With Speakers Sarah Kaplan, Signe Vikkelsø, and Gino Cattani

This PDW represents the second edition of what we hope to be a standing series showcasing the enduring relevance of earlier organizational research and raise interest for it. We believe that paying attention to the classics of our field may complement the strong emphasis (at AOM and beyond) on new/disruptive ideas, enable cumulative insights, and promote the value of research committed to theorizing core organizational dynamics.

This edition focuses on the contingency approach as exemplary of classic scholarship in organization and management theory. We focus on the historical context of the contingency approach, the main ideas of authors and traditions associated with it, and their connections with contemporary research.

The Contingency Approach

The contingency approach gained in popularity during the 1960s and 1970s. Contingency theorists disputed the assumption at the time that a single form of organization is best for all firms and in all circumstances. They posited instead that the most appropriate organizational form is the one that is best suited to the kinds of actions a firm undertakes. In brief, scholars suggested that organizational effectiveness results from the fit between characteristics of the organization, such as its structure, and contingencies that reflect the particular situation of the organization. Contingencies can for instance include the size of an organization, its strategy, and its environment. Because it is the fit between organizational characteristics and contingencies that leads to high
performance, organizations seek to attain fit while avoiding misfit when confronted with changes in contingencies. They do so by adopting new organizational characteristics that fit new levels of the contingencies.
The contingency approach is associated with various scholars and research groups with divergent orientations and sensitivities. Some focused primarily on structure (e.g., the Aston School) while other were also interested in social relations (e.g., the Tavistock institute); many were concerned about the link between organization structure and demands from the environment, whereas others have a more discreet focus on the work process and its fit with internal conditions.

The contingency approach occupies an ambiguous position in today’s organizational scholarship. While some people see it as dated and surpassed, some of its key insights still underpin contemporary organizational research. Arguably, we all operate under the central contingency assumption that there is no ‘one best way’ (Donaldson, 2001); that structures and processes depend on certain conditions (Van de Ven, Ganco, & Hinings, 2013); and that organizing is about adjusting to circumstances and balancing competing demands (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Besides, specific insights from the contingency approach continue to inform contemporary research on organization design (Grandori & Furnari, 2008), organizational change (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012), and other themes.

Our community as a whole does not always recognize how much contingency theory still matters. Worried about novelty and disruption, we sometimes lose sight of continuity (and our history) even though we are a somewhat new field in the social sciences. As a consequence, some critical aspects of the contingency approach — such as its attention to formal organizational structures (visible in the work of the Aston School, Joan Woodward, and James D. Thompson) and the task/work level of analysis (explored by researchers from the Tavistock Institute) — seem to have withered as organization theory became more interested in fields and macro dynamics. Much can, therefore, be gained by looking back to reflect on the importance of this approach in the development of our field and (re-)considering the analytical value of some of its axioms and insights!

In this PDW we paid particular attention to the European(/UK) tradition as this is usually overlooked in our area (especially the work of the Tavistock Institute). We selected authors and groups representing different aspects of this approach with presentations by Sarah Kaplan (on Joan Woodward), Signe Vikkelsø (on the Tavistock Institute and Socio-Technical Systems), and Gino Cattani (on James D. Thompson). This was followed by roundtables mediated by the speakers and a plenary discussion.

The episode begins with the presentation of some “postcards” — notes sent to us from several prominent scholars who applaud the attention we are giving to the contingency approach. You can view the postcards in the gallery below. Enjoy!

Postcard Gallery!

To learn more:

• Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change Agents, Networks, and Institutions: A Contingency Theory of Organizational Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398.
• Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
• Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2008). A Chemistry of Organization: Combinatory Analysis and Design. Organization Studies, 29(3), 459–485.
• Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.
• Van de Ven, A. H., Ganco, M., & Hinings, C. R. B. (2013). Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of Organizational and Institutional Designs. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 393–440.

Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast:

• Episode 16 about Lawrence & Lorsch and Contingency Theory
• Episode 34 about Trist & Bamforth and Socio-Technical Systems
• Episode 46 about the 2018 Academy of Management professional development workshop on Organization Theory Classics

Resources from the Workshop:

Professional Development Workshop information sheet — Classics of Management and Organization Theory 2019