CLASSICS OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION THEORY

@talkaboutorgs

CLASSICS OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION THEORYThe Contingency Approach

Pedro MonteiroEMLyon Business School

AOM PDW | Aug 12, 2019

Gretta CorporaalUniversity of Oxford

Programmin

1. Introduction PDW 52. Overview of the contingency approach 53. Presentations 50

• Bob Hinings on Aston Group• Sarah Kaplan on Joan Woodward• Signe Vikkelsø on Tavistock and Socio-Technical Systems• Gino Cattani on James D. Thompson

4. Roundtable discussions 205. Plenary 10

@talkaboutorgs

Logistics

@talkaboutorgs

1. Why a PDW on OMT classics?


@talkaboutorgs


@talkaboutorgs


@talkaboutorgs


@talkaboutorgs

Beth Bechky

Talking About Organizations Podcast

Pedro Monteiro and Gretta Corporaal

AOM Annual Meeting

PDW 2019 Classics of OMT

Scholars who wrote the classic works incontingency theory were trying to explainhow what happened within organizationswas influenced by the environment. Manyof them went into organizations andlooked closely at what was going onthere. This is no longer as typical inorganization theory and as someoneinterested in organizations and whatpeople do in them, I found this workinteresting and (somewhat) useful. Theirfocus on the relationships betweenorganizational units and/or functions isimportant to thinking about how work getsdone in organizations.

2. The contingency approach

2. The contingency approachThe essence of the contingency theory paradigm is that organizationaleffectiveness results from fitting characteristics of the organization, such asits structure, to contingencies that reflect the situation of the organization(Burns and Stalker 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Pennings 1992;Woodward 1965). Contingencies include the environment (Burns andStalker 1961), organizational size (Child 1975), and organizational strategy(Chandler 1962). Because the fit of organizational characteristics tocontingencies leads to high performance, organizations seek to attain fit.For this reason, organizations are motivated to avoid the misfit that resultsafter contingencies change, and do so by adopting new organizationalcharacteristics that fit the new levels of the contingencies.

Donaldson, 2001

@talkaboutorgs

Best wishes from Sydney,Australia! After working for manyyears in the contingency approachto organization theory, I am nowfully retired. However, it gives memuch satisfaction to seecontingency theory continuing to beof use to colleagues and students intheir research. I believe it is a veryrobust paradigm! I wish you allgreat success in your endeavors.

Lex Donaldson



AOM Annual Meeting


2. The contingency approach• text

@talkaboutorgs

Scott, 2001


@talkaboutorgs

Google N-gram

Trist & Bamforth, 1951 Burns & Stalker, 1961 Woodward, 1965 Thompson, 1967. Perrow, 1967 Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967a; 1967b Pugh et al., 1968 Galbraith, 1977 Tushman, 197. Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985


@talkaboutorgs

Andrew Van de Ven



AOM Annual Meeting


In our 2013 Annals chapter, Ganco, Hiningsand I encouraged scholars to return to thefrontier of organization science by reopeningthe study of contingency theory oforganizational and institutional design. Interms of practice, perhaps no other area ofmanagement scholarship has had such aprofound impact; organization design hasspawned and sustains a multi-billion dollarmanagement consulting industry worldwide.We optimistically think that the sky is the limitand the future looks rosy for organizationcontingency theory because market and sciencedemands will pull organizational researchers(perhaps grudgingly) to create high-performance organization designs fordynamically changing conditions.

Jay Lorsch



AOM Annual Meeting


How are younger scholars thinking about the state of contingency theory to day? Stay tuned we are just finishing a book on the topic!

A message from Bob• text

@talkaboutorgs

Bob HiningsProfessor Emeritus, Albert School of Business; Honorary Fellow, Judge School of Business (Cambridge); and Senior Research Mentor, HaskayneSchool of Business (Calgary)

Aston Group [UK]

THE ASTON SCHOOL

Bob HiningsUniversity of Calgary | Haskayne School of Business


The aims

• Starting point was the theory and ideal type of bureaucracy.

• A conceptual framework for analyzing the structure and functioning of organizations.

• Conceptualization of structure as made up of a number of dimensions.

• Producing a taxonomy of organizations as a basis for the systematic study of groups and individuals in organizations.

© Bob Hinings 2019

The Framework

• STRUCTURE• Specialization; Standardization; Formalization;

Centralization.

• CONTEXT• History; Ownership; Size; Technology; Location;

Resources; Interdependence

© Bob Hinings 2019

The Findings

• Key predictors of organizational structure: Size; Dependence on other organizations; Integrated technology.

• Four types of organization: Full Bureaucracy; Workflow Bureaucracy; Personnel Bureaucracy; Simple Structure.

© Bob Hinings 2019

Further Thoughts

• The Aston Studies were a long-term program.• 4 volumes of paper: The original study; Extensions and

replication; Structure and organizational behavior; Structure across nations.

• The importance of comparative organization studies based on detailed analysis of organizations.

© Bob Hinings 2019

3. Presentations

Sarah KaplanProfessor of Strategic Management at Rotman School of Business; Director of Institute for Gender and the Economy (GATE) and Distinguished Professor of Gender & the Economy (University of Toronto)

3. Presentations

@talkaboutorgs

Woodward [UK]

3. Presentations• text

@talkaboutorgs

Signe VikkelsøProfessor of Technologies of Organizational Analysis and head of the Department of Organization at the Copenhagen Business School

Tavistock Institute [UK]

3. Presentations

@talkaboutorgs

Thompson [US]

Gino CattaniAssociate Professor of Management and Organization at the Stern School of Business at NYU

JOAN WOODWARDFoundations of contingency theory

Sarah Kaplan University of Toronto | Rotman SchoolInstitute for gender and the Economy


Reviving ”task” from The TavistockInstitute archives

Signe VikkelsøCopenhagen Business School


The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Established 1947 in Tavistock, UK

Closely related to the Tavistock Clinic, which played a key role in British army psychiatry.

A number of projects during the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s focusing on group relations and organizations, e.g. The Northfield Experiments (W.R. Bion)

The Calico Mills in Ahmedabad (A.K. Rice)

The coal mine studies (E.L. Trist & K. Bamforth)

Glacier Metal Company (E. Jaques & W. Brown)

The Orthopedic Hospital study (I. Menzies Lyth)

© Signe Vikkelsø 2019

Concepts and assumptions Individuals, groups, institutions are systems with an

internal and external environmentOrganization and management should focus on the

transactions across the boundaries between the system’s inside and outside The primary task(s) of an organization as focal point Task requirements not always aligned with human needsHow is the organization balancing technical/task-

requirements with human relations ?


Task system – sentient system

One’s Daily Task Routine

Job description

One’s Role Enactment

Performance Measurement/

Evaluation

One’s Ideal View of Role

Other’s Expressed Expectations

Employee Motivation

Work-related Stress and Tension

Role Conflict

Resistance to Change

Work-related Injury

TASK SENTIENCE

(Krantz & Maltz 1997)(Miller & Rice 1967)© Signe Vikkelsø 2019

(Trist & Bamforth, 1967)



Getting back to the task…in practical organization as well as theories of organizations

As a core concern to any organization and managerAs a “top three” contingency factor*As a mode of inquiry As an anchoring of organizational reality

*The other being technology and environment cf. Lorsch & Lawrence 1970: 1


..as used to be widely recognized“What is our business?...It is as important a question in a business that appears to have little control over what it produces physically – a copper mine, for instance, or a steel mill – as in a business such as a retail store or an insurance company, that seems to have a great deal of control” (Drucker, 1955/68: 68)

“Know what you are doing”: whether one chooses to count spines, chide spine-counters, or fish, it’s still good to know what you’re doing. And this holds true for inquiry in general as well as for specific inquiries concerning organizational behavior” (Weick, 1979: 27)

It was the genius of the Tavistock workers to combine a knowledge of therapy with a knowledge of the social psychology and sociology of organizations “ (Katz & Kahn, 1966:416)


Organizations in Actionby James D. Thompson

Gino CattaniNew York University | Stern School of Business


4. Roundtable discussions

4. Roundtable discussions

Bob Hinings | Aston Group Sarah Kaplan | Joan Woodward Signe Vikkelsø | Tavistock & socio-technical systemsGino Cattani | James D. Thompson

@talkaboutorgs

5. Plenary

5. Plenary

What are the takeaways?

@talkaboutorgs

Thank youDmitrijs Kravcenko | Pedro

Monteiro | Ralph Soule | Tom Galvin | Jarryd Daymond

Miranda Lewis | Ella Hafermalz | Gretta Corporaal | Maikel Waardenburg | Catherine

Jackson Molloy | Frithjof Wegener Leonardo Melo Luis

AOM 2020THE COLUMBIA SCHOOL

Merton, Blau, Gouldner & Selznick

Documents

CLASSICS OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION THEORY