Adoption of the divisional for M of organisation structure has been explained with reference to size. The present author (Donaldson 1982a) has argued against this view and asserted that strategy is a more compelling explanation theoretically and empirically. Grinyer (1982) has defended the argument from size. The present paper replies to Grinyer. It points to continuing theoretical weaknesses with size. Aspects of the defence by Grinyer are challenged. And his criticisms of the empirical research of Donaldson (1982a) are answered. Several causal models are explicated from Grinyer (1982). Fresh evidence is adduced against three out of four of them. The conclusion is that strategy is a more important cause of divisionalisation than size.
Blau, Peter M. and P.A. Schoenherr, 1971, The Structure of Organisations (New York, Basic Books).
2.
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr., 1962, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Massachusetts, The M.I.T. Press).
3.
Channon, Derek F., 1973, The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise (Boston, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University).
4.
Chenhall, Robert H., 1979, Some elements of organisational control in Australian divisionalised firms, Australian Journal of Management, Supplement to 4, 1–36.
5.
Child, John, 1972, Organisation structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 163–177.
6.
Child, John, 1982, Discussion note: Divisionalisation and size: A comment on the Donaldson/Grinyer debate, Organization Studies, 3, 351–353.
7.
Donaldson, Lex, 1975, Organisational status and the measurement of centralisation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 453–456.
8.
Donaldson, Lex, 1982a, Divisionalisation and size: A theoretical and empirical critique, Organization Studies, 3, 321–337.
9.
Donaldson, Lex, 1982b, Divisionalisation and diversification: A longitudinal study, Academy of Management Journal, 25, 909–914.
10.
Donaldson, Lex, 1985a, Organisational Growth, the M-for M and Perfor Mance: A Critique of the Thesis of Williamson, Working Paper, Australian Graduate School of Management, University of NSW, Sydney.
11.
Donaldson, Lex, 1985b, In Defence of Organisation Theory: A Reply to the Critics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
12.
Donaldson, Lex, 1986, The interaction of size and diversification as a determinant of divisionalisation: Grinyer revisited, Organization Studies, 7, 367–380.
13.
Donaldson, Lex, 1987, Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and perfor Mance: In defence of contingency theory, Journal of Management Studies, 24, 1–24.
14.
Donaldson, Lex and Malcolm Warner, 1974a, Bureaucratic and electoral control in occupational interest associations, Sociology, 8, 47–57.
15.
Donaldson, Lex and Malcolm Warner, 1974b, Structure of organisations in occupational interest associations, Human Relations, 27, 721–738.
16.
Dyas, Gareth P. and H.T. Thanheiser, 1976, The Emerging European Enterprise—Strategy and Structure in French and German Industry (London, MacMillan Press Ltd).
17.
Egelhoff, William G., 1982, Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: An infor Mation processing approach, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 435–458.
18.
Fligstein, Neil, 1985, The spread of the multidivisional for M among large diversified firms, 1919–1979, American Sociological Review, 50, 377–391.
19.
Grinyer, Peter J., Masoud Yasai-Ardekani and Shawki Al-Bazzaz, 1980, Strategy and structure, the environment and financial perfor Mance in 48 United Kingdom companies, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 193–220.
20.
Grinyer, Peter J., and Masoud Yasai-Ardekani, 1981, Strategy, structure, size and bureaucracy, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 471–486.
21.
Grinyer, Peter J., 1982, Discussion note: Divisionalisation and size: A rejoinder, Organization Studies, 3, 339–350.
22.
Hage, Jerald, 1980, Theories of Organisation: for M, Process and Transfor Mation (New York, Wiley).
23.
Khandwalla, Pradip N., 1977, The Design of Organisations (New York, Harcourt Brace Janovich).
24.
Kotter, John P., Leonard A. Schlesinger, and Vijay Sathe, 1979, Organisations: Texts, Cases and Readings on the Management of Organisational Design and Change (Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc).
25.
Lorsch, Jay W., and Stephen A. Allen, 1973, Managing Diversity and Interdependence: An Organisational Study of Multidivisional Firms (Boston, Division of Research, Graduate School of Administration, Harvard University).
26.
Mintzberg, Henry, 1979, The Structuring of Organisations: A Synthesis of the Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.Y., Prentice-Hall).
27.
Pavan, R.J., 1976, Strategy and structure—Italian experience, Journal of Economics and Business, 28, 254–260.
28.
Pugh, D.S. and D.J. Hickson, 1976, Organisational Structure in its Context: The Aston Programme I (Farnborough, Hants., Saxon House).
29.
Pugh, D.S. and C.R. Hinings, (eds.), 1976, Organisational Structure- Extensions and Replications: The Aston Programme II (Farnborough, Hants., Saxon House).
30.
Rumelt, R.P., 1974, Strategy, and Structure and Economic Perfor Mance (Boston, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University).
31.
Scott, Bruce R., 1973, The industrial state: Old myths and new realities, Harvard Business Review, 51, 133–148.
32.
Suzuki, Y., 1980, The strategy and structure of top 100 Japanese industrial enterprises 1950–1970, Strategic Management Journal, 1, 265–291.
33.
Williamson, Oliver E., 1970, Corporate Control and Business Behavior: An Inquiry into the Effects of Organisation for M on Enterprise Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc).
34.
Williamson, Oliver E., 1971, Managerial discretion, organisation for M, and the multidivision hypothesis, in Robin Marris and Adrian Woods, eds., The Corporate Economy: Growth, Competition and Innovative Potential (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press).
