

STGOL

I am acquainted with the business strategy and goals of my company
我熟悉公司业务战略及目标。

H3b

Positioning of products or services
产品或服务的定位

POS

Our products and services have a clear position in the market
我们的产品和服务在市场上具有明确的定位。

备注： a. 高层管理人员的陈述。 b. 中层管理人员和工程师的陈述。

Notes:

a. Statements of top management.

b. Statements of middle management and engineers.

having a close relationship with the entrepreneur. Therefore, trust that everything that has been agreed will be done has to be established between subordinates and employees (H2b). Moreover, during an organization’s growth and development the corporate culture is slowly changing and moving away from the entrepreneur. The ‘family atmosphere’ is replaced by an atmosphere that is focused more on teamwork and respecting predefined rules as a way of life (H2c). Finally, if the skills and knowledge of employees are not developing according to the firm’s needs, the firm might experience stagnation. Therefore, a conscious effort to develop the skills of individuals is made (H2d).
与企业家保持密切关系。因此，必须在员工与下属之间建立起对已达成协议的信任（H2b）。此外，在组织成长与发展过程中，企业文化会逐渐发生变化并逐渐脱离企业家的影响。“家庭氛围”被一种更注重团队合作和遵守既定规则的生活方式所取代（H2c）。最后，如果员工的技能和知识未能按照公司需求发展，公司可能会陷入停滞。因此，公司会主动努力提升个人的技能（H2d）。

The third set of hypotheses relates to planning and control. Planning in entrepreneurially managed firms is mostly or entirely carried out by the entrepreneur. However, growth places demands on the entrepreneur’s time and energy and a formal process of strategic planning has to be established. That is, strategies and strategic goals have to be regularly formulated, discussed and adjusted and then spread through the organization (H3a). If products are clearly positioned in the market, this is the best mechanism of control in this phase of development (H3b).
第三组假设与规划和控制相关。在由企业家管理的 firms 中，规划工作主要或完全由企业家本人完成。然而，企业增长对企业家的时间和精力提出了更高要求，因此必须建立正式的战略规划流程。具体而言，战略和战略目标需要定期制定、讨论和调整，并通过组织内部进行传达（H3a）。如果产品在市场上已明确定位，这将是该发展阶段最有效的控制机制（H3b）。

METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND VARIABLES
分析方法与变量

For this study, six ICT companies from Germany and Slovenia (three in each) were selected. The companies operated in different ICT subsectors, ranging from system integration to software development (see Table 10.3). The subsectoral composition in both countries is very similar. As a comparison, the study by Ulijn et al. (2001) uses 24 companies from Germany and the Netherlands, operating in a wider array of sectors.
本研究选取了德国和斯洛文尼亚各 3 家信息通信技术（ICT）企业（每国 3 家）。这些企业分别从事不同的 ICT 子行业，涵盖系统集成到软件开发（见表 10.3）。两国的子行业构成非常相似。作为对比，Ulijn 等（2001）的研究选取了德国和荷兰的 24 家企业，这些企业涉及更广泛的行业领域。

The research involves a combination of qualitative multiple-case design, whereby we follow a replication rather than a sampling logic (Yin, 2003: 31), and a quantitative research using statistical analysis. In the first phase of the analysis, where we test the level of how professionally an organization is managed, we use a qualitative multiple-case approach. In the interviews (conducted in spring 2004) we discussed the organizational history, initial years, hierarchy levels, development of formal systems, planning, strategy, future challenges and issues connected to experiences with management transition. Following the interviews, the collected data were transcribed, edited and summarized in memo form.
本研究采用定性多案例设计与定量研究相结合的方法，其中定性研究遵循复制逻辑而非抽样逻辑（Yin, 2003: 31），定量研究则运用统计分析。在分析的第一阶段，我们通过定性多案例方法测试组织管理专业化的程度。在 2004 年春季进行的访谈中，我们讨论了组织历史、初创阶段、层级结构、正式系统的发展、规划、战略、未来挑战以及与管理转型经验相关的议题。访谈结束后，收集的数据被转录、编辑并以备忘录形式总结。

For the second phase involving a quantitative analysis of the opinions of different groups of managers and engineers, data were gathered through questionnaires given to randomly selected employees of all six ICT companies. In the study, 121 respondents participated from three different
在第二阶段，通过向六家 ICT 公司随机选取的员工发放问卷，收集了不同群体经理和工程师的意见的定量分析数据。研究中，共有 121 名受访者参与，来自三个不同的
hierarchical levels. Whereas Ulijn et al. (2001) had to make sure by the sample selection method that interviewees had approximately the same background because of their heterogeneous sectoral composition, we are fairly confident in this because of the relatively homogeneous sectoral composition. This also allows us to interview managers as well as engineers, which is crucial for our study.
层次结构。与 Ulijn 等人（2001）不同，他们需要通过样本选择方法确保受访者具有大致相同的背景，因为其行业构成较为多元化。而我们对此较为有信心，因为我们的行业构成相对较为同质化。这使我们能够同时采访经理和工程师，这对我们的研究至关重要。

The interviewees were asked to rate the selected dimensions - measured by different statements - on a scale from 1 to 5 , where 1 denoted ‘I strongly disagree’ and 5 denoted ‘I strongly agree’. Most hypotheses are covered by one statement only, except for H1a, which is covered by six statements. The selected dimensions and accompanying tested statements are described in Table 10.2. The selected variables show good distributional properties, namely skewness and kurtosis are close to 0 and not significantly different from the binomial distribution. The sample size is also considered to be adequate.
受访者被要求对选定的维度（通过不同陈述进行测量）进行评分，评分范围为 1 至 5，其中 1 表示“我强烈反对”，5 表示“我强烈同意”。大多数假设仅由一个陈述覆盖，除 H1a 外，H1a 由六个陈述覆盖。所选维度及对应的测试陈述详见表 10.2。所选变量显示出良好的分布特性，即偏度和峰度均接近 0，且与二项分布无显著差异。样本量也被认为是充足的。

RESEARCH RESULTS 研究结果

Firms in the Study in their Life-cycle Development
研究中的企业在生命周期发展阶段

As explained in previous paragraphs, the critical factors in helping organizations make the transition from an entrepreneurial to a professionally managed firm are: organizational structure, effective leadership, management development, strategic planning and organizational control systems. We summarize the features of these tools (where they exist) for each case studied in Table 10.3. First, with regard to organizational structure, in all the cases studied this has been formally defined and adjusted over time. It has been gaining more hierarchical levels along with the growth of employees. Second, Flamholtz and Randle (2000: 265) claim that the most common effective leadership style in high-technology organizations is the participative style. In general, we can argue that this was also true of the participating companies. However, we should note that with the emergence of different situations the styles were also changing. Third, in our opinion formal management development is more or less present in all cases especially since, due to the features of the ICT industry and the lack of qualified people in the job market, the focus in ICT companies is being placed on internal recruiting. Fourth, as to strategic planning in all cases studied the interviewees indicated that they are making strategic plans. However, they believe (have experience) that making them for longer than one year is useless. That is, the ICT industry is changing too rapidly to be able to predict every change and capture it in time. Finally, a firm’s control systems
如前文所述，帮助组织从创业型企业向专业化管理型企业转型的重要因素包括：组织结构、有效领导力、管理发展、战略规划及组织控制系统。我们针对每个研究案例，在表 10.3 中总结了这些工具（若存在）的特征。首先，就组织结构而言，所有研究案例中均已正式定义并随时间调整。随着员工数量的增长，组织结构的层级也逐渐增加。其次，Flamholtz 和 Randle（2000: 265）指出，高科技组织中最常见的有效领导风格是参与式领导风格。总体而言，我们认为参与式领导风格在参与研究的公司中也普遍存在。然而，需要注意的是，随着不同情况的出现，领导风格也在发生变化。第三，我们认为，正式的管理发展在所有案例中或多或少都存在，尤其是在信息通信技术（ICT）行业，由于该行业的特点以及劳动力市场缺乏合格人才，ICT 公司越来越注重内部招聘。第四，关于战略规划，所有受访者均表示其公司制定了战略计划。然而，他们认为（基于经验）制定超过一年的战略计划是没有意义的。即，ICT 行业变化过于迅速，无法预测所有变化并及时捕捉。最后，企业的控制系统
Table 10.3 A professionally managed organization
表 10.3 专业管理的组织

Case 案例

Years of functioning 运行年限

Number of employees 员工人数

Organizational structure
组织结构

Effective leadership 有效领导力

Management development 管理发展

Strategic issues are defined
战略问题被定义为

Organizational control systems
组织控制系统

Professional manager? 专业经理？

Role of founder(s) 创始人（们）的作用

G1 (software developer) G1（软件开发人员）

Functional, 3 levels 功能性，三层结构

Yes 是

Chief technology officer
首席技术官

G2 (IT and business consulting)
G2（信息技术与商业咨询）

384

Matrix, 3 levels 矩阵，3 层

Could be characterized by the sentence: 'We make decisions together, but some votes are more important than others'
可以概括为以下句子：'我们共同做出决策，但有些投票比其他投票更重要'

Developed more or less internally, meaning that people with a technical background have over the years acquired additional managerial skills and knowledge
该系统基本上是在内部开发的，这意味着拥有技术背景的人员在过去的几年中逐渐掌握了额外的管理技能和知识。

由管理团队负责 3 年由首席执行官与其他总经理共同负责

By the managing team for 3 years

By the CEO jointly with other general managers

Use of objectives, feedback, evaluations, performance measurements (e.g. appraisal meetings) and rewards especially in 'area of sales'
目标、反馈、评估、绩效考核（如绩效评估会议）及奖励措施在销售领域的应用

No 不

CEO

G3 (online service provider)
G3（在线服务提供商）

386

Matrix based on project teams, 3 or 4 levels
基于项目团队的矩阵结构，分为 3 或 4 个层次。

By the managing team, especially by both founders
由管理团队，尤其是两位创始人共同负责。

No 不

CEO, chief technology officer
首席执行官，首席技术官

S2 (IT consulting) S2（信息技术咨询）	13	34	Functional, 3 levels 功能性，三层结构	By the managing team and owners for 5 years 由管理团队和业主共同运营 5 年。	Yes 是	Consultants (strategic supervisors) 顾问（战略监督员）
S3 (software developer) S3（软件开发人员）	15	50	Matrix, 3 levels 矩阵，3 层	By the owners 由业主提供	No 不	CEO

could at this stage be best described through the use and measurement of achieving explicit objectives and goals, where one of them could be the position of firm’s product or services on market. This also holds true for the studied ICT firms which are all explicitly striving to achieve a clear position for their products or services and formally measuring the achievement of this goal. Based on these comments, we could argue that all the organizations have successfully transformed into a professionally managed organization.
目前阶段，这一过程可通过明确目标的设定与实现来最佳描述，其中之一便是企业产品或服务在市场中的地位。这一结论同样适用于研究中的信息通信技术（ICT）企业，这些企业均明确致力于为其产品或服务确立清晰的市场地位，并通过正式评估来衡量该目标的实现程度。基于上述分析，我们可以认为所有组织已成功转型为专业化管理组织。

How Different Groups see Organizational Development
不同群体对组织发展的看法

To ensure the validity of the results we tested this statement by analysing primary data gathered through questionnaires addressed to members of the participating firms. In the first step, we looked at the differences between the various levels of management in a bivariate fashion, testing the differences between the arithmetic means of statements between the various levels of employees by applying the analysis of variance procedure, using the ‘level’ variable as a factor variable. Besides the main ANOVA test, which indicates where differences between the groups exist but not between which groups exactly, we also applied a post hoc analysis using Duncan’s procedure (Winer et al., 1991) to pinpoint those groups that differ according to certain criteria. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 10.4. When we compare the three groups we see that top management excels in formal communication, and is more functionally specialized in marketing and less in research and development (R&D) than the two other levels. They delegate more decisions to others and are more acquainted with the strategy and goals of the company. On the other hand, engineers are less functionally specialized in finance, marketing and human resource management (HRM). Interestingly, they do not seem to be significantly more specialized than (especially middle) management in R&D, implementation and assembling and consulting, support and maintenance. These results clearly indicate differences with regard to the tested dimensions that define the company as being professionally managed between the top managers and engineers, but less can be said about the role of middle management. Thus, we decided to continue with the analysis. To control for the effects of the interrelation between the variables and differences in the corporate culture we also tested the differences between the three groups of employees multivariately using a multinomial logistic regression.

^{1}

为了确保结果的有效性，我们通过分析通过问卷调查收集的参与企业成员的原始数据来验证这一陈述。在第一步中，我们以二元分析的方式考察了不同管理层级之间的差异，通过方差分析程序测试了不同员工层级对陈述的算术平均值之间的差异，其中“层级”变量作为因素变量。除了主分析方差（ANOVA）测试（该测试仅表明组间存在差异但不指出具体是哪些组之间存在差异）外，我们还采用了邓肯（Duncan）的后验分析（Winer et al., 1991）来确定根据特定标准存在差异的具体组别。这些测试的结果总结在表 10.4 中。当比较三个组别时，我们发现高层管理人员在正式沟通方面表现优异，且在营销方面比其他两个层级更具功能专业化，但在研发（R&D）方面则较弱。他们更倾向于将决策权下放给他人，并对公司战略与目标更为熟悉。另一方面，工程师在财务、营销及人力资源管理（HRM）方面功能专业化程度较低。值得注意的是，他们在研发、实施与组装以及咨询、支持与维护方面的专业化程度并不显著高于（尤其是中层）管理层。这些结果明确表明，在定义公司专业化管理水平的测试维度上，高层管理人员与工程师之间存在显著差异，但中层管理层的作用尚不明确。因此，我们决定继续深入分析。为了控制变量之间相互作用的影响以及企业文化差异的影响，我们还通过多元逻辑回归分析，对三组员工的差异进行了多变量检验。

^{1}

In our specific case we model the probability of belonging to a particular employee level,

^{2}

based on the same variables as described above. In addition, we added a variable denoting the company in order to control for the impact of the corporate culture on a particular company. We started with a model
在我们的具体案例中，我们基于上述相同的变量，建模了员工属于特定员工层级的概率，

^{2}

。此外，我们添加了一个表示公司的变量，以控制公司文化对特定公司影响。我们从一个模型开始。

Table 10.4 Results of ANOVA testing
表 10.4 方差分析（ANOVA）测试结果

Variable 可变	$F$	Engineer 工程师	Middle management 中层管理	Top management 高层管理
$N$	121	56	43	22
Functional specialization finance (FSPECF) 功能专业化金融（FSPECF）	18.34***	1.94	2.76	3.47
Functional specialization marketing (FSPECM) 功能专业化营销（FSPECM）	19.73***	2.42	3.67	3.73
Functional specialization R&D (FSPECRD) 功能专业化研发（FSPECRD）	7.95***	3.93	3.64	3.00
Functional specialization HRM (FSPECHRM) 功能专业化人力资源管理（FSPECHRM）	13.10***	1.80	2.71	3.05
Functional specialization implementation, assembling (FSPECIA) $^{a}$ 功能专业化实现与组装（FSPECIA） $^{a}$	3.31**	3.20	3.40	2.99
Functional specialization support, maintenance, consulting (FSPECSMC) 功能专业化支持、维护及咨询服务（FSPECSMC）	11.42***	3.71	3.07	3.15
Formal job description (JOBDC) 正式职位描述（JOBDC）	2.80*	2.75	2.19	2.50
Formalization of taking decisions (FORMDEC) 决策的正式化（FORMDEC）	0.13	3.45	3.37	3.41
Communication (COM) 通信（COM）	9.87***	3.48	3.07	4.23
Delegation of decision making (DELEG) 决策权下放（DELEG）	18.58***	2.70	3.23	3.86
Trust (TRST) 信任（TRST）	1.86	3.84	3.84	4.27
Respecting rules $^{a}$ (RESPRUL) 遵守规则 $^{a}$ (RESPRUL)	3.09**	2.64	2.28	2.68
Further training and education of employees (ADTR) 员工进一步培训与教育（ADTR）	4.75**	3.63	4.05	4.32
Strategy and goals (STGOL) 战略与目标（STGOL）	56.65***	3.27	4.09	4.82
Positioning of products or services (POS) 产品或服务定位（POS）	2.84*	3.61	3.84	4.14

Notes: 备注
Groups with means significantly lower than the other two are in italics, groups with means in boldface are significantly higher than the other two at a significance level of 0.05 .
均值显著低于其他两组的组以斜体表示，均值显著高于其他两组的组以粗体表示，显著性水平为 0.05。
a. There is a significant difference between the highest and lowest value, however the value in the middle is not significantly different from either of them.
a. 最高值与最低值之间存在显著差异，然而中间值与最高值或最低值之间均不存在显著差异。

Significant at $10 %$ ; ** Significant at $5 %$ ; *** Significant at $1 %$ .
显著性水平为 $10 %$ ； ** 显著性水平为 $5 %$ ； *** 显著性水平为 $1 %$ 。
containing only the controls and gradually built the model up by adding variables until we arrived at the final model shown in Table 10.5. $^{3}$ This model involved a highly significant improvement over the baseline (null) model. The Nagelkerke pseudo $R^{2}$ was very high, namely 0.799 , indicating the model’s good fit. As the results show, there are two main functions that
仅包含控制变量，并逐步添加变量构建模型，直至得到表 10.5 所示的最终模型。 $^{3}$ 该模型相较于基准（空模型）具有显著改进。Nagelkerke 伪 R² 值非常高，为 0.799，表明模型拟合良好。如结果所示，存在两个主要功能，

Table 10.5 Results of the multinomial logistic regression
表 10.5 多项逻辑回归分析结果

	Top management engineers $^{a}$ 高级管理工程师 $^{a}$		Middle management - engineers $^{a}$ 中层管理人员 - 工程师 $^{a}$		Middle management top management $^{b}$ 中层管理高层管理 $^{b}$
	B	Std error 标准误差	B	Std error 标准误差	B	Std error 标准误差
FSPECF	0.92	0.38**	0.46	0.28*	-0.46	0.28
FSPECM	0.85	0.37**	0.58	0.25**	-0.26	0.30
FSPECRD	-0.78	0.30***	-0.50	0.22**	0.28	0.24
DELEG	3.47	0.87***	1.31	0.43***	-2.16	0.80***
RESPRUL	0.77	0.61	-0.49	0.40	-1.26	0.54**
POS	0.24	0.63	-0.30	0.38	-0.54	0.54
COM	2.01	0.60***	0.93	0.34***	-1.08	0.52**
$[CASE = g 1]$	1.36	1.88	1.15	1.33	-0.22	1.57
$[CASE = g 2]$	1.69	1.49	1.31	1.15	-0.38	1.18
$[CASE = g 3]$	1.93	1.69	1.97	1.19*	0.05	1.40
[CASE = s 1] [案例 = s 1]	1.56	1.76	2.47	1.25**	0.91	1.38
[CASE = s2] [案例 = s2]	1.85	1.79	0.55	1.32	-1.30	1.67
$[CASE = s 3]$	0.00	.	0.00	.	0.00	.
Intercept 拦截	-26.54	6.18***	-6.87	2.91***	19.66	5.65***

Notes 说明
a. Engineers is the reference group.
a. 工程师是参考组。
b. Top management is the reference group.
b. 高层管理人员是参考群体。

Significant at $10 %$ ; ** Significant at $5 %$ ; *** Significant at $1 %$ .
显著性水平为 $10 %$ ； ** 显著性水平为 $5 %$ ； *** 显著性水平为 $1 %$ 。
reveal the differences between engineers and middle managers and between engineers and top managers. The third set of parameters is derived from the original, which expresses the difference between middle and top managers. We thus cover all the pairwise differences. After controlling for the company and the variables one by one, we get a similar yet clearer picture of the differences between the various levels of employees.
揭示工程师与中层管理者以及工程师与高层管理者之间的差异。第三组参数是从原始参数中衍生而来，用于表达中层管理者与高层管理者之间的差异。这样，我们便涵盖了所有两两之间的差异。在控制了公司因素及各变量后，我们得到了一个与之前类似但更为清晰的各层级员工差异图景。

Some of the results, especially when we compare engineers and top managers, are obvious and as expected. Top managers are less involved in research and operational activities; they delegate more decisions to others and prefer more documented communication. Top managers manage and the engineers implement, which is a result that already followed from the ANOVA analysis. What we could not determine precisely from the bivariate ANOVA analysis was the exact role of middle management. However, the multinomial logistic regression shows that middle management is more specialized in finance and marketing and less specialized in R&D compared to the engineers. Functional specialization is therefore also observed from data in the case of middle management which, together with significant variable
一些结果，尤其是当我们比较工程师和高层管理者时，是显而易见的且符合预期。高层管理者参与研究和运营活动较少；他们更倾向于将决策权下放给他人，并更偏好以文档形式进行沟通。高层管理者负责管理，而工程师负责执行，这一结果已从方差分析（ANOVA）中得到印证。通过双变量方差分析，我们无法精确确定中层管理者的具体角色。然而，多项逻辑回归分析显示，与工程师相比，中层管理者在财务和营销方面更专业，而在研发方面则专业程度较低。因此，功能专业化在中层管理者中也得到了数据支持，这与显著变量
communication, supports previous conclusions on the successful transformation of investigated enterprises from entrepreneurial to a professionally managed organization. When comparing middle management with top management, we can see that middle managers delegate fewer decisions to their subordinates, find documented communication less important and are less prepared to respect the rules of the organization. The results indicate that, with respect to following the rules, top managers are more in line with engineers than middle managers. This could be explained by the tendency of middle management to have a more flexible organization while gaining a competitive advantage, as argued by Hitt et al. (1998: 22). But if this were the case, would not the same tendencies also be shown for the top managers and engineers? We thus argue that these results correspond to Nagel et al.'s argument about top management that has the role of establishing an environment which allows new ideas to emerge, and middle management that has to formulate suggestions for top management to approve (Nagel et al., 2006: 230). The middle management, which includes as much as 77 per cent of engineers, more than the group of top managers ( 63 per cent of engineers) is often the breaking factor to changes in the organization.
沟通支持了先前关于被调查企业成功从创业型组织向专业化管理组织转型的结论。在比较中层管理与高层管理时，我们可以发现，中层管理者将更少的决策权下放给下属，认为书面沟通的重要性较低，且在遵守组织规则方面准备不足。研究结果表明，在遵守规则方面，高层管理者与工程师的立场更为一致，而非与中层管理者一致。这可能与 Hitt 等（1998: 22）的观点一致，即中层管理在追求竞争优势时倾向于建立更灵活的组织结构。但若此结论成立，高层管理者与工程师之间是否也应呈现相同趋势？因此，我们认为这些结果与纳格尔等人（Nagel et al., 2006: 230）关于高层管理者的论点相一致：高层管理者扮演着建立一个允许新想法涌现的环境的角色，而中层管理者则需要制定建议供高层管理者批准。中层管理人员，其中工程师占比高达 77%，超过了高层管理人员群体（工程师占比 63%），往往是组织变革的阻碍因素。

Is There a Difference between German and Slovenian Firms?
德国企业和斯洛文尼亚企业之间存在差异吗？

We tried a similar approach to test for differences between the various levels of employees. There are few significant differences between the two countries (see Table 10.6). Formal communication and additional education and training are viewed as significantly more important in Slovenia than in Germany while, on the other hand, in German firms more importance is given to the formal job description. The reason for this could be that two of the German firms (G1 and G3) are much younger than the rest of the sample and employ a higher proportion of young, educated employees who come straight from university. Consequently, there is less need for additional education training, and a lower desire to follow the formal ways of communication. However, German employees assign more value to formal job descriptions than do Slovenian employees, which is difficult to explain only by the age of employees. A recent study by Jazbec (2005) found that when comparing German and Slovene cultures, based on Hofstede’s (1996) cultural dimensions, the only significant difference lies in the fact that German culture (

M A S = 66

) is much more masculine than the Slovenian one ( MAS

= 20.3

). This offers an alternative explanation that the more masculine German values keep a strong technical base and consequently less of a market orientation for German engineers. As discussed by Ulijn et al. (2001: 21), German engineers are well educated, more product orientated and directed to doing the tasks described in their job description. This
我们采用类似的方法来测试不同员工层级之间的差异。两国之间存在显著差异（见表 10.6）。在斯洛文尼亚，正式沟通和额外教育培训被认为比德国更为重要，而德国企业则更重视正式岗位描述。这可能的原因是，德国的两家企业（G1 和 G3）比样本中的其他企业年轻得多，且雇佣了更高比例的年轻、受过高等教育的员工，这些员工直接从大学毕业。因此，对额外教育培训的需求较低，且对遵循正式沟通方式的意愿也较低。然而，德国员工比斯洛文尼亚员工更重视正式的岗位描述，这一差异仅凭员工年龄难以解释。Jazbec（2005）的一项近期研究发现，基于霍夫斯泰德（1996）的文化维度，在比较德国和斯洛文尼亚文化时，唯一显著的差异在于德国文化（

M A S = 66

）比斯洛文尼亚文化（MAS

= 20.3

）更具阳刚之气。这为德国工程师的职业态度提供了另一种解释：更阳刚的德国价值观保持了强大的技术基础，因此德国工程师对市场导向的关注较少。如乌尔伊恩等人（2001: 21）所讨论的，德国工程师受教育程度较高，更注重产品导向，并致力于完成岗位描述中规定的任务。

Table 10.6 Results of the logistic regression for differences between the two countries

^{a}

表 10.6 逻辑回归分析结果：两国差异

^{a}

	B	Std error 标准误差
FSPECF	-0.09	0.27
FSPECM	0.20	0.18
FSPECRD	-0.08	0.17
FSPECHRM	-0.09	0.30
FSPECIA	0.28	0.22
FSPECSMC	-0.06	0.18
COM	0.62	0.27**
FORMDEC	-0.18	0.36
JOBDESC	-0.52	0.25**
DELEG	0.35	0.34
RESPRUL	0.15	0.34
TRST	0.17	0.34
POS	-0.11	0.36
ADTR	0.64	0.31**
STGOAL	-0.63	0.40
Constant 恒定	-2.24	2.77

Notes: 备注
a. Germany is the reference country.
a. 德国是参考国家。
** Significant at

5 %

.
** 显著性水平为

5 %

。
is changing over time (also see Ulijn and Fayolle, 2004: 204-32), but it still prevails over the Slovenian experience. With the transition to a market economy, the new high-tech firms in Slovenia are revealing a considerable market orientation.
随着时间的推移，这种情况正在发生变化（参见 Ulijn 和 Fayolle，2004：204-32），但它仍然主导着斯洛文尼亚的经验。随着向市场经济过渡，斯洛文尼亚的新兴高科技企业正展现出显著的市场导向。

DISCUSSION 讨论

Since this is a case-study analysis, the question is whether these results have any broader meaning. As Yin (2003: 33) argues, it makes sense to compare the results of such an analysis with the results of studies on a wider sample in order to reinforce the robustness of the theory. Therefore, we compared the results for the six companies in our study with those of Lester et al. (2003), who tested a five-stage model applicable to all organizations, and Hanks et al. (1993) which derived a taxonomy of the sequence of growthstage configurations on a sample of high-technology organizations. Since we present the entire comparisons in Appendix 10A, here we merely discuss the core results. The results indicate that the companies in our
由于这是一项案例研究分析，关键问题在于这些结果是否具有更广泛的意义。正如尹（2003: 33）所指出的，为了增强理论的 robustness，有必要将此类分析的结果与更大样本研究的结果进行比较。因此，我们将本研究中六家公司的结果与莱斯特等人（2003）的研究结果进行了比较。（2003）对适用于所有组织的五阶段模型进行测试的结果，以及汉克斯等人（1993）对高技术组织样本中增长阶段配置序列分类的结果。由于我们在附录 10A 中呈现了全部比较结果，此处仅讨论核心发现。结果表明，我们研究中的公司
sample can be located somewhere between the survival and success phases in the Lester et al. study. This claim is based on the following: power is spread among several owners/investors; decision making includes some analysis; and the structure is becoming more formal and information processing is sophisticated. In addition, organizations are focusing their operations on broader segments of the market, have a wide assortment of products and/or services which are perceived in the eyes of customers to be different from others and are thus placing less emphasis on production/distribution efficiency items.
样本可能位于 Lester 等人的研究中生存阶段与成功阶段之间。这一结论基于以下几点：权力分散在多个所有者/投资者之间；决策过程包含一定分析；组织结构正趋于正式化，信息处理方式日益复杂。此外，组织正将运营重点转向更广泛的市场细分领域，拥有种类繁多的产品和服务，这些产品和服务在客户眼中被视为与其他产品不同，因此对生产/分销效率的重视程度降低。

Differences among our ICT businesses and businesses from the baseline study are as follows: ICT businesses place less emphasis on efficiency items; have a higher degree of functional specialization; the decision-making process includes more analysis; and power is less distributed among numerous shareholders. In the baseline study, the information-processing dimension was identified as the most critical dimension for indicating the life-cycle stage. We noticed that the companies in our sample have very sophisticated information processing and that they started adopting a more complex information system earlier in their life cycle, like the organizations in the baseline study. This could be attributed to the fact that they are operating in the ICT sector. In comparison to the Hanks et al. study, we found that the ICT companies in our sample are slightly bigger and grew more slowly (both in the number of employees and in the level of annual sales). This could indicate that the companies we studied are in a ‘later growth’ stage in the life cycle and are no longer experiencing the ‘hyper-growth rates’ enjoyed by the baseline companies. The faster transition to slower growth rates could, at least to a certain degree, also be attributed to the fact that the burst of the ‘internet bubble’ in 2000 caused a financial crisis in the ICT business.
我们的 ICT 企业与基准研究中的企业存在以下差异：ICT 企业对效率指标的重视程度较低；功能专业化程度更高；决策过程包含更多分析环节；权力在众多股东之间的分配较为集中。在基准研究中，信息处理维度被识别为指示生命周期阶段的最关键维度。我们注意到，样本中的企业信息处理水平非常高，且在生命周期早期就采用了更复杂的信息系统，与基准研究中的组织相似。这可能归因于它们处于 ICT 行业。与 Hanks 等人的研究相比，我们发现样本中的 ICT 企业规模略大，增长速度较慢（无论是员工数量还是年度销售额）。这可能表明，我们研究的企业处于生命周期的“后期增长阶段”，不再享受基准企业曾经历的“超高速增长率”。向较慢增长率的更快过渡，至少在一定程度上，也可归因于 2000 年“互联网泡沫”破裂引发的 ICT 行业金融危机。

The businesses in our study have more complex organizational structures, consequently resulting in less centralization in decision making that could also indicate a later stage in their life cycle compared to the baselinestudy participants. However, this could not be supported by the fact that the high-tech companies in our study have slightly less formalized everyday operations. Further, in the context of previous studies the companies in our study seem to have successfully made the transition to professionally managed organizations.
我们研究中的企业具有更复杂的组织结构，这导致决策过程的集中度较低，这可能表明与基准研究参与者相比，这些企业处于更晚的生命周期阶段。然而，这一结论无法得到我们研究中高科技企业日常运营略微 informal 的事实支持。此外，与先前研究相比，我们研究中的企业似乎已成功过渡到专业化管理的组织。

CONCLUSIONS 结论

Our analysis found no major differences between the six companies from Germany and Slovenia and firms from other industries in the transition
我们的分析发现，德国和斯洛文尼亚的六家企业与其他行业企业在转型过程中没有显著差异。
from an entrepreneurial to a professionally managed organization. This transition is characterized by the functional specialization of top and middle managers, the increased formalization of decision making and the formalization of communication. Decisions are beginning to be delegated by superiors to subordinates and a culture of trust is being developed, namely trust that the agreed tasks will be performed at all levels. Companies are starting to develop their employees through further education and a formal system of planning and control is being established. All this is needed for firms to survive at the market. Interestingly, there is less stress on both performing tasks according to formal job descriptions and respecting the rules. This is probably a characteristic of high-technology companies that encourage the innovativeness of their employees through team work and a more horizontal organization. Our findings can, thus, also reflect O’Reilly and Tushman’s (2004) view on ‘ambidextrous’ organization - the organizational form that seeks to exploit simultaneously the entrepreneurial with the more institutionalized forms of the firm in order to achieve sustainable innovation over time. Also noticeable is the greater rigidity of German engineers when performing tasks according to their formal job description, which is probably a consequence of the cultural environment. However, having access only to six firms, we are aware of some limitations of our results. Therefore further research with a larger sample from this sector is needed to confirm our findings.
从创业型组织向专业化管理型组织转型。这一转型特征包括高层和中层管理人员的职能专业化、决策过程的正式化程度提高以及沟通方式的正式化。上级开始将决策权下放给下属，并逐步建立信任文化，即相信各方已达成共识的任务将在各层级得到有效执行。企业开始通过继续教育培养员工，并建立正式的规划与控制体系。所有这些都是企业生存于市场所必需的。有趣的是，对按照正式岗位描述完成任务和遵守规则的强调有所减弱。这可能是高科技公司的一个特点，它们通过团队合作和更扁平化的组织结构来鼓励员工的创新性。我们的研究结果因此也反映了奥赖利和塔什曼（2004）关于“双轨制组织”的观点——即组织形式旨在同时利用企业内部的创业型与制度化运作模式，以实现长期可持续创新。值得注意的是，德国工程师在按照正式岗位描述执行任务时表现出更大的 rigidness，这可能源于文化环境的影响。然而，由于仅对六家企业进行了调研，我们意识到研究结果存在一定局限性。因此，需通过更大样本规模的后续研究，进一步验证本研究的发现。

NOTES 备注

The multinomial logistic regression is a logistic regression where the response (dependent) variable is a nominal or ordinal variable with more than two values. The model assesses the probability of a unit belonging to a particular group, as defined by the response variable, based on certain properties of the unit.
多项式逻辑回归是一种逻辑回归模型，其中因变量（响应变量）是具有两个或更多个取值的名义变量或有序变量。该模型根据单位的某些属性，评估单位属于特定组的概率，该组由响应变量定义。
What we model is the probability of belonging to a certain level of employment, as compared to another level. In the interpretation of the results we reverse the causality direction so the coefficients are interpreted as differences between the levels.
我们所建模的是属于某一就业水平的概率，相对于另一就业水平而言。在结果的解释中，我们逆转了因果关系的方向，因此系数被解释为不同就业水平之间的差异。
Some of the variables, namely functional specialization in HRM, implementation and support, training and education, trust and strategy and goals, did not make it into the model. This was due to the fact that, especially after controlling for the firm, the variance of these variables was zero in certain groups (for example, when none of the engineers was specialized in HRM, so all of them answered with 1), which makes it impossible to estimate the model.
一些变量，即人力资源管理（HRM）的功能专业化、实施与支持、培训与教育、信任与战略及目标，未被纳入模型。这是因为，尤其是在控制了企业因素后，这些变量的方差在某些组别中为零（例如，当所有工程师均未在 HRM 领域专业化时，所有受访者均回答为 1），这使得无法对模型进行估计。

REFERENCES 参考文献

Adizes, Ichak (1999), Managing Corporate Life Cycles, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
阿迪兹，伊查克（1999），《企业生命周期管理》，新泽西州恩格尔伍德克利夫斯：普伦蒂斯-霍尔出版社。

Barth, Henrik and Sven Åke Hörte (1999), ‘Managerial barriers to growth in Sweden’, paper presented at the European Operations Management Association 6th Annual Conference on Managing Operations Networks, Venice, Italy, 7-8 July.
巴特，亨里克和斯文·阿克·赫尔特（1999），《瑞典企业增长的管理障碍》，论文发表于欧洲运营管理协会第六届年度会议“运营网络管理”，意大利威尼斯，7 月 7 日至 8 日。
Berry, M.M.J. (1996), ‘Technical entrepreneurship, strategic awareness and corporate transformation in small high tech firms’, Technovation, 16 (9), 478-98.
贝里，M.M.J.（1996），《技术创业、战略意识与小型高科技企业的转型》，《技术创新》，16（9），478-98。
Churchill, Neil C. and Virginia L. Lewis (1983), ‘The five stages of small business growth’, Harvard Business Review, 61 (3), 30-50.
丘吉尔，尼尔·C. 和弗吉尼亚·L. 刘易斯（1983），《小企业发展的五个阶段》，《哈佛商业评论》，61 (3)，30-50。
Deakins, David (1999), Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, 2nd edn, London: McGraw-Hill.
迪金斯，戴维（1999），《创业与小型企业》，第 2 版，伦敦：麦格劳-希尔出版社。
Flamholtz, Eric G. and Yvonne Randle (2000), Growing Pains: How to Make the Transition from an Entrepreneurship to a Professionally Managed Firm, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
弗拉姆霍尔茨，埃里克·G. 和约维恩·兰德尔（2000），《成长的阵痛：如何从创业型企业转型为专业管理型企业》，加利福尼亚州旧金山：约西-巴斯出版社。
Greiner, Larry E. (1998), ‘Evolution and revolution as organizations grow’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 55-67.
格雷纳，拉里·E.（1998），《组织成长中的进化与革命》，《哈佛商业评论》，5 月-6 月，55-67 页。
Hanks, Steven H., Collin J. Watson, Eric Janesen and Gaylen N. Chandler (1993), ‘Tightening the life-cycle construct: a taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18 (2), 5-30.
汉克斯，史蒂文·H.，科林·J. 沃森，埃里克·扬森和盖伦·N. 查德勒（1993），《完善生命周期构念：高技术组织成长阶段配置的分类研究》，《创业理论与实践》，18（2），5-30。
Harper, Stephen H. (1995), The McGraw-Hill Guide to Managing Growth in Your Emerging Business: Guidelines for Transforming Your Small Business into an Exceptional Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.
哈珀，斯蒂芬·H.（1995），《麦格劳-希尔新兴企业增长管理指南：将小型企业转型为卓越企业的指南》，纽约：麦格劳-希尔出版社。
Hitt, Michael, Barbara Keats and Samuel M. DeMarie (1998), ‘Navigating in the new competitive landscape: building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century’, The Academy of Management Executive, 12 (4), 22-42.
希特，迈克尔，芭芭拉·基茨和塞缪尔·M·德马里（1998），《在新的竞争格局中导航：21 世纪构建战略灵活性与竞争优势》，《管理学报》，12（4），22-42。
Hofstede, Geert (1996), ‘Images of Europe: past, present and future’, in Malcom Warner and Pat Joynt (eds), Managing Across Cultures: Issues and Perspectives, London: Thomson Learning, pp. 89-103.
霍夫斯泰德，盖特（1996），《欧洲的形象：过去、现在与未来》，载于马尔科姆·沃纳和帕特·乔因特（编），《跨文化管理：问题与展望》，伦敦：汤姆森学习出版社，第 89-103 页。
Jazbec, Marijana (2005), ‘Slovenska nacionalna kultura in medkulturno izobraževanje poslovnežev’, in Janez Prašnikar and Andreja Cirman (eds), Globalno gospodarstvo in kulturna razliěnost, Ljubljana: Finance, pp. 85-109.
贾泽克，玛丽亚娜（2005），《斯洛文尼亚民族文化与企业家跨文化教育》，载于扬·普拉什尼卡尔和安德烈娅·西尔曼（编），《全球经济与文化多样性》，卢布尔雅那：金融出版社，第 85-109 页。
Lester, Donald L., John A. Parnell and Shawn Carraher (2003), ‘Organizational life cycle: a five-stage empirical scale’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11 (4), 339-54.
莱斯特，唐纳德·L.，约翰·A.帕内尔和肖恩·卡拉赫（2003），《组织生命周期：一个五阶段经验量表》，《组织分析国际期刊》，11（4），339-54。
Nagel, Arie, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Marko Torkeli (2006), ‘Towards a more innovative company - creating options for the future’, in Janez Prašnikar (ed.), Competitiveness, Social Responsibility and Economic Growth, New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 223-31.
纳格尔，阿瑞，维姆·范哈弗贝克和马尔科·托尔凯利（2006），《走向更具创新力的企业——为未来创造可能性》，载于扬兹·普拉什尼卡尔（编），《竞争力、社会责任与经济增长》，纽约：诺瓦科学出版社，第 223-31 页。
O’Reilly, C.A. III and M.L. Tushman (2004), ‘The ambidextrous organization’, Harvard Business Review, April, 74-81.
奥赖利，C.A. 三世和 M.L. 蒂什曼（2004），《双轨组织》，《哈佛商业评论》，4 月，74-81 页。
Olson, D. Philip and David E. Terpstraand (1992), ‘Organizational structural changes: life-cycle stage influences and managers’ and interventionists’ challenges’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5 (4), 27-40.
奥尔森，D. 菲利普和戴维·E. 特尔普斯特拉（1992），《组织结构变革：生命周期阶段的影响及管理者与干预者的挑战》，《组织变革管理期刊》，5（4），27-40。
Roberts, Michael J. (1999), ‘Managing transitions in the growing enterprise’, in Michael J. Roberts, William Andrews Sahlman, Howard H. Stevenson and Amar Bhide (eds), The Entrepreneurial Venture, 2nd edn, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, pp. 377-91.
罗伯茨，迈克尔·J.（1999），《成长型企业中的转型管理》，载于迈克尔·J.罗伯茨、威廉·安德鲁斯·萨尔曼、霍华德·H.斯蒂文森和阿马尔·比迪（编），《创业企业》，第 2 版，波士顿，马萨诸塞州：哈佛商业出版社，第 377-91 页。
Scott, Mel and Richard Bruce (1987), ‘Five stages of growth in small business’, Long Range Planning, 20 (3), 45-52.
斯科特、梅尔和理查德·布鲁斯（1987），《小型企业发展的五个阶段》，《长期规划》，20（3），45-52。

Shaw, Vivienne, Christopher T. Shaw and Margit Enke (2003), ‘Conflict between engineers and marketers; the experience of German engineers’, Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 489-99.
肖，维维安，克里斯托弗·T·肖和玛格丽特·恩克（2003），《工程师与市场营销人员之间的冲突：德国工程师的经验》，《工业营销管理》，32，489-99。
Ulijn, J.M. and A. Fayolle (2004), ‘Comparing entrepreneurial and innovation cultures: the European perspective of French, German, and Dutch engineers, some empirical evidence about their technology vs market orientation’, in T. Brown and J. Ulijn (eds), Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Culture, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 204-32.
乌尔林，J.M. 和 A. 费约尔（2004），《比较创业文化与创新文化：法国、德国和荷兰工程师的欧洲视角，关于其技术导向与市场导向的实证证据》，载于 T. 布朗和 J. 乌尔林（编），《创业、创新与文化》，英国切尔滕纳姆和美国马萨诸塞州诺斯汉普顿：爱德华·埃尔加出版社，第 204-32 页。
Ulijn, J.M., A.P. Nagel and W.-L. Tan (2001), ‘The impact of national, corporate and professional cultures on innovation: German and Dutch firms compared’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, special issue on Innovation in an International Context (edited by A. Nagel, J. Ulijn and W.-L. Tan), 9 (1), 21-52.
乌尔林，J.M.，A.P. 纳格尔和 W.-L. 谭（2001），《国家、企业与专业文化对创新的影响：德国与荷兰企业的比较》，《企业文化期刊》国际创新专题特刊（主编：A. 纳格尔、J. 乌尔林和 W.-L. 谭），9（1），21-52。
Wilson, Peter and Sue Bates (2003), The Essential Guide to Managing Small Business Growth, Chichester: John Wiley.
威尔逊，彼得和苏·贝茨（2003），《小企业增长管理实用指南》，奇切斯特：约翰威利出版公司。
Winer, B.J., D.R. Brown and K.M. Michels (1991), Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
温纳，B.J.，D.R. 布朗和 K.M. 米切尔（1991），《实验设计中的统计原理》，第 3 版，纽约：麦格劳-希尔出版社。
Yin, Robert K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
尹，罗伯特·K.（2003），《案例研究：设计与方法》，第 3 版，加利福尼亚州贝弗利山：sage 出版社。

APPENDIX 10A 附录 10A

In our study we used the same dimensions as in the Lester et al. (2003) study and analysed how six participating ICT businesses differ from businesses that took part in the baseline research. The results of the comparison with the baseline survey are presented in Table 10A.1.

^{1}

在本研究中，我们采用了 Lester 等（2003）研究中使用的相同维度，并分析了六家参与信息通信技术（ICT）企业与参与基线研究的企业之间的差异。与基线调查的比较结果如表 10A.1 所示。

^{1}

Table 10A.1 Comparing the results of our study with the results of Lester et al. (2003)
表 10A.1 本研究结果与 Lester 等（2003）研究结果的比较

Item 项目

Summary of statements 陈述摘要

Present survey (

n = 6

)
当前调查 (

n = 6

)

Baseline survey (

n = 242

)
基线调查 (

n = 242

)

比较差异

t

Comparing the difference

t

Mean 平均值

Std err.

^{a}

标准误差

^{a}

Mean 平均值

Std err. 标准误差。

FIRSTMOV

Following a first-mover strategy
采取先发制人的战略

3.17

(0.62)

3.22

(1.09)

-0.34

SECMOVER

Following a second-mover strategy
采取跟随者战略

2.78

(0.65)

3.41

(0.96)

-3.84**

SEGMENT

Degree of market segmentation (from less to more)
市场细分程度（从低到高）

2.60

(0.63)

3.09

(1.06)

-2.74**

BREADTH

Breadth of product or service lines (from less to more)
产品或服务线广度（从少到多）

3.06

(0.64)

3.56

(0.83)

-3.14**

UNIQUE

Perceived uniqueness (from less to more)
感知独特性（从低到高）

3.67

(0.49)

3.47

(0.95)

1.51

EFFICNCY

Efficiency of production/distribution (from less to more)
生产/分销效率（从低到高）

2.22

(0.43)

3.04

(0.86)

-7.12***

EXIST1

Organization is small 组织规模较小

2.83

(0.75)

2.40

(1.4)

1.35

EXIST2

Power rests with the founder
权力掌握在创始人手中。

2.67

(0.82)

2.49

(1.48)

0.51

EXIST3

Simple structure 结构简单

2.67

(1.37)

2.93

(1.35)

-0.47

EXIST4

Simple information processing
简单信息处理

2.17

(0.41)

2.52

(1.36)

-1.88*

SURV1

Power spread among several owners/investors
权力分散在多个所有者/投资者之间

4.00

(0.63)

3.09

(1.3)

3.35**

SURV2

Some specialization 部分专业化

2.50

(0.55)

3.79

(1.03)

-5.53***

SURV3

Information processing consists of monitoring performance
信息处理包括监控性能。

3.33

(0.82)

3.57

(1.22)

-0.69

SURV4

Decision making includes some analysis
决策过程包含一定的分析环节。

4.00

(0.01)

3.23

(1.26)

9.47***

Table 10A.1 (continued) 表 10A.1（续）

Item 项目	Summary of statements 陈述摘要	Present survey ( $n = 6$ ) 当前调查 ( $n = 6$ )		Baseline survey ( $n = 242$ ) 基线调查 ( $n = 242$ )		Comparing the difference 比较差异
Item 项目	Summary of statements 陈述摘要	Mean 平均值	Std err. $^{a}$ 标准误差 $^{a}$	Mean 平均值	Std err. 标准误差。	$t$
SUCCESS1	Larger than most competitors 比大多数竞争对手更大	2.67	(1.21)	3.03	(1.23)	-0.73
SUCCESS2	Power distributed among numerous shareholders 权力分散在众多股东之间	1.50	(0.55)	2.83	(1.14)	-5.65***
SUCCESS3	Information processing is sophisticated 信息处理是复杂的	3.00	(0.89)	3.38	(0.94)	-1.03
SUCCESS4	Widely dispersed organization 广泛分散的组织	4.00	(0.63)	3.62	(1.1)	1.92**
RENEWAL1	Centralization structure with few control systems 集中式结构，控制系统较少	2.00	(1.67)	3.64	(1.25)	-2.38**
RENEWAL2	Structure is divisional or matrix 组织结构为部门制或矩阵制。	3.00	(1.26)	3.47	(1.18)	-0.90
RENEWAL3	Information processing is complex 信息处理是复杂的	2.33	(0.52)	3.59	(1.09)	-5.65***
RENEWAL4	Decisions emphasize growth and participation 决策强调增长与参与	3.33	(0.52)	3.41	(1.11)	-0.34
DECLINE1	Centralized decision making, not complex 集中决策，而非复杂决策。	1.00	(0.01)	2.86	(1.46)	-19.84***
DECLINE2	Information processing not sophisticated, but badly needed 信息处理技术虽不先进，但迫切需要。	1.50	(0.55)	2.81	(1.28)	-5.50***
DECLINE3	Centralized decision making, not complex 集中决策，而非复杂决策。	2.00	(0.63)	3.21	(1.3)	-4.46**
DECLINE4	Decisions by a few conservative managers 少数保守派管理者的决策	1.00	(0.01)	2.91	(1.41)	-21.01***

Note: * Significant at

10 %; * *

Significant at

5 %; * * *

Significant at

1 %;^{a}

Standard error.
注：* 显著性水平为

10 %; * *

显著性水平为

5 %; * * *

显著性水平为

1 %;^{a}

标准误差。

The taxonomy found in the Hanks et al. (1993) study was formed by clustering firms based upon common patterns of organization age, size, growth rate, formalization, centralization, and a number of specialized functions. Data for the six participating firms in our study were collected using the same method as in Hanks et al. and were analysed using the same methodology (Table 10A.2).
汉克斯等人（1993）研究中采用的分类体系是通过将企业按组织年龄、规模、增长率、正式化程度、集中化程度以及若干专业化职能等共同特征进行聚类分析而形成的。本研究中六家参与企业的数据采用与汉克斯等人相同的方法收集，并运用相同的分析方法进行处理（表 10A.2）。

Table 10A.2 Comparing the results of our study with the results of Hanks et al. (1993)
表 10A.2 本研究结果与 Hanks 等（1993）研究结果的比较

	Present research ( $n = 6$ ) 当前研究（ $n = 6$ ）		Baseline research ( $n = 126$ ) 基线研究（ $n = 126$ ）		Comparing the difference 比较差异
	Mean 平均值	Std err. $^{a}$ 标准误差 $^{a}$	Mean 平均值	Std err. 标准误差。	$t$
Size $_{log}$ 尺寸 $_{log}$	4.49	(1.2)	3.12	(1.32)	2.74**
Age 年龄	11.50	(5.36)	8.91	(6.56)	1.14
Structural form 结构形式	3.17	(0.75)	1.82	(0.65)	4.31***
Levels 级别	3.33	(0.82)	3.31	(1.24)	0.07
Specialization 专业领域	6.80	(2.59)	6.29	(4.91)	0.45
Centralization 集中化	12.83	(0.75)	16.81	(2.89)	-9.92***
Formalization 形式化	38.17	(5.08)	45.21	(10.61)	-3.09**
Employees 员工	161.17	(174.79)	66.07	(166.53)	1.30
Employee growth 员工成长	0.14	(0.07)	0.41	(0.98)	-2.88**
Sales growth 销售增长	0.15	(0.16)	1.29	(4.25)	-2.96**

Note: ** Significant at 5%; *** Significant at 1%;

^{a}

Standard error.
注：** 显著性水平为 5%；*** 显著性水平为 1%；

^{a}

标准误差。

NOTE: 注意：

We thank John A. Parnell, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, for providing us with additional descriptive statistics.
我们感谢北卡罗来纳州彭布罗克大学的约翰·A·帕内尔（John A. Parnell）为我们提供了额外的描述性统计数据。

10. Making the transition from entrepreneurial to professional management in small and medium-sized ICT businesses in Slovenia and Germany 10. 斯洛文尼亚和德国中小型信息通信技术企业从创业管理向专业化管理转型