Contingency Severity, a construct which describes the impact of environmental and system variables upon individuals, is operationally defined in this study. The measure of Contingency Severity employed was Raynolds' difference score, R, calculated between nonverbal Projective Differential and verbal Semantic Differential data. A probabilistic game was devised to permit relatively precise control over the predictability of a relevant environment. The principal game parameters-"predictability" and "eucity/noxity of feedback "-were distinct in three versions of the game. A repeated measures, balanced Latin Squares design was used to control for differences in game situations, order of play, and decision style. Nonparametric analyses supported the hypotheses that (1) Raynolds' measure of Contingency Severity, R, did vary inversely with performance; (2) performance was positively related to the game's objective degree of situation predictability; and (3) R did vary inversely with and could be explained by situation predictability and eucity/noxity of feedback.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BURNS, T., & STALKER, G. M.The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961.
2.
COFFEY, R. E., ATHOS, A. G., & RAYNOLDS, P. A.Behavior in organizations: A multidimensional view (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
3.
CUMMINGS, T. A methodology for reconstruction and studying social systems linkage processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1970.
4.
DRIVER, M. J. Decision style, self-concepts, and decision making behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, 1970.
5.
DRIVER, M. J. Decision style and its measurement. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, 1974.
6.
DRIVER, M. J., & LINTOTT, J. T. Managerial decision diagnostics. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southrn California, in progress.
7.
DRIVER, M. J., & MOCK, T. J.Human information processing, decision style theory, and accounting information systems. Accounting Review, 1975, 50, 490-508.
8.
DRIVER, M. J., & STREUFERT, S.Integrative complexity: An approach to individuals and groups as information processing systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 272-285.
9.
DUBIN, R.The world of work. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1958.
10.
EMERY, F. E.The next thirty years: Concepts, methods, and anticipations. Human Relations, 1967, 20, 199-237.
11.
EMERY, F. E., & TRIST, E. L.The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 1965, 18, 21-32.
12.
FIEDLER, F. E.A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
13.
HARVEY, E.Technology and the structure of organizations. American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 247-259.
14.
HICKSON, D. J., PUGH, D. S., & PHEYSEY, D. C.Operations technology and organization structure: An empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 378-397.
KAST, F. E., & ROSENZWEIG, J. E.Contingency views of organization and management. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1973.
17.
KELI ER, R. T., SLOCUM, J. W., JR., & SUSMAN, G. I.Uncertainty and type of management system in continuous process organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 56-68.
18.
LAWRENCE, P. R., & LORSCH, J. W.Organization and environment. Cambridge, Mass.: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967.
19.
McWHINNEY, W.Organizational form, decision modalities, and the environment. Human Relations, 1968, 21, 269-281.
20.
MILES, R. E., SNOW, C. C., & PFEFFER, J.Organizations-environment: Concepts and issues. Industrial Relations, 1974, 13, 244-264.
21.
MORSE, J. J., & LORSCH, J. W.Beyond theory Y. Harvard Business Review, 1970, 48, 61-68.
22.
OSBORN, R. N., & HUNT, J. G.Environment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 231-246.
23.
PERROW, C. B.Organizational analysis: A sociological vikew. Behavioral Science in Industry Series. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 1967.
24.
PORTER, L. W., & LAWLER, E. E. III.Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, III.: Richard D. Irwin, and The Dorsey Press, 1968.
25.
RAYNOLDS, P. A. The projective-differential: A genral purpose inkblot technique for studying denotable "objects." Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, 1969.
26.
RAYNOLDS, P. A.Developing managerial capabilities for coping with turbulent environments. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, Georgia, 1971.
27.
RAYNOLDS, P. A.Cognitive style, self-concept, and effective creativity training. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 7 September 1972a.
28.
RAYNOLDS, P. A.Creativity training and managerial education for coping with turbulent organizational environments. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1972b.
29.
RAYNOLDS, P. A. Crossroads for contingency theory and research. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, 1974a.
30.
RAYNOLDS, P. A. The projective differential I: Discovery and concept-level validation of the technique. Unpublished manuscript, 1974b.
31.
RAYNOLDS, P. A. Differential data analysis program (rev. ed.). Unpublished computer program, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, 1975.
32.
RAYNOLDS, P. A. The projective differential II: Scale-level validation vs. the semantic differential. Unpublished manuscript, 1975.
33.
RAYNOLDS, P. A., SAKAMOTO, S., & SAXE, R.Between-subjects consistency of forcedchoice responses to pairs of inkblots. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1980.
34.
SAKAMOTO, S. Contingency severity and individual performance in a probabilistic game setting. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1976.
35.
SILVERMAN, D.The theory of organization, a sociological framework. New York: Basic Books, 1970.
36.
SNIDER, J. G., & OSGOOD, C. E.Semantic differential technique. Chicago: Aldine, 1969.
37.
STARBUCK, W.Organizations and their environments. Berlin: International Institute of Management, 1973. Cited by R. Jurkovich, A core typology of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 382.
THOMPSON, J. D.Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
40.
TOSI, H., ALDAG, R., & STOREY, R.On the measurement of the environment: An asessment of the Lawrence and Lorsch environmental uncertainty subscale. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18, 27-36.
41.
VROOM, V.Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
42.
WARR, P. B., & KNAPPER, C.The perception of people and events. London: Wiley, 1968.
43.
WINER, B. J.Statisticalprinciples in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
44.
WOODWARD, J.Management and technology. London: Her Majesty's Printing Office, 1958.
45.
WOODWARD, J.Industrial organization: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
46.
ZWERMAN, W. L.New perspectives on organization theory. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1970.
