Abstract
Contingency theory presently provides a major framework for organizational design. There are, however, several major challenges to it. Contingency theory is said to be static. However, the SARFIT formulation of structural adaptation, with the Cartesian approach to fit, provides a theory of organizational change. Moreover, difficulties become opportunities for theory development, in the new concepts of quasi-fit and hetero-performance. The contingency theory of organizational structure is said to be obsolete because of new organizational forms, but this lacks credibility. A rival theory of organizational structure is institutional theory, however it is problematic. Challenges and opportunities in methodology are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Blau, P.M., and Schoenherr, P. A., 1971, The Structure of Organizations, Basic Books, New York.
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M., 1961, The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London.
Chandler, A.D. Jr., 1962, Strategy and Structure: chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.
Caufield, C.C., 1989, An Integrative Research Review of the Relationship Between Technology and Structure: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa: Iowa City, Iowa.
Child, J., 1975, Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance, Part 2: A contingency analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 12: 12–27.
DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W., 1983, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields, American Sociological Review, 48:147–60.
DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W., Introduction. In Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul, eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Donaldson, L., 1987, Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency theory, Journal of Management Studies 24(1): 1–24.
Donaldson, L., 1995a (editor) Contingency Theory. Volume 9 in History of Management Thought Series, Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Donaldson, L., 1995b American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Donaldson, L., 1996 For Positivist Organization Theory: Proving the Hard Core, Sage, London.
Donaldson, L., 2001, The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Eccles, R.G., and Nohria N., 1992, Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Edwards, J.R. and Parry, M.E., 1993, On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research, Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1577–613.
Fligstein, N., 1985, The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919–1979,. American Sociological Review, 50: 377–91.
Galunic, D.C., and Eisenhardt, K.M., 1994, Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm, in: Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 215–55.
Hamilton, R.T., and Shergill, G.S., 1992, The relationship between strategy-structure fit and financial performance in New Zealand: Evidence of generality and validity with enhanced controls. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 95–113.
Hunter, J.E., and Schmidt F.L., 2004, Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Johns, G., 1981, Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27:443–63.
Keller, R.T., 1994, Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory, Academy of Management Journal, 37:167–79.
Kraatz, M.S., and Zajac E.J., 1992, Invisible Hand or Iron Cage? Market and Institutional Influence on Organizational Change.
Meilich, O., 2003, Bivariate models of fit in contingency theory: Critique and a polynomial regression alternative, Paper to Academy of Management, Seattle.
Merton, R.K., 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, New York.
Meyer, J.W., Scott, W.R., Strang, D., and Creighton, A.L., 1988, Bureaucratization without Centralization: Changes in the Organizational System of U.S. Public Education, 1940–80, in: Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Lynne G. Zucker, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Miller, D., 1986, Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7: 233–49.
Mintzberg, H., 1973, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York.
Palmer, I., and Dunford, R., 2002, Out with the old and in with the new? The relationship Between traditional and new organizational practices, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10: 209–225.
Parsons, T., 1961, Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations, in: Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Amitai Etzioni, New York, pp. 32–47
Pfeffer, J., 1982, Organizations and Organization Theory, Pitman, Marshfield.
Priem, R.L., and Rosenstein, J., 2000, Is organization theory obvious to practitioners? A test of one established theory, Organization Science, 11: 509–524.
Rogers, M., 2005, Contingent Corporate Governance: A Challenge to the Theories of Universal Board Structure. PhD Thesis, Australian Graduate School of Management, Universities of New South Wales and Sydney, Sydney.
Scott, W. R., 1995, Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Van de Ven, A.H., and Robert D., 1985, The concept of fit in contingency theory, in: Research in Organizational Behaviour, 7, Edited by B.M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 333–65.
Whittington, R., Mayer M., and Curto F., 1999, Chandlerism in post-war Europe: Strategic and structural change in France, Germany and the UK, 1950–1993, Industrial and Corporate Change, 8: 519–550.
Woodward, J., 1965, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Donaldson, L. (2006). The Contingency Theory of Organizational Design: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Burton, R.M., Håkonsson, D.D., Eriksen, B., Snow, C.C. (eds) Organization Design. Information and Organization Design Series, vol 6. Springer, Boston, MA . https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34173-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34173-0_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-34172-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34173-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)