Cross-sectional studies of organisation have yielded a number of relationships between contingencies and structure. However, some diachronic studies of changes in contingency and structure have not produced the results expected. The suggestion of this paper is that this may reflect inappropriate forms of data analysis based on a theoretical orientation of contingency determinism rather than contingency-fit. The former posits that a change in contingency directly causes a change in structure. The latter states that it is the lack of fit, a mismatch between contingency and structure, which leads to structural change. An illustration of the two alternative approaches is given by reference to longitudinal data on changes in strategy and structure. Two hypotheses derived from the contingency-fit model are confirmed, whereas the one derived from the contingency determinism approach is not.
Blau, P.M. and P.A. Schoenherr, 1971, The Structure of Organisations (New York, Basic Books).
2.
Blau, P. M., 1972, “Interdependence and Hierarchy in Organisations”, Social Science Research, 1, 1–24.
3.
Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker, 1961, The Management of Innovations (London, Tavistock Publications Ltd.).
4.
Chandler, A.D. Jr., 1962, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Massachusetts, The M.I.T. Press).
5.
Channon, D. F., 1973, The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise (Boston, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University).
6.
Channon, D. F., 1978, The Service Industries (London and Basingstoke, The MacMillan Press Ltd.).
7.
Chenhall, R., 1979, “Some elements of organisational control in Australian divisionalised firms”, Australian Journal of Management, 4(Supplement), 1–36.
8.
Child, J., 1972a, “Organisational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice”, Sociology, 6, 1–22.
9.
Child, J., 1972b, “Organisation Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 163–177.
10.
Dewar, R. and J. Hage, 1978, “Size, Technology, Complexity and Structural Differentiation: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 111–136.
11.
Donaldson, L., 1982a, “Comments on Contingency and Choice in Organisation Theory”, Organisation Studies, 3, 65–72.
12.
Donaldson, L., 1982b, “Divisionalisation and Size: A Theoretical and Empirical Critique”, Organisation Studies, 3, 321–337.
13.
Donaldson, L., 1984, “Strategy, Structure, Fit and Financial Performance : Validation of a General Model”, Paper to Academy of Management Conference, Boston.
14.
Dyas, G.P. and H.T. Thanheiser, 1976, The Emerging European Enterprise - Strategy and Structure in French and German Industry (London, MacMillan Press Ltd.).
15.
Galbraith, J. and D.A. Nathanson, 1978, Strategy implementation: the role of structure and process (St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing Company).
16.
Grinyer, P. J., M. Yasai-Ardekani and S. Al-Bazzaz, 1980, “Strategy and Structure, the Environment and Financial Performance in 48 United Kingdom Companies”, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 193–220.
17.
Grinyer, P. J. and M. Yasai-Ardekani, 1981, “Strategy, Structure, Size and Bureaucracy”, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 471–486.
18.
Hickson, D.J. and C.J. McMillan (eds.), 1981, Organisation and Nation: The Aston Programme IV (Farnborough, Hants., Gower).
19.
Inkson, J.H.K., D.S. Pugh and D.J. Hickson, 1970, “Organisation Context and Structure: An Abbreviated Replication”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 318–329.
20.
Khandwalla, P. N., 1977, The Design of Organisations (New York, Harcourt, Brace Janovich).
21.
Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch, 1967, Organisation and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Boston, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University).
22.
Marshall, W. M., 1979, Change in Public Bureaucracies (New York, Cambridge University Press).
23.
Pavan, R. J., 1976, “Strategy and Structure - the Italian Experience”, Journal of Economics and Business, 28, 254–260.
24.
Pugh, D.S. and D.J. Hickson (eds.), 1976, Organisational Structure in its Context: The Aston Programme 1 (Farnborough, Hants., Saxon House).
25.
Pugh, D.S. and C.R. Hinings (eds.), 1976, Organisational Structure: Extensions and Replications: The Aston Programme II (Farnborough, Hants., Saxon House).
26.
Pugh, D. S., D.J. Hickson, C.R. Hinings and C. Turner, 1969, “The Context of Organisation Structures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 91–114.
27.
Rumelt, R. P., 1974, Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University).
28.
Schoonhoven, C. B., 1981, “Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language of Contingency Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349–377.
29.
Schreyogg, G., 1980, “Contingency and Choice in Organisation Theory”, Organisation Studies, 1, 305–326.
30.
Suzuki, Y., 1980, “The Strategy and Structure of Top 100 Japanese Industrial Enterprises 1950–1970”, Strategic Management Journal, 1, 265–291.
31.
Woodward, J., 1965, Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice (London, Oxford University Press).
