A Reconciliation of Market Competition,Decentralization,Size,and Financial Performance Results: An Extension Testing Moderating Effects

Abstract

The paper reports a study conducted in New Zealand that further examines contingency propositions that have been the subject of study in India, Mexico, and Wales and for which the results remain equivocal. Specifically, the relationship between structural dimensions and financial performance are examined while acknowledging the moderating effects of market competition and firm size. Responses from senior executives of New Zealand public-listed companies along with published financial performance results indicate that under high market competition conditions a decentralized authority structure is positively related to financial performance. Under low market competition centralized authority structure and financial performance are positively related. Implications of these findings for control strategy are tendered.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AZMA, M. , & MANSFIELD, R. Market conditions, centralization, and organizational effectiveness: Contingency theory reconsidered. Human Relations, 1981, 34, 157-168.

BOSEMAN, F. G. , & JONES, R. E. Market conditions, decentralization, and organizational effectiveness. Human Relations, 1974, 27, 665-676.

CHILD, J. Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance (Part one). The Journal of Management Studies, 1974, 11, 175-189.

DRAZIN, R. , & VAN DE VEN, A. H. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985, 30, 514-539.

GORDON, L. A. , & NARAYANAN, V. K. Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organizational structure: An empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1984, 9, 34-47.

GOVINDARAJAN, V. Impact of participation in the budgetary process on managerial attitudes and performance: Universalistic and contingency perspectives. Decision Sciences, 1986, 17, 496-516.

HAYES, D. C. The contingency theory of managerial accounting. The Accounting Review, 1977, 52, 22-39.

HITT, M. A. , & IRELAND, R. D. Strategy, contextual factors, and performance. Human Relations, 1985, 38, 793-812.

KHANDWALLA, P. N. The effect of different types of competition on the use of management controls. Journal of Accounting Research, 1972, 10, 275-285.

10.

KIMBERLY, J. R. Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review, critique, and proposal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 571-597.

11.

MERCHANT, K. A. The design of the corporate budgeting systems: Influences on managerial behaviour and performance. The Accounting Review, 1981, 56, 813-829.

12.

MOHR, L. B. Explaining organization behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

13.

NEGANDHI, A. R. , & REIMANN, B. A contingency theory of organization reexamination in the context of a developing country. Academy of Management Journal, 1972, 15, 137-146.

14.

PUGH, D. S. , HICKSON, D. J. Organisational structure in its context: The Aston programme. Farnborough: Saxon House, 1976.

15.

SCHOONHOVEN, C. B. ,Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden with the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26, 349-377.

16.

SOUTHWOOD, K. E. Substantive theory and statistical interaction: Five models. American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 83, 1154-1203.

17.

TOSI, H. , & SLOCUM, J. W., Jr. , Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 1984, 10, 9-26.

18.

VAN DE VEN, A. H. , & DRAZIN, R. The concept of fit in contingency theory. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organization Behavior. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1985.