Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contingency Theory as an Approach to Explain Early Warning Behavior

  • Chapter
A Contingency-Based View of Chief Executive Officers’ Early Warning Behavior

  • 398 Accesses

Abstract

Now the underlying theory of this work will be introduced. According to the research questions not only the early warning behavior of CEOs of medium-sized companies has to be assessed in general but also factors that influence this behavior have to be analyzed. Therefore, in the following the contingency theory which aims to explain organizational structure and design by considering contextual variables will be presented. First, the classical approach will be explained, followed by its extension. Then, the criticism of the contingency theory is presented and discussed. After that, it will be discussed whether this theory is appropriate to answer the research questions. In part four, the research model and its variables will be deduced by combining the classical approach of the contingency theory and its extension with the model of DAFT and WEICK. Finally, in part five the state of empirical research will be presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See Weber (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Taylor (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  3. “[I]t must be admitted that [Weber’s] conceptualization in terms of ideal types... presents many difficulties to the research worker.... [T]he main problem for the researcher has been how to use Weberian concepts in analysis with data on real functioning organization.” Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, MacDonald, Turner and Lupton (1963), p. 293f.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Staehle (1973), p. 30. For further also theoretically based critics of Weber’s theory see Bennis (1971), p. 436f.

    Google Scholar 

  5. “It appeared that different technologies imposed different kinds of demands on... organizations, and that these demands had to be met through an appropriate form of organization.” Woodward (1975), p. 16. See also Woodward (1980) p. 247f.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burns and Stalker for example analyzed the influence of dynamics of the environment on the organizational structure. See Burns and Stalker (1961), p. 19ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Kieser and Kubicek (1992), p. 61f.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Child (1973), p. 237.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Parallels between the contingency approach and the biological evolutionary theory exist. “The idea is an elaboration of the biologist’s functionalist view of the adaptation of living forms to their environment. For example, elephants have trunks to enable them to feed from their great height, and apes have prehensile fingers and toes to enable them to swing from trees. Contingency theory indicates the kinds of structure that may be appropriate responses to each of several different organizational contexts or situations.” Khandwalla (1977), p. 237.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Breilmann (1990), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Gerdin and Greve (2004), p. 307 and Donaldson (1996), p. 57ff.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and Turner (1968), p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Hickson, Hinings and Turner (1968) Ibid., p. 72ff.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Child (1975) and Burns and Stalker (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and Turner (1969), Hickson, Pugh and Pheysey (1969), Blau (1970), Child and Mansfield (1972) and Child (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Hickson, Pugh and Pheysey (1969), Child and Mansfield (1972) and Woodward (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  17. For an overview of possible contingency variables see Kieser and Kubicek (1992), p. 224 and Kieser (1999), p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Gerdin and Greve (2004), p. 304ff.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., p. 304.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Burns and Stalker (1961). See also Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Bourgeois, McAllister and Mitchel (1978) and Argote (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Rushing (1966) and Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and Turner (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Woodward (1975). Other contingency variables were considered as well. For example Chandler analyzed the history of the 70 largest organisations of the United States. See Chandler (1966). He found out that the decentralized multidivisional structure was depending on the growth strategy of the organisation. A decentralized multidivisional structure was wide-spread for organizations in pursuit of a diversification strategy. The opposite was true for organizations pursuing a growth strategy within one single industry. This was later validated by Fouraker and Stopford. See Fouraker and Stopford (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Mintzberg (1979), p. 299.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid., p. 300.

    Google Scholar 

  25. The assumption of a limited number of structural types is in line with the Darwinistic view. “[S]pecies at any one period are not indefinitely variable, and are not linked together by a multitude of intermediate gradations, partly because the process of natural selection will always be very slow and will act, at any one time, only on a very few forms; and partly because the very process of natural selection almost implies the continual supplanting and extinction of preceding and intermediate gradations.” Darwin (1968), p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Mintzberg (1979), p. 305ff.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Miller and Friesen (1984), p. 31ff.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Miles and Snow (1978), p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See Gerdin and Greve (2004), p. 306.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  31. “The organizational setting limits and influences people’s behavior[.]” Payne and Pugh (1976), p. 1126. See also Breilmann (1990), p. 16 and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  32. For an overview of effect of the organizational structure on the individual see Kieser and Kubicek (1992), p. 422f.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Adapted from Kubicek (1992) ibid, p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Silverman (1968), p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Child and Mansfield (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  36. See Mansfield (1972) Ibid., Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) and Hrebiniak and Einhorn (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lorsch, in Child (1984), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Child (1972), p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Miles (1975), p. 31ff., DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Meyer and Rowan (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  40. See Breilmann (1990), p. 105ff., Hambrick and Brandon (1988), p. 3f. and Baligh, Burton and Obel (1990), p. 35ff.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Montanari (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Breilmann (1990), p. 175ff. for an overview of the most important empirical studies about the influence of the individual on the organizational structure.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kets de Vries and Miller (1984), p. 1 (format of source not adopted). See also Romanelli and Tushman (1988), p. 129ff.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Lang von Wins (2004), p. 29ff., Brandstätter (1997), p. 168ff., Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990), p. 520f. and Rauch and Frese (2000), p. 130ff.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See Bobbitt and Ford (1980), p. 13ff.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Meyer and Starbuck (1992), p. 102ff.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See Stopford and Baden-Fuller (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Dale (1962) and Clee and Sachtjen (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Channon (1973), p. 76 and Mayer (1974), p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Sloan (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  51. See Greenwood (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  52. In addition, researcher also analyzed the influence of CEOs’ beliefs and values on organizational design. See Hambrick and Brandon (1988), Meyer and Starbuck (1992) and Baligh, Burton and Obel (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lewin and Stephens (1994), p. 189. See also Rokeach (1968), p. 82ff.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See Bass, Barnett and Brown (1989), p. 184 and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), p. 5 and 21ff.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman (1991) in Lewin and Stephens (1994), p. 189.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See Miller, Kets de Vries and Toulouse (1982), Miller and Dröge (1986), Miller and Toulouse (1986) and Miller, Dröge and Toulouse (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Miller and Dröge (1986), p. 539.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Miller, Dröge and Toulouse (1988), p. 544.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See Miller and Dröge (1986). For a detailed explanation of this attitude see D 2.3.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See Miller, Kets de Vries and Toulouse (1982), p. 244ff. For a detailed explanation of this attitude see D 2.1.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Burns and Stalker (1961), p. 34f.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lewin and Stephens (1994), p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Daft and Lewin (1990), p. 3. Other researchers employ the term organizational design as a synonym to organizational structure. See Galbraith (1977), p. 5ff.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lewin and Stephens (1994), p. 183f. Nevertheless, they still consider the environment to be a fundamental contingency factor influencing organizational design.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid., p. 190.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ibid., p. 190.

    Google Scholar 

  67. For a detailed overview see Krohmer (1999), p. 44f.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See Schreyögg (1978), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  69. See Child and Mansfield (1972), p. 369.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See also Pennings (1992), p. 274.

    Google Scholar 

  71. See Brown (1978), p. 378.

    Google Scholar 

  72. See Smiricich (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  73. See Silverman (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Kieser (1999), p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  75. For an example of such a procedure see Burns and Stalker (1961), p. 94f. Within this context two points have to be differentiated: 1) the reason of systematic relations and 2) the statistical explanation for them. A high correlation does not automatically imply a high degree of scientific explanation because variables that are statistically highly correlating can be independent from a scientific point of view. Therefore, a systematic check of statistical correlation is indispensable. See Rasch, Friese, Hofmann and Naumann (2004), p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See Frese (1992), p. 191.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See Otley (1980), p. 419.

    Google Scholar 

  78. See Child, Ganter and Kieser (1987), p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  79. See Köhl, Esser, Kemmner and Förster (1989), p. 252f. and Schultz-Wild, Nuber, Rehberg and Schmierl (1989), p. 172ff.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See Hickson, Hinings, McMillan and Schwitter (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  81. See Clegg and Dunkerly (1980), p. 433ff., Clegg (1981), p. 545 and Benson (1977), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See for example Miller and Dröge (1986) and Miller, Dröge and Toulouse (1988). For an overview of such studies see Breilmann (1990), p. 175ff.

    Google Scholar 

  83. See Kieser and Kubicek (1992), p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Lewin and Stephens (1994), p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid., p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See Stephens (1994) Ibid., p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  87. See Stephens (1994) Ibid., p. 202. See Kiesler and Sproull (1982), p. 556 for scanning as a specialized form of information processing.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See Gerdin and Greve (2004), p. 322 and Donaldson (2001), p. 141ff. Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom also followed this approach for their analysis of the contingency theory in the context of scanning. See Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  89. See Burns and Stalker (1961), Child (1975), Bourgeois, McAllister and Mitchel (1978), Argote (1982) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  90. See Aguilar (1967), Daft, Sormunen and Parks (1988), Sawyerr (1993), Auster and Choo (1993), Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996), Elenkov (1997) and May, Stewart and Sweo (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  91. See Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996), p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  92. See Aguilar (1967), Daft, Sormunen and Parks (1988), Sawyerr (1993), Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996) and Elenkov (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  93. See Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  94. See Hambrick (1981), p. 305, Hambrick (1982), p. 163, Farh, Hoffmann and Hegarty (1984), p. 203, Daft, Sormunen and Parks (1988), p. 125 and Elenkov (1997), p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See Aldrich and Herker (1977), p. 218ff.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See Aguilar (1967), p. 63f.

    Google Scholar 

  97. See Ibid., p. 64f., Elenkov (1997), p. 294 and Daft, Sormunen and Parks (1988), p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  98. See Aguilar (1967), p. 64, Culnan (1983), Rhyne (1985), p. 323 and Daft, Sormunen and Parks (1988), p. 126 and Elenkov (1997), p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  99. See Aguilar (1967), p. 65, Kefalas and Schoderbek (1973), p. 66 and Smeltzer, Fann and Nikolaisen (1988), p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Own compilation. A similar overview is provided by Aguilar (1967), p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  101. See Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996), p. 189.

    Google Scholar 

  102. See Nystrom (1996) Ibid., p. 189f. and Choudhury and Sampler (1997), p. 27f.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Daft and Weick (1984), p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Only the possibility of a change in the environment is interpreted to be a threat or an opportunity is analyzed in related studies. See Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Théorêt (1976), Nutt (1984), Dutton and Duncan (1987) and Thomas and McDaniel (1990). Additionally, Martins and Kambil analyze a personal bias in managers’ interpretation of new information technology. See Martins and Kambil (1999). See also Dentson, Dutton, Kahn and Hart (1996), Sharma (2000) and Gioia and Thomas (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Daft and Weick (1984), p. 285.

    Google Scholar 

  106. For a detailed presentation of internal models see Schäffer (2001), p. 107ff.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Johnson-Laird (1983), p. 3f. “Like a pane of glass framing and subtly distorting our vision, mental models determine what we see.” Senge (1992), p. 235. See also Kim (1993), p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Senge (1992), p. 8. See also Krieg (1971), p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  109. See Weber, Grothe and Schäffer (2000), p. 241.

    Google Scholar 

  110. See Daft and Weick (1984), p. 286.

    Google Scholar 

  111. See Herzhoff (2004), p. 162. For the importance of this instrument see Leemhuis (1985), Schoemaker (1995) and Tessun (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  112. See Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996), p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  113. See Lewin and Stephens (1994), p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Tushman and Nadler (1978), p. 614.

    Google Scholar 

  115. See Galbraith (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  116. See Leifer and Huber (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  117. See Aguilar (1967), Auster and Choo (1993), May, Stewart and Sweo (2000) and McGee and Sawyerr (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  118. See Daft, Sormunen and Parks (1988), Sawyerr (1993) and Elenkov (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  119. See Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996), p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Contingency Theory as an Approach to Explain Early Warning Behavior. In: A Contingency-Based View of Chief Executive Officers’ Early Warning Behavior. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-5504-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation