This paper reconsiders structural contingency theory. It presents a discussion of the methodological underpinnings which surround the research activities of this theory. Two research strategies are reviewed. They entail a multivariate examination of the structure-environment-effectiveness relationship. One of these strategies examines deviations from ideal structural profiles, while the second one involves a canonical correlation analysis between structural and environmental attributes for low and high effectiveness units. The results from field research in a commercial bank are used to illustrate the two analysis strategies. They indicate that effective organizational units show strong structure-environment interrelationships and lead one to conclude that there are indeed effectiveness-induced constraints on the choice of an organization's design or its environment. The methodological and conceptual implications of the findings are then discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astley, G.W., and A.H. Van de Ven1983 'Central perspectives and debates in organization theory'. Administrative Science Quarterly28: 245-273.
2.
Burns, T., and G.M. Stalker1961The management of innovationLondon : Tavistock.
3.
Child, J.1972 'Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice'. Sociology6: 2-22.
4.
Child, J.1975 'Managerial and organization factors associated with company performance - Part II: A contingency analysis'. Journal of Management Studies12: 12-27.
5.
Dewar, R., and J. Werbel1979 'Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee satisfaction and conflict'. Administrative Science Quarterly24: 426-448.
6.
Dill, W.R.1958 'Environment as an influence on managerial astronomy '. Administrative Science Quarterly2: 409-443.
7.
Donaldson, L.1982 'Contingency and choice in organization theory - comment '. Organization Studies3: 65-72.
8.
Downey, K., and A.P. Brief1983 'Cognitive and organizational structures: A conceptual analysis of implied organizational theories'. Human Relations36: 1065-1089.
9.
Drazin, R., and A.H. Van De Ven1985 'Alternative Forms of fit in Contingency Theory'. Administrative Science Quarterly30: 514-539.
10.
Ferry, D.L.1979A test of a task contingent model of unit structure and efficiency. Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Graen, G.1976Role making processes in organizations' in Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. M. D. Dunnette (ed.), 1201-1246. Chicago: Rand McNally.
13.
Hannan, M.T., and J.H. Freeman1977'Population ecology of organizations'. American Journal of Sociology82/5: 929-965.
14.
Hrebiniak, L.G., and W.F. Joyce1985Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism'. Administrative Science Quarterly30: 336-349.
15.
Kerr, S., and J.M. Jermier1978 'Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement '. Organization Behavior and Human Performance22: 375-403.
16.
Kieser, A., and H. Kubicek1978Organisationstheorien (2 vols.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
17.
Lammers, C.J.1983Organisaties Vergelijkenderwijs. Utrecht : Het Sprectrum.
18.
Lawrence, P.R., and J.W. Lorsch1967Differentiation and integration in complex organizations '. Administrative Science Quarterly12: 1-47.
19.
Lazarsfeld, P.F.1968 'Evidence and inference in social research'. Deadalus87: 99-130.
20.
Longton, J.1984 'The ecological theory of bureaucracy: the case of Josiah Wedgwood and the British pottery industry'. Administrative Science Quarterly29: 330-354.
21.
Luhmann, N.1976'A general theory of organized social systems' in European contributions to organization theory. G. Hofstede , and M. S. Kassem (eds.), HD29-E87. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum .
22.
Miller, D., and H. Mintzberg1983'The case for configuration' in Beyond method. G. Morgan (ed.), 57-73. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Mohr, L.B.1982Explaining organization behavior. New York: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Nadler, D.A., Richard J. Hackman, and Edward E. Lawler1979Managing organizational behavior . Boston: Little Brown and Company .
25.
Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter1982An evolutionary theory of economic changeCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
26.
Pennings, J.M.1975 'The relevance of the structural-contingency model of organizational effectiveness'. Administrative Science Quarterly20: 393-410.
27.
Pennings, J.M., and C. G. van Wijk1983Organizational consensus: a methodological note . New York: Columbia University, Graduate School of Business . Unpublished manuscript.
28.
Pfeffer, J.1982Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
29.
Price, J.L., and T. Johnson1985Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
30.
Schneider, B., J.J. Parkington, and V.M. Buxton1980 'Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks' . Administrative Science Quarterly25: 252-267.
31.
Schoonhoven, C.B.1981 'Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory'. Administrative Science Quarterly26: 349-377.
32.
Schreyögg, G.1980 'Contingency and choice in organization theory'. Organization Studies3/1: 73-78.
33.
Schreyögg, G.1982 'Some comments about comments: a reply to Donaldson '. Organization Studies3/1: 73-80.
34.
Scott, W.R.1981Organizations: rational, natural and open systems . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
35.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (ed.) 1968Control in organizations. New York: Wiley.
36.
van de Ven, A.H., and R. Drazin1985'The concept of fit in organization theory' in Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7. L. L. Cummings and B. Staw (eds.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .
37.
Weick, K.E.1977'Re-punctuating the problem' in New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. P. S. Goodman and J. M. Pennings (eds.), 193-225. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
38.
van Wijk, C.G.1982A participant observation study of a bank branch . New York: Columbia University, Graduate School of Business . Unpublished manuscript.
