The contingency approach to the service delivery system acknowledges the existence of multiple variables impacting on its effectiveness, and it provides a means of looking at the variables interrelationships. This paper proposes a theoretical model for use in researching the contingency theory in the hospitality discipline and addresses the need for alignment in terms of the match among strategy, environment, and the organizational structure of service organizations. Propositions that link those variables to performance effectiveness need to include the mediating impact of variables in the service delivery system. These mediating variables refer to the technology, work-unit structures, and customer and employee interface.
BarringtonM. N.OlsenM. D.(1986).Concept of service in the hospitality industry.International Journal of Hospitality Management,6(3), 131
2.
BurnsT.StalkerG. M.(1961).The management of innovation.London: Tavistock
3.
ChaseR. B.(1978).Where does the customer fit in a service operation.Harvard Business Review,56, pp. 137–142
4.
ChildJ.(1972).Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice.Sociology,6, pp. 2–22
5.
De NobleA. F.OlsenM. D.(1986).Objective measurement vs. subjective perceptions of the foodservice industry environment: An empirical examination of Tosi's market volatility indicator.FIU Review,4(2), 89
6.
7.
EmeryF.TristE.(1965).The contextual texture of organization environments.Human Relations,18, pp. 21–32
8.
GlissonCA.(1978).Productivity and efficiency in human service organization.Academy of Management Journal,23(1), pp. 21–37
9.
GuptaA. K.GovindarajanV.(1982).An empirical examination of linkages between strategy, managerial characteristics, and performance. Proceedings of the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, New York
10.
11.
12.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W.(1967).Organization and environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration
13.
ManzC.SimsH.(1980).Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective.Academy of Management Review,5, pp. 361–367
14.
MartinW. B.(February 1986).Defining what quality service is for you.The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly,26(4), pp. 39–46
15.
MilesR. E.SnowC. C.(1974).Organizational strategy, structure, and process.New York: McGraw-Hill
16.
MilesR. E.SnowC. C.Pfeffer(1974).Organization-environment: concepts and issues.Industrial Relations,13, pp. 244–264
17.
MillsP. K.(1983).Self-management: Its control and relationship to other organizational properties.Academy of Management Review,8(3), pp. 445–453
18.
MillsP. K.MobergD. J.(1982).Perspectives on the technology of service operations.Academy of Management Review,7(3), pp. 467–478
19.
MillsP. K.PosnerB. Z.(1982).The Relationships among self-supervision, structure, and technology in professional service organizations.Academy of Management Journal,25(2), pp. 437–443
20.
PerrowC.(1967).A framework for comparative analysis of organizations.American Sociological Review,32(2), pp. 194–208
21.
PuckettR. P.(1981).Optimizing employee productivity through motivation.Journal of Foodservice Systems,1(3), pp. 205–219
22.
SchneiderB.(1980).The service organization: Climate is crucial.Organizational Dynamics,9(2), pp. 52–65
23.
ThompsonJ. D.(1967).Organizations in action.New York: McGraw-Hill
24.
TosiH. L.SlocumJ. W.(1984).Contingency theory: some suggested directions.Journal of Management, 10(1), pp. 9–26
25.
26.
UpahG. D.FultonJ. W.(1985).Situation creation in service marketing. In
CzepielJ. A.SolomonM. R.SurprinantC. F. (Eds.) The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, New York: Heath and Co
27.
Van de VenA.DelbecqA. L.(1974).A task contingency model of work-unit structure.Administrative Science Quarterly,19, pp. 183–197
