STRATEGY AND STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT TO REGAIN FIT AND PERFORMANCE: IN DEFENCE OF CONTINGENCY THEORY

Lex Donaldson

426 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Management Studies

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Management and Organizational Studies Management Theory and Practice Organizational Management and Leadership

Abstract

ABSTRACT Comparative, contingency approaches to organization structure have been criticized as being inherently static. The present article argues that functionalist theories and quantitative methods can explain structural change. This is exemplified by a diachronic enquiry into strategy and structure. Several propositions about organizational dynamics relating diversification, reorganization and performance are supported. However, the notion of contingency adjustment to structure to attain match as a frequent alternative to structural adjustment to contingencies is not borne out. Neither of the two prevailing theories of structural change, ‘contingency determinism’nor ‘strategic choice’, is completely adequate and a third formulation is advanced: that of ‘structural adjustment to regain fit’. While structural‐functional enquiry into organizations using comparative quantitative methods has yielded information about structural statics, the contribution to knowledge of dynamics seems more problematic. This article seeks to record that structural‐functionalism does inform the analysis of organizational change and to show that quantitative contingency approaches can illuminate change if the theory used in the analysis is formalized properly. This involves the partial abandonment of both of the main prevailing theories of structural change: contingency determinism and strategic choice. In their place this article offers as a potentially more fruitful model the structural adaptation to regain fit formulation. Within this the role of performance is shown to be important. The advantage of this framework is demonstrated empirically by means of an examination of the relationship between strategy and structure.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 426 citations exist upstream.

References

1994The Management of Innovation 1972Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice 1968Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.1962Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise 1975Strategy, structure, and economic performance 1982Diversification strategy and profitability 1980The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of Research.1958Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy

Cited by

1998Measuring Organizational Growth: Issues, Consequences and Guidelines 2016Reconfiguration, restructuring and firm performance: Dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism 1991Key Characteristics of the Large Innovating Firm*2012Project portfolio management in practice and in context 2020Organizational Adaptation 2011Contingency Fit, Institutional Fit, and Firm Performance: A Metafit Approach to Organization–Environment Relationships

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.