The familiar bureaucratic-versus-human-relations distinction-frequently cited in the literature-is-presented as a basis for comparing organizational designs. Instead of adva'ting one particular design, the author hypothesizes that the effectiveness an survival of any design are contingent upon at least 11 situational parameters involving organizational goals, tasks, member personalities, and stress factors.
A measure of bureaucratic-to-human-relations design was developed and validated using data supplied by 10 supervisors, 10 nonsupervisors, and one informant from each of 17 work organizations. Through correlational analysis it was found that both actual system design and employees' design recommendations do vary significantly as a function of situational contingencies-yielding the practical finding: Neither bureaucratic nor humanrelations design strategies are universally appropriate across all organizational settings. Several peripheral findings were also reported. Theoretically, these results were interpreted as supporting a contingency theory of organizational design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N.The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
2.
Andrews, J. D. W.The achievement motive and advancement in two types of organizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 163-169.
3.
Argyris, C.Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley, 1964.
4.
Astin, A. W.Further validation of the environmental assessment technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 54, 217-226.
5.
Barnes, L. B.Organizauuii'al systems and engineering groups. Boston: Harvard University, 1960.
6.
Bass, B. M.Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper, 1960.
7.
Bennis, W. G.Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1959, 4, 259-301.
8.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R.Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962.
9.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M.The management of innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961.
10.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W.Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105.
11.
Campion, J. E. Effects of managerial style on subordinates' attitudes and performance in a simulated organization setting (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, 30, 881 B. (University Microfilms No. 69-1 1, 375)
12.
Deutsch, M.The effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 1949, 2, 129-152.
13.
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.) BMD: Biomedical computer programs. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1968.
14.
Etzioni, A.A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement, and their correlates. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1961.
15.
Faunce, W. A.Automation in the automobile industry. American Sociological Review, 1958, 23,401-407.
16.
Fiedler, F. E.The influence of leader-keyman relations on combat crew effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 227-235.
17.
Fiedler, F. E.The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance: A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 237-264.
18.
Guetzkow, H.The creative person in organizations. In G. Steiner (Ed.), The creative organization. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965.
19.
Guilford, J. P.Psychometric methods, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
20.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B.Organizational climates and careers: The work lives of parish priests. New York: Seminar, 1972.
21.
Hall, R. H.The concept of bureaucracy: Am empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69, 32-40.
22.
Hamblin, R. L.Leadership and crises. Sociometry, 1958, 21, 322-335.
23.
Haythorn, W.The effects of varying combinations of authoritarian and equalitarian leaders and followers. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology, 3rd ed.New York: Holt, 1958.
24.
Hemphill, J. K.Relations between the size of the group and the behavior of "superior" leaders. Journal of Social Psychology, 1950, 32, 11-22.
25.
Indik, B. P.Some effects of organization size on member attitudes and behavior. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 369-384.
26.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E.Contingency views of organization and management. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1973.
27.
Katzell, R. A.Contrasting systems of work organization. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 102-108.
28.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J.Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, 1973.
29.
Korten, D. C.Situational determinants of leadership structure. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1962, 6, 222-235.
30.
Langdale, J. A. Assessment of work climates: The appropriateness of classical-management theory and human-relations theory under various contingencies (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 35, 3634B.
31.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W.Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard University, 1967.
32.
Leavitt, H. J.Unhuman organizations. Harvard Business Review, 1962, 40,90-98.
33.
Likert, R.New patterns of management. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1961.
34.
Likert, R.The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
35.
Litwak, E.Models of bureaucracy which permit conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 1961, 67, 177-184.
36.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A.Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968.
37.
McGregor, D.The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
38.
McMurry, R. N.The case for benevolent autocracy. Harvard Business Review, 1958, 36, 82-90. Maier, N. R. F. Psychology in industry, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955.
39.
Maier, N. R. F., & Hoffman, L. R.Organization and creative problem-solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 41, 277-280.
40.
Meyer, H. H.Achievement motivation and industrial climates. In R. Tagiuri and G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard University, 1968.
41.
Morse, N. C., & Reimer, E.The experimental change of a major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 120-129.
42.
Mulder, M.Threat, attraction to the group and need for strong leadership, a laboratory experiment in a natural setting. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 317-334.
43.
Nie, N., Bent, D. H., & Hull, C. H.SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
44.
Nunnally, J. C.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
45.
Pace, C. R.The measurement of college environments. In R. Tagiuri and G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard University, 1968.
46.
Pervin, L. A.Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 56-68.
47.
Polis, T. A.A note on crisis and leadership. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1964, 16, 57-61.
48.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E.Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 23-51.
49.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., &Turner, C.Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1968, 13, 65-105.
50.
Runyon, K. E.Some interactions between personality variables and management styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 288-294.
51.
Shaw, M. E.Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Academic, 1964.
52.
Shepard, H. A.Superiors and subordinates in research. Journal of Business, 1956, 29, 261-267.
53.
Simpson, R. L.Vertical and horizontal communication in formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1959, 4, 188-196.
54.
Vroom, V. H.Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960.
55.
Vroom, V. H., & Mann, F. C.Leader authoritarianism and employee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 1960, 13, 125-140.
56.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W.Technical report #1: Toward a normative model of leadership style (Office of Naval Research, Organizational Effectiveness Research Programs, I.D. No. NR-177-935). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1972. (a)
57.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W.Technical report #2: Some descriptive studies of participation in decision-making (Office of Naval Research, Organizational Effectiveness Research Programs, I.D. No. NR-177-935). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1972. (b)
58.
White, R., & Lippitt, R.Leader behavior and member reaction in three "social climates." In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory, 3rd ed.New York: Harper, 1968.
59.
Woodward, J.Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University, 1965.
60.
Worthy, J. C.Organizational structure and employe morale. American Sociological Review, 1950, 15, 169-179.
