Matching Contingency Variables and Organizational Structure Introduction
This essay argues that contingency theory is a useful guide to the design of contemporary organizations. In particular, the essay claims that contemporary managers can draw upon the contingency theory research literature relating to relationship between organizational structure and technology, size, the environment, and strategy to design an organization that is well suited to its situation and circumstances and hence more likely to survive and prosper in the long term.
This essay’s structure is as follows. The following section introduces contingency theory to explain its nature and implications for the management of contemporary organizations. Next, the essay explores the contingency theory research literature to identify the most commonly cited relationships between organizational structure and design and Size, technology, environment, and strategy. Finally, the essay contains some concluding remarks.
CONTINGENCY THEORY:
ITS NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS
Contingency theorists reject the validity of attempts to identify the “…one best way to manage an organisation, without particular regard to the situation” (Davidson & Griffin, 2002, p. 52). Instead, contingency theorists argue that appropriate managerial action depends upon the characteristics of the organization and the circumstances confronting that organization
(Luthans, 1973; Lee, Luthans, and Olson¸ 1982; Daft, 1999; Bartol, Martin,
Tein, and Matthews, 2001). To illustrate, Bartol et al. (2001, p. 51) define contingency theory as a “…[v]iewpoint arguing that appropriate managerial action depends on the particular parameters of the situation”. Similarly,
Samson and Daft (2003, p. 62) call contingency theory a perspective “…in which the successful resolution of organizational problems is thought to depend upon managers’ identification of key variables in the situation at hand”. Like systems theorists, contingency theorists adopt an integrative approach to management theory (Luthans,
This essay’s structure is as follows. The following section introduces contingency theory to explain its nature and implications for the management of contemporary organizations. Next, the essay explores the contingency theory research literature to identify the most commonly cited relationships between organizational structure and design and Size, technology, environment, and strategy. Finally, the essay contains some concluding remarks.
CONTINGENCY THEORY:
ITS NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS
Contingency theorists reject the validity of attempts to identify the “…one best way to manage an organisation, without particular regard to the situation” (Davidson & Griffin, 2002, p. 52). Instead, contingency theorists argue that appropriate managerial action depends upon the characteristics of the organization and the circumstances confronting that organization
(Luthans, 1973; Lee, Luthans, and Olson¸ 1982; Daft, 1999; Bartol, Martin,
Tein, and Matthews, 2001). To illustrate, Bartol et al. (2001, p. 51) define contingency theory as a “…[v]iewpoint arguing that appropriate managerial action depends on the particular parameters of the situation”. Similarly,
Samson and Daft (2003, p. 62) call contingency theory a perspective “…in which the successful resolution of organizational problems is thought to depend upon managers’ identification of key variables in the situation at hand”. Like systems theorists, contingency theorists adopt an integrative approach to management theory (Luthans,
References: Astley, W. G. (1985) Organizational Size and Bureaucracy, Organization Studies, Vol Bartol, K., Martin, D., Tein, M., and Matthews, G. (2001) Management: A Pacific Rim Focus (3rd Edition), McGraw-Hill: Sydney. Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961) The Management of Innovation, Tavistock: London. Chandler, A. D. (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press: Cambridge Massachusetts. Cullen, J. B., Armstrong, K. S., and Baker, D. D. (1986) Blau’s Theory of Structural Differentiation Revisited: A Theory of Structural Change or Daft, R. L. (1999) Management (5th Edition), Dryden Press: Orlando, Florida. Davidson, P. and Griffin, R. W., (2002) Management: An Australian Perspective (2nd Edition), John Wiley and Sons: Milton, Queensland. Du Brin, A. J. (2003) Essentials of Management (6th Edition), Thomson: Mason, Ohio. Fry, L. W. (1982) Technological-structure Research: Three Critical Issues, Academy of Management Journal, Vol Goodling, R. Z. and Wagner, J. A. (1985) A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship Between Size and Performance: The Productivity and Hull, F. M. and Collins, P. D. (1987) High-technology Batch Production Systems: Woodward’s Missing Type, Academy of Management Journal, Lawreence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Organizations and Environment, Irwin: Homewood, Illinois. Lee, S. M., Luthans, F., and Olson, G. L. (1982) A Management Science Approach to Contingency Models of Organizational Structure, Academy Luthans, F. (1973) The Contingency Theory of Management: A Path Out of the Jungle, Business Horizons, Vol Robbins S. P. (1990) Organizational Theory: The Structure and Design of Organizations, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Robbins, S. P., Bergman, R., Stagg, I., and Coulter, M. (1999) Management (3rd Edition), Prentice Hall: French’s Forrest, New South Wales. Samson, D. and Daft, R. L. (2003) Fundamentals of Management (Pacific Rim Edition), Thomson: Melbourne. Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill: New York. Victor, B. and Blackburn, R. S. (1987) Interdependence: An Alternative Conceptualisation, Academy of Management Review, Vol Wheelan, T. L. and Hunger, J. D. (2000) Strategic Management and Business Policy (7th Edition), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New