Research Paper

Factors influencing organizational change and health - Evidences from the Indian pharmaceutical sector

Anil Kumar Singh and Muqbil Burhan

Dynamics and interplay among various drivers and competencies in any organizational set-up shape the configurations of the systems black box. Structural flexibility, information management, decision making and leadership are critical components which manage the intra-organizational interactions for a collective meaningful outcome in terms of organizational change capability and superior performance. In the recent past, the Indian pharmaceutical sector has witnessed impressive global consolidation and expansion. The organizational health recipes which have been designed by the Indian pharmaceutical sector for its healthy growth need to be explored and understood. Identifying how these variables interact and how they have contributed to the success of the pharmaceutical sector is the key research agenda of this paper. The responses obtained from 216 mid- and senior-level executives of the Indian pharmaceutical industry have been processed by structural equation modeling to investigate interactive dynamics. Therefore, the outcomes are of value to scholars as well as practitioners.

1 Introduction


The scholarly and intellectual interest in pharmaceutical industry results from its highly ‘closed’ innovation model, pricing policies, regulatory barriers and dynamics of boundaries of the firm (Foss and Rasmussen, 2014). The Indian pharmaceutical industry will grow to US$ 55 billion by 2020 driven by steady rise in affordability and a steep jump in market access. Articulating the insights and revelations by transcending through the 150 years old history of Indian pharmaceutical industry, it is not very surprising to find that ability to change and adopt are the key survival instincts which this industry has exhibited. The current state of its health is due to existing capabilities to change, adopt and reconfigure its competencies in light of external happenings. This magnitude of growth will lead towards a market size at par with developed markets other than the US, Japan and China and in terms of volumes it will be next to the US (McKinsey, 2013). 

The pharmaceutical and medical report by McKinsey & Company (2013) and its research related to the Indian pharmaceutical sector has embarked upon four fundamental questions: How can the industry stimulate the growth drivers? What are the most attractive opportunities in Indian markets? Which capabilities will differentiate the leaders of tomorrow? Would the way organizations are structured and managed need to change as the range of opportunities becomes diverse?

This complexity calls for an investigation into the status of organizational health of the Indian pharmaceutical sector identifying the key enablers which have catapulted this industry from a weak health configuration to global recognition. Before we proceed with the framework, model and empirical investigation, it is important to trace the enablers of this development in the industry so far. Researchers dealing with business and industry history have divided the evolutionary path in four stages with an objective to explain the industry dynamics in minutest detail. The objective of this research is to examine the internal firm-specific dynamism and more recent trends. Once research broadly understands the challenges and obstacles faced by this industry, it is possible to explore the concept of organizational health and the constructs contributing to this central theme. We scan the literature examining the key variables associated with this unexplored phenomenon and propose a framework based on extensive literature review. We hypothesize relationships within a constructed model on the basis of existing theory and then constructs are modeled based on empirical data to validate the theoretical understandings.


2 Theoretical background


2.1 Organizational health


[…] the health of an organization is based on the ability to align around a clear vision, strategy, and culture; to execute with excellence; and to renew the organization’s focus over time by responding to market trends. Health also has a hard edge: indeed, we’ve come to define it as the capacity to deliver - over the long term - superior financial and operating performance”. (Smet et al., 2014)

Similar to humans, a healthy organization can sustain its existence in longer runs. Therefore, it is implicit that organizational health is a powerful lever in a dynamic business environment where coping with change is an instinct linked with survival. Organizational health according to Smet et al. (2014) can be achieved by following one of the following four ways (“organizational health recipes”):


A. Leader-driven

This refers to presence of talented and high-potential leaders at all levels in the organization who can exercise autonomy and are accountable. The ability to create something from nothing is materialized if this health driver is aptly nourished and nurtured. 


B. Market-focused

This refers to a firm’s external orientation not only towards the customers but also towards regulators, partners, competitors and the community. This approach directs the ability of organization to be shapers of market trends, innovators and creators of robust brand equity. 


C. Execution-edge

This describes the ability to sense the environment, reconfigure and deploy resources. Thus, the thrust is on the ability to swiftly act with a stout mechanism of decision making. 


D. Talent and knowledge core

This lever refers to the ability of organizations to build competitive advantage by assembling and managing a high-quality talent and knowledge base.


Following the inductive reasoning to the concept of organizational health as proposed by Smet et al. (2014), the theory of organizational health can be configured around the following facets. The talent and knowledge core constitute the essence of effective organizational processes, reconfiguration and deployment of resources hinge on organizational structure, the issues of market focus correspond to the sensing abilities of organizations for change and the drive comes from the organizational leadership. The health of business organizations can thus be viewed to rest upon three fundamental pillars, i.e. core management processes, formal structures and managerial mindset. If we compare these aspects of organizations with humans, they can be interpreted as synonyms for anatomy, physiology and psychology. Organizational health as interpreted and modeled in this paper (figure 1) focuses on organizational structure (anatomy), mechanism of transparency in information sharing and decision making (physiology) and shared leadership and change friendly identity (psychology). The human architecture is structured by nature and its health depends upon a balanced interactive dynamics among the three key variables. Organizations are socio-economic units purposefully structured to bridge the value gaps. These value delivery propositions are interpreted as (parts of) business models in management literature.




2.2 Business models


Organizations and living entities are configured around the structural domains of inter- and intra-relationships. The efficiency in management of these interfaces provides benefits which are aimed at. In business context, the organizational pattern of relationships can be termed as business model. Research exists in abundance but concurrence and concreteness in the understanding of the term business model is lacking (George and Bock, 2011 and 2012). The best way to interpret and understand a business model for any firm is in terms of value propositions towards customers (Doz and Kosonen, 2010; Teece, 2010; Tikkanen et al., 2005). 

What makes a business tangible, is the anatomical foundation interpreted as organizational structure (Baden-Fuller and Morgan, 2010). The management processes coupled with shared leadership act as an enabler for organizational health and thus configure the organizational change ability (Gulati and Puranam, 2009; Hall and Saias, 1980). Since business models need continuous reconfigurations, any random or planned fluctuations in the environment call for realignment (Ho et al., 2011; McGrath, 2010; Sosna et al. 2010; Teece, 2010) of processes and structure. Leadership acts as a facilitator in adjusting and coping with changes. It becomes apparently evident that changes in environment call for a reconsideration of the business model. The (re)configurations will revolve around the organizational capability of leadership, process and system dynamics and the structural organization (Najmaei, 2011). 

Research by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC, 2009) states that the conventional integrated business model (from discovery to customer) will become distant reality in future times (Gilbert et al., 2003; PWC, 2009 ). They suggest that alternative business models are needed to ensure effectiveness of the business value delivery. 

O'Reilly and Tushman (2004) have contributed to the understanding of innovations in business models and organizational principle structural (anatomical), operational (physiological) and conceptual (psychological) components, but their work is limited to manifested organizational structures in light of business model innovations. As shown by firms in the Indian pharmaceutical sector, there has been continuous innovation in the business models over time (Foss and Stieglitz 2014, Foss and Rasmussen 2014). Whenever an organization innovates its business models, it requires the inclusion of new tasks inside the company in order to address requirements and reshaping the coordination requirements with this new practice initiation (Foss and Rasmussen 2014). This refers to a shift in organization’s health constructs by reconfiguring its structure, processes and leadership.

Changes in business models and business configuration are done to exploit unique and novel opportunities with a balance of coordination, control and expectations of better gains (Johnson et al., 2008). This study draws from these key issues and correlates it to an aggregated term of organizational health. Whelan-Berry et al. (2003) have proposed culture, vision, leadership and communication as facilitators to the change process. These change ingredients have a high degree of dependence on structure, process and leadership. The research constructs employed in this paper have sound foundations to explore the relationships among the exogenous and outcome variables and are introduced in the following.


2.3 Hypotheses development


When linking performance with strategy and organizational structure, they can be seen as resultant and drivers (Chandler, 1962; Davis et al., 2009). Structure can be interpreted as a macro-level, multifunctional system with an implicit objective of creating and capturing value (Bock et al. 2012). Structural flexibility as an organizational capability can be defined as simplification, expansion or reconfiguration of the constituent elements in light of a reorientation of a practiced business model. Structural flexibility can drive performance by reducing the coordination costs and increasing cooperation among the units leading to enhanced ability for exploration and exploitation (Mom et al., 2009). Structural flexibility when viewed closely with a conceptual lens involves consolidation, removal, delegation and devolution which enable managers to resolve critical issues and exploit opportunities arising out of changes in environment (George and Bock, 2012; Ocasio, 1997; Rothaermel et al., 2006).

The key role of organizational leadership is to perceive and share the impact of exogenous changes on the organization’s competitive position (Ocasio, 1997) and this calls for shared leadership and collective identity. Transparent information and decision making act as glue to hold structural needs and the understanding of leaders concerning the organization and its environment together. Managers must pay attention to the roles and significance of knowledge sharing, dissemination and communication in discovering, penetrating into and exploiting new markets as well as assessing the progress of their revolutionary initiative (Najmaei, 2011).  

Leadership is therefore responsible to define and design the organizational characteristics for superior performance, success and ultimately organizational health (Davis et al., 2009; Glick et al., 1990). Adapting and changing to the needs of the future, results in superior performance in complex and dynamic environments (Nadkarni and Narayanan, 2007). Interpreting planned organizational change as a generic phenomenon might mask important idiosyncrasies associated both with the different activities involved in the change implementation process and with the unique functions that leadership competencies might play in the execution of these activities (Battilana et al., 2010). Therefore, it is essential to integrate the enablers which enhance the firm’s ability to change and thus become different from others in terms of performance which is used as a proxy for competitive advantage.

In this paper, we propose that the firm’s ability to change (CC) is linked with superior performance (CA), which is an indicator of better organizational health. In addition, the change capability (CC) depends on the organizational abilities: structural flexibility (SF), transparent information and decision making (ID) and shared leadership and identity (SLI). Furthermore, an attempt to identify the role of change capability as a mediator in the proposed relationships is made. 

Studies in the area of organizational design have established relationships between structure and change. Structure can facilitate and act as an enabler resulting in better ability to control and to have a clear focus (Ethiraj et al., 2008; Lee and Makhija, 2009). Reduction in cost of coordination and broadening the range of offerings for better-off position among rivals is enabled by increasing the availability of information and the ability of organization to share (Puranam et al., 2006; Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). The explicit questions addressed here are:


1. How structural flexibility is related to organizational change capability and contributes to the firm’s competitive advantage.


2. How transparent information and decision making is related to organizational change capability and contributes to firm’s competitive advantage.


3. How shared leadership and change friendly identity is related to organizational change capability and contributes to firm’s competitive advantage.


The relationships thus investigated are depicted in figure 2, where change capability (CC) is proposed as a mediating variable between the constructs of structural flexibility (SF), transparent information and decision making (ID), shared leadership and change friendly identity (SLI) and competitive advantage (CA) measured by a proxy of superior performance.


The associated research hypotheses are:


HSFCC: Structural flexibility (SF) has a significant, direct and positive impact on change capability (CC).

HSFCA: Structural flexibility (SF) has a significant, direct and positive impact on competitive advantage (CA).

HIDCC: Transparent information and decision making (ID) has a significant, direct and positive impact on change capability (CC).

HIDCA: Transparent information and decision making (ID) has a significant, direct and positive impact on competitive advantage (CA).

HSLICC: Shared leadership and identity (SLI) has a significant, direct and positive impact on change capability (CC).

HSLICA: Shared leadership and identity (SLI) has a significant, direct and positive impact on competitive advantage (CA).

HCCCA: Change capability (CC) has a significant, direct and positive impact on competitive advantage (CA).

HMCA: Change capability (CC) plays a mediating role between SF, ID, SLI and CA.




3 Research method


3.1 Sampling frame and sample characteristics


Senior level management employees from Indian pharmaceutical companies constitute the target population in this study. Our definition of the Indian pharmaceutical sector includes those firms which primarily operate in India, are incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1956, and might be operating abroad but are not branches of a foreign company (as defined by Sharma and Singh, 2012a, 2012b; Singh, 2014). The data source for identifying the companies is CMIE (Center for monitoring Indian economy), which provides detailed and exhaustive information on 648 organizations through the database PROWESS. Data collection occurred during the years 2012 and 2013. For Indian companies, CMIE is a leading information provider and many published papers have used this database for India-specific research.

The level at which the analysis is carried out are pharmaceutical organizations (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001; Singh, 2104). Information from top level managers provides valuable insights into the organizational systems and practices (Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980, p.320) and therefore, the information pertinent to research questions was collected from them and this data in aggregate represents the measurements at the firm level. A number of studies has previously adopted this approach, for example, Cragg and King (1988), Davidsson and Klofsten (2003), Gadenne (1998), Kara et al. (2005), Sharma and Singh (2012a) and (2012b), Singh (2014). Understanding the fact that top-level executives in a firm have adequate information and understanding about the uniqueness of processes and systems followed by firms, information specific to the organizational context with reference to competitive advantage and organizational performance is obtained from them.   

The overall study design is adapted from Singh (2014). The sampling design followed the approach suggested by Short et al. (2002) for studies of this kind. To add relevance to the research, the list of pharmaceutical firms was analyzed on the basis of consistency in the sales turnover over a period of the past eight years (2005-2012). On this basis, we derived thirty firms eligible for data collection and analysis. In an attempt to resolve existing disparities in sampling processes in place, this census was chosen. These thirty firms were targeted for 15 responses from key informants which totaled to a size of 450 responses.

Data analysis was carried out through structural equation modeling (SEM) by using AMOS 19. The final sample size depends upon reliability, strength in effects and complexity in model (Bearden et al., 1982; Bollen, 1990). There is lack of consensus on the recommended sample size for SEM, Gerbing and Anderson (1985) have suggested a sample size of 150 for a convergent and proper solution whereas Garver and Mentzer (1999), Hoelter (1983) as well as Sivo et al. (2006) have proposed a critical sample size of 200. If we adapt the study to the sample size prescribed, any sample size equal to or above 200 is accepted as it may provide sufficient statistical power for data analysis (Singh, 2014). 

Data was collected for this study by hosting an online questionnaire on Google documents, sent to the targeted organizations by collecting details from their websites and other sources like a directory of NPPA (National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority). Studies which have used online surveys consider 20% responses as valid (Hitt et al., 2004; Malhotra and Grover, 1998). Considering the response rate of 38% by Subramaniam and Venkatraman (2001), 21% by Paxson et al. (1995), 41% by Dyer and Hatch (2006), Dyer and Nobeoka (2000), Kotabe et al. (2003), 25% by Kale et al. (2002), 32% by Hoskisson et al. (2000), this study has a higher response rate, i.e. 48%. Among a total of 216 responses obtained, 168 out of 250 were obtained by physical follow-ups and 48 out of 200 were obtained online. The item completion rate was 99% indicating a high survey effectiveness. 


3.2 Measures


The focus of this study is on exploring the strength of relationship between SF, ID, SLI, change capability and competitive advantage. In absence of existing scales, a new instrument (table 1) has been developed in two stages as suggested by Menor and Roth (2007).




3.3 Testing the measurement model


3.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)


Uni-dimensionality and reliability was checked at the onset by carrying out exploratory factor analysis. The concept of uni-dimensionality is one of the basic assumptions in measurement theory which a research shall meet before proceeding for analysis (Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991). This refers to the existence of one construct which underlines a complete set of items (Anderson and Gerbing, 1987; Kumar and Dillon, 1987; Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991). Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out after conducting exploratory factor analysis on each scale separately so that factor loadings on each construct are verified. As the research scales were hypothesized to be uni-dimensional, it was expected that all items will load highly on one factor. This can be verified when the KMO (Keiser Meyer Olkin) test values are greater than 0.5. Following the above rules, the results for EFA were interpreted, and it was found that the scales were uni-dimensional on the basis of the eigenvalues greater than 1 heuristic (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003), one principal component was extracted which accounts for more than 50% of the total variance of the scale.




3.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)


For carrying out the confirmatory factor analysis of the structural model, maximum likelihood method was chosen as it is statistically well-founded and is least affected by the sampling error. The convergent reliability and the validity of alignment are checked by examining the adjustment level of the model and the causality coefficients which linked various constructs (see Sharma and Singh, 2012a and 2012b; Singh, 2014). Since all the scales were uni-dimensional, a CFA is carried out to check further reliability and validity of scales (table 3). Values of indicator reliability are within the accepted limits (Long, 1983; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004; Wu, 2005). 

Cronbach’s alpha values are calculated to check reliability. All values for the constructs are above 0.7, which are meritorious (Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). When values of construct reliability are calculated, they are found to be higher than 0.5, which is well accepted (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). The values of average variance extracted (AVE) are higher than 0.5 which indicate appropriateness (table 4) of the internal consistency and construct reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). One way to interpret discriminate validity is to look at the estimated correlation between factors (Klin, 2010) which is not greater than 0.85%. To reinforce the presence of discriminate validity, AVE and shared variance are compared. It is found that AVE is greater than the shared variance conclusively proving presence of discriminate validity (Singh, 2014). Since the constructs should relate with each other to provide logical relationships, the calculated correlational values are observed to be positive and significant (Ahire et al.; 1996; Dunn et al.; Graver and Mentzer, 1999 and 1994; Mentzer and Flint, 1997), providing sufficient evidence of predictive validity.




4 Results


4.1 Structural model


The statistical software Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS 19) is used to test the conceptual model as shown in figure 2. In this study SF, ID, SLI are independent variables and the dependent variable is CA measured by a proxy of superior performance proxy (Barney, 1991 cited by Clulow et al., 2003; Christensen and Fahey, 1984; Kay, 1994; Passemard and Calantone, 2000; Porter, 1980 cited by Chaharbaghi and Lynch, 1999). Change capability as proposed was hypothesized to be a mediating variable. The tested model is shown in figure 3. It demonstrates good fit (table 5), as the values of CFI (comparative fit index) and RMSEA (root mean squared approximation of error) fall within the prescribed acceptable limits (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Based on the inferences and recommendations about model fit, we have used the commonly accepted fit indices, CFI (>0.90 indicates good fit), RMSEA (<0.08 indicates acceptable fit) along with commonly used χ2 statistic (χ2/df ratio of 3 or less).




4.2 Mediation analysis


Direct effects measure the change in the dependent variable when the independent variable increases by one unit and indirect effects are compounded effects wherein the independent variable is held fixed and a change of the dependent variable is observed, considering the changes in the mediator variable by the amount it would have changed if the independent variable increased by one unit (Pearl, 2001; Robins and Greenland, 1992; Singh, 2014). According to Zainudin (2010), mediation in social sciences can be of three types. Full mediation occurs when the regression coefficient between the independent and mediating as well as between independent and dependent variable is significant. Partial mediation occurs when all three regression coefficients are significant, there is no mediation when the direct effect is higher than the indirect effect. 

Properties of AMOS 19 are used to calculate the direct and indirect effects. Mediation is said to be established if the coefficient of the direct path between the dependent and independent variable remains significant when the indirect path via the mediators is introduced in the model (Bontis et al., 2007; Singh, 2014). In accordance with the study of Baron and Kenny (1986) which inherits the technique of Sobel (1982), the indirect effect should be higher than the direct effect to indicate a mediation effect in structural modeling (Wan Mohamad et al., 2014). As proposed by Cheung (2007) and MacKinnon (2000), the indirect effect can be estimated by the product of the direct effect β-value of the independent variable on the mediator variable and the direct effect β-value of the mediator variable on the dependent variable. The direct, indirect and total effects among the constructs as depicted in the model are presented in table 7. It reveals that change capability mediates the relationship between the structural flexibility of the firm and its ability to extract superior performance and thus contributes to competitive advantage. Similar is the case when we interpret results concerning the relationship between transparent information and decision making and the competitive advantage. Here, change capability acts as well as a mediator between the independent and the dependent variable. This reinforces the assumption that the ability to morph the organizational structure according to the needs of changes and also the information sharing and decision making positively contribute to the organizational ability to change and thus enhance the competitive advantage of firms. In case of shared leadership and change friendly identity, there is no evidence of a mediating role of change capability. Instead, it directly contributes to the competitive advantage of firms and also influences their change capability (figure 3). Therefore, the hypothesis HMCA: Change capability (CC) plays a mediating role between SF, ID, SLI and CA is rejected and we infer that change capability only mediates the relationship between structural flexibility and the transparent information and decision making.




4.3 Discussion and conclusion


The results concerning the values of path coefficients (table 6 and figure 3) along with the model fit provide a sound and logical foundation for the theoretical constructs. The β-value is a measure of how strongly each predictor variable influences the criterion (dependent) variable. β is measured in units of standard deviation. As SEM path analysis provides no straightforward tests to determine model fit (Suhr, 2000), this relationship is to be examined in light of multiple tests e.g. chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), Bentler-Bonett non-normed fit index (NNFI), root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hu and Bentler, 1999). 

As hypothesized in the theoretical constructs, strong relationships are exhibited between structural flexibility and organizational change capability and between change capability and superior performance (β-value of 0.96 in both cases), leading towards the conclusion that the role of organizational structure is paramount when organization faces exogenous shocks and a need for change. Structure can be therefore interpreted as an enabling mechanism assisting organizations to adapt in response to the requirements of change. Change is significantly linked to the ability to perform better than rivals and thus providing an organization with a competitive edge resulting in unique advantages. Thus, the ability of organizations to change is a significant contributor towards gaining competitive advantage. This finding conforms to earlier researches exploring relationships between the organizational structure, change and competitive advantage (Bock et al., 2012; Chandler, 1962;  Davis et al. 2009;  George and Bock, 2012; Mom et al., 2009; Ocasio, 1997; Rothaermel et al., 2006). 

The hypothesized relationship between transparent information and decision making (ID) and change shows a moderately strong β-value (0.46), thus leading to an interpretation that this ability is positively and directly related to its ability to change. The relationship between the construct of transparent information and decision making (ID) and competitive advantage is feeble (β-value of 0.02), the possible reason for this effect can be due to the assessment of impact of decisions. The role of this construct is to act as glue, holding together the structural configurations and the other attributes (factors) for organizational success but the relationship with competitive advantage is not pounced. An important understanding which therefore emerges enhances our arguments proposed in the theoretical construct that transparent information and decision making does not contribute significantly to the construct of competitive advantage but it is an enabler positively contributing to organizational change capability. The results of this study therefore support the earlier findings of scholars (e.g. Ethiraj et al., 2008; Lee and Makhija, 2009;  Najmaei, 2011; Puranam et al., 2006; Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). 

The relationship between shared leadership and change friendly identity (β-value of 0.59) with competitive advantage is strong, in line with the role of leadership in organizational success as proposed by various researchers. The relationship between the construct of shared leadership and change friendly identity with change capability (β-value of 0.18) shows to be positive and thus reinforces our belief that leadership has a significant role to play when it comes to an organizational capability to change as shown by Battilana et al. (2010), Davis et al. (2009), Glick et al. (1990), Ocasio (1997), Nadkarni and Narayanan (2007) and Whelan-Berry et al. (2003). 

All in all, the relationships explored in this research contribute to our understanding of organizational health (Smet et al., 2014) as a construct. As discussed in figure 1, compared to living organisms, any formal organization can also be characterized by its anatomy (organizational structure), physiology (organizational systems and processes) and psychology (leadership and thought process). A healthy state of any living entity depends upon integrative and balanced functioning of the three key components. A healthy organization will therefore need a balanced integrative mix of structure, decision making and leadership (Ho et al., 2011; McGrath, 2010; Sosna et al., 2010; Teece, 2010). As observed in living entities, the three attributes of health reconfigure in response to changes and if the attributes resemble, organizational ability to change will also be conditioned by its attributes of structure, decision making and leadership. Healthy entities as well as organizations have definitely advantages over their counterparts. This implies that the attributes of success, survival and health are rooted in the organizational attributes as proposed in this research.  

An objective appraisal of the research reveals its contributions to the discipline of business management in three ways. First and foremost, this research contributes towards an understanding about the construct of organizational health and the attributes associated with it. Subsequently, this research is valuable since it sheds light on the theoretical basis for change management strategies which experts recommend for competitive advantage. The third important contribution is to the creation and establishment of a link between three distinct bodies of research: organizational health, change capability and competitive advantage.


5 Limitations and implications for future research


The focus of this research is on the Indian pharmaceutical industry which has catapulted itself from a small home-based, inconspicuous sector to a global scale. Since a lot of characteristics are industry-specific, it is advisable that results are interpreted with caution as they require to be tested in different industry contexts. However, the broad constructs underlined on organizational health may not differ considerably across industries or even if they differ, the difference may be marginal. The nature of this study is proving association not causality in true sense. Since the data was obtained from the same respondent, common method variance can emerge. It is true that the respondents were compatible with the purpose of this research and they possessed sufficient knowledge for meaningful data collection and analysis. Still, a multiple respondent survey would have been more meaningful. Even if the existing literature stipulates the sample size as adequate, a greater amount of data would have revealed even more appropriate results and enabled sound interpretation.

The three constructs attributed to organizational anatomy, physiology and psychology are used to define the concept of organizational health. Its relationships with change and competitive advantage are explored. It is our belief that this study and the model add more granularities to the constructs operationalized. This constructs might be strengthened by adding a few more independent variables. Also qualitative aspects via case study methods can be explored to link the quantitative with qualitative revelations in order to enhance an enlightened understanding of this subject. One extension might be to look at specific antecedents to change capabilities such as firm’s external networks, similar group analysis, regulatory pressures, their change capacity, and the role of information architecture and software. Another approach can be to conduct this study in different industries, different geographies and in contexts to mature the concept of organizational health.





Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M.A. (1996): Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs, Decision Science27 (1), pp. 23-56.


Afthanorhan, W. M. A. B. W., Ahmad, S., Mamat, I. (2014): Testing the mediation effect using covariance based structural equation modeling with AMOS, American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 6 (2), pp. 186-190.


Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. (1987): Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin103 (3), pp. 411-423.

Baden-Fuller, C., Morgan, M. S. (2010): Business models as models, Long Range Planning43(2), pp. 156-171.


Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986): The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51, pp. 1173-1182.


Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A., Alexander, J. A. (2010): Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change, Leadership Quarterly21 (3), pp. 422-438. 


Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., Teel, J.E. (1982): Sample size effects on chi-square and other statistics used in evaluating causal models, Journal of Marketing Research19, pp. 425-430.


Beckhard, R., Harris, R. (1987): Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA. 


Blalock, H.M. (1979): Social Statistics, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha, Tokyo.


Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., Gann, D. M. (2012): The Effects of Culture and Structure on Strategic Flexibility during Business Model Innovation, Journal of Management Studies49(2), pp. 279-305. 


Bollen, K.A. (1990): Political democracy: conceptual and measurement traps, Studies in Comparative International Development25 (1), pp. 7-24.


Bontis, N., Hardie, T., Serenko, A. (2007): Self-efficacy and KM course weighting selection: Can students optimize their grades?, International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies1 (3–4), pp.189-199.


Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J. E. (2010): From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics,Long Range Planning43 (2-3), pp. 195-215.


Chaharbaghi, K., Lynch, R. (1999): Sustainable competitive advantage: towards a dynamic resource-based strategy, Management Decision37 (1), pp. 45-50.


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


Cheung, M. W. L. (2007): Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models’, Structural Equation Modeling14, pp. 227-246.


Christensen, K., Fahey, L. (1984): Building distinctive competences into competitive advantage,Strategic Planning Management, February, pp. 113-123.


Clulow, V., Gerstman, J., Barry, C. (2003): The resource-based view and sustainable competitive advantage: the case of a financial services firm, Journal of European Industrial Training27 (5), pp. 220-232.


Cragg, P.B., King, M. (1988): Organizational characteristics and small firms’ performance revisited, Enterprise Theory and Practice12, pp. 49-64.


Davidsson, P., Klofsten, M. (2003): The business platform: developing an instrument to gauge and to assist the development of young firms, Journal of Small Business Management41, pp. 1-26.


Davidsson, P., Wiklund, J. (2001): Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: current research practice and suggestions for the future, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25 (4), pp. 81-100.


Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., Bingham, C. B. (2009): Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules, Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 (3), pp. 413-452.


Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., Yague-Guillen, M.J. (2003): Development and validation of a brand trust scale, International Journal of Market Research45 (1), pp. 35-53.


Doz, Y. L., Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal, Long Range Planning43 (2), pp. 370-382.


Dunn, S.C., Seaker, R.F., Waller, M.A. (1994): Latent variables in business logistics research: scale development and validation, Journal of Business Logistics15, pp. 145-145.


Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.W. (2006): Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships, Strategic Management Journal27(8), pp. 701-719.


Dyer, J.H., Nobeoka, K. (2000): Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case, Strategic Management Journal21 (3), pp. 345-367.


Ethiraj, S. K., D. Levinthal, R. R. Roy. (2008): The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation, Management Science54 (5), pp. 939-955.


Fornell, C., Larcker, D. (1981): Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), pp. 39-50.


Foss, N. J., Rasmussen, A. (2014): Business Model Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Supporting Role of Organizational Design, available at: or, accessed 24 February 2014.


Foss, N., Stieglitz, N. (2014): Business Model Innovation: The Role of Leadership, in: Foss, N. J., Saebi, T. (eds.), Business Model Innovation: The Organisational Dimension, Oxford University Press, Oxford.


Gadenne, D. (1998): Critical success factors for small business: an inter-industry comparison,International Small Business Journal17 (1), pp. 36-57.


Garver, M.S., Mentzer, J.T. (1999): Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity, Journal of Business Logistics20 (1), pp. 33-57.


George, G., Bock, A. J. (2012): Models of Opportunity: How Entrepreneurs Design Firms to Achieve the Unexpected, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


George, G., Bock, A. J. (2011): The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35, pp. 83-111.


Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J. C. (1985): The effects of sampling error and model characteristics on parameter estimation for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research20, pp. 255-271.


Gilbert. J., Henske, P., Singh, A. (2003): Rebuilding Big Pharma’s Business Model, In vivo-The Business and medicine report21 (10), pp. 73-80.


Glick, W. H., Huber, G. P., Miller, C. C., Doty, D. H., Sutcliffe, K. M. (1990): Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness: retrospective event histories and periodic assessments, Organization Science1, pp. 293-312.


Gulati, R., Puranam, P. (2009): Renewal through reorganization: the value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization, Organization Science20, pp. 422-440.


Hair Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. (1998): Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.


Hall, D. J., Saias, M. A. (1980): Strategy follows structure, Strategic Management Journal1, pp. 149-163.


Hitt, M., Boyd, B., Li, D. (2004): The state of strategic management research and a vision of the future’, in: Ketchen, D., Bergh, D. (eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Elsevier, New York, pp. 1-32.


Ho, Y., Fang, H., Hsieh, M. (2011): The relationship between business-model innovation and firm value: A dynamic perspective, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology77, pp. 656-664.


Hoelter, D.R. (1983): The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices, Sociological Methods and Research11, pp. 325-344.


Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M., Wright, M. (2000): Strategy in emerging economies,Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 249-267.


Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. (1999): Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling6 (1), pp. 1-55. 


Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., Kagermann, H. (2008): Reinventing your business model,Harvard Business Review, 86, pp. 50-59.


Kale, P., Dyer, J.H., Singh, H. (2002): Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: the role of the alliance function, Strategic Management Journal23 (8), pp. 747-767.


Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarim, M., Zaim, S. (2005): A paradox of service quality in Turkey: the seemingly contradictory relative importance of tangible and intangible determinants of service quality, European Business Review17 (1), pp. 5-20.


Kay, J. (1994): The Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, London.


Kline, R.B. (2010): Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, NY.


Kotabe, M., Martin, X., Domoto, H. (2003): Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries, Strategic Management Journal24 (4), pp. 293-317.


KPMG (2006): The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry: Collaboration for Growth, KPMG International, The Netherlands.


Kumar, A., Dillon, W.R. (1987): The interaction of measurement and structure in simultaneous equation models with unobservable variables, Journal of Marketing Research24, pp. 98-105.


Lee, S. H., Makhija, M. (2009): Flexibility in internationalization: is it valuable during an economic crisis?, Strategic Management Journal30, pp. 537-555.


Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Subba Rao, S. (2006): The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance, Omega34(2), pp. 107-124.


Long, J. S. (1983): Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social science33, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.  


MacKinnon, D.P. (2000): Contrasts in multiple mediator models’, in: Rose, J.S., Chassin, L., Presson, C.C., Sherman, S.J. (ed.), Multivariate Applications in Substance Use Research: New Methods for New Questions, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 141-160.

Malhotra, M.K., Grover, V. (1998): An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory, Journal of Operations Management16 (17), pp. 407-425.


McGrath, R. G. (2010): Business models: A discovery driven approach, Long Range Planning43(2), pp. 247-261.


McKinsey & Company (2013): India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance, realising true potential, available at

Pharma2020ExecutiveSummary.pdf, accessed 27 April 2015.


Menor, L.J., Roth, A.V. (2007): New service development in retail banking: construct development and measurement validation, Journal of Operations Management25 (4), pp. 825-846.


Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J. (1997): Validity in logistics research, Journal of Business Logistics18(1), pp. 199-216.


Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W. (2009): Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms, Organization Science20, pp. 812-28.


Nadkarni, S., Narayanan, V. K. (2007): Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed, Strategic Management Journal28, pp. 243-70.


Najmaei, A. (2011): Dynamic Business Model Innovation: Proposing an Integrated Organizing Framework, Doctoral working paper series, paper ID #2/2011/mgsm MGSM, Sydney, NSW, Australia.


Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H. (1994): Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.


O Reilly, C. A., Tushman, M. L. (2004): The ambidextrous organization, Harvard Business Review82 (4), pp. 74-83.


Ocasio, W. (1997): Towards an attention-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal18, pp. 187-206.


Passemard, D., Kleiner, B.H. (2000): Competitive advantage in global industries, Management Research News23 (7–8), pp. 111-117.


Paxson, M., Dillman, D.A., Tarnai, J. (1995): Improving response to business mail surveys, in: Cox, B.G., Binder, D.A., Chinnappa, B.N., Christianson, A., Colledge, M.J., Kott, P.S. (eds.):Business Survey Methods, John Wiley and Sons, NY.


Pearl, J. (2001): Direct and indirect effects, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 411-420.


Puranam, P., Singh, H., Zollo, M. (2006): Organizing for innovation: managing the coordination autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions’, Academy of Management Journal49, pp. 263-80.


PWC (2009): Pharma 2020: Challenging business models - which path will you take?, PricewaterhouseCoopers.


Robins, M.J., Greenland, S. (2002): Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects, Epidemiology3 (2), pp. 143-155.


Rothaermel, F. T., Hitt, M. A., Jobe, L. A. (2006): Balancing vertical integration and strategic outsourcing: effects on product portfolio, product success, and firm performance, Strategic Management Journal27, pp. 1033-56.


Sanchez R., Mahoney JT. (1996): Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design, Strategic Management Journal17 (S2), pp. 63-76.


Schumacker, R. E., Lomax, R. G. (2004): A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.


Sharma, J.K., Singh, A.K, (2012a): Absorptive Capability and Competitive Advantage: Some insights from Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, International Journal of Management and Business Research2 (2), pp. 176-192. 


Sharma, J.K., Singh, A.K. (2012b): Change and competitive advantage: an investigative study of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, The IUP Journal of Business strategyIX (3), pp. 46-71.


Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J., Palmer, T.B. (2002):  The role of sampling in strategic management research on performance: a two-study analysis, Journal of Management28 (3), pp. 363-385.


Siggelkow, N., Levinthal, D. A. (2003): Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation,Organization Science14, pp. 650-669.


Singh, A.K. (2014): Integrating robustness and resilience in change and competitive advantage framework: insights from Indian pharmaceutical industry, International Journal of Strategic Change Management5 (4), pp. 348-376.


Sivo, S.A., Fan, X.T., Witta, E.L., Willse, J.T. (2006): The search for ‘optimal’ cutoff properties: fit index criteria in structural equation modeling, The Journal of Experimental Education74 (3), pp. 267-289.

Smet, A.D., Schaninger, B., Smith, M. (2014): The hidden value of organizational health - and how to capture it, McKinsey Quarterly, April 2014.


Snow, C.C., Hrebiniak, L. (1980): Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (2), pp. 317-335.


Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., Velamuri, S. R. (2010): Business model innovation through trialand-error learning: The Naturhouse case, Long Range Planning, 43 (2), pp. 383-407.


Sobel, M. E. (1982): Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models, Sociological Methodology, 13, pp. 290-312.


Steenkamp, J.E.M., Van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991): The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, pp. 283-299.


Subramaniam, M., Venkatraman, N. (2001): Determinants of transnational new product development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (4), pp. 359-378.


Suhr, D. D. (2000): An investigation of mathematics and reading achievement of 5- through 14-year olds using latent growth curve methodology, Dissertation Abstracts International, A (Humanities and Social Sciences), Vol 60(12-A), 4323, US: Univ Microfilms International.


Teece, D. J. (2010): Business models, business strategy and innovation, Long Range Planning, 43 (2), pp. 172-194.


Tikkanen, H., J.A. Lamberg, P. Parvinen, Kallunki, J.P. (2005): Managerial Cognition, Action and the Business Model of the Firm, Management Decision, 43 (6), pp. 789-809.


Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., Hinings, C. R (2003): The relative effect of change drivers in largescale organizational change: an empirical study, in: Woodman, R. W., Pasmore, W. A (eds.): Research in Organizational Change and Development, 14, pp. 99-146.


Worren, N., Moore, K., Cardona, P. (2002): Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: a study of the home appliance industry, Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 1123-1140.


Wu, S. (2005): Employability and Effective Learning Systems in Higher Education, Paper Presented at Ninth Quality in Higher Education International Seminar in collaboration with ESECT and the Independent, Birmingham 27th-28th January, 2005; available at e/papers/wufv.doc, accessed January 2014.


Zainudin, A. (2010): Research Methodology for Business and Social Science, University Publication Centre (UPENA), UITM Shah Alam.