STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY
Structural contingency theory was a major organization studies
perspective in 1960-1970s, but has since faded from the center.
An open system view how environmental conditions shape internal
organizational structures, SCT emphasizes how a tighter fit between
structure and context increases org’l performance & survival chances
Coalignment: Efficiency of an org’l design depends on its contexts
Jay Galbraith’s (1973:2) two principles:
1. There is no one best way to organize
2. Any way of organizing is not equally effective
(Consonance hypothesis)
By implication:
Best way to organize is contingent on the environment
Environment-Structure Fit
As organizations adapt their structures to fit their contexts, a close
coupling evolves (in OET, a congruence between niche & form)
Variations among org’l forms reflect their diverse environments:
If environment is:
If environment is:
Placid, Predictable,
Turbulent, Uncertain,
Homogeneous, Stable,
Complex, Unstable,
Resource Munificent
Resource Scarce
Then structural form is:
Then structural form is:
Mechanistic, Bureaucratic,
Centralized;
Organic, Informal,
Networked;
Clear Goals
Ambiguous Goals
Overview of SCT
ORG’L SIZE
TECHNOLOGY
Production
Information
ENVIRONMENT
ORG’L STRUCTURES:
Formalization
Differentiation
Vertical
Horizontal
Uncertainty
Size of admin. component
Resource munificence
Centralization
Degree of competition
Complexity
STRATEGY
Defender, Reactor,
Analyzer, Prospector
SOURCE: Adapted from Pfeffer (1982:149 & 157)
Span of control
Specialization
Technological Determinism?
SCT hypothesizes that structural complexity of org’s core production &
information technologies (a.k.a. the “task environment”) are primary
constraints on internal division of labor and performance outcomes
TECHNOLOGY “the physical combined with the intellectual
or knowledge processes by which materials in some form are
transformed into outputs” (Hulin & Roznowski 1985:47)
English researchers such as Joan
Woodward (1958) and the Aston
group (Hickson et al. 1971), linked
variations in the core organizational
technologies, such as batch vs
continuous production, to systematic
differences in organizations’ work
group structures, managerial &
employee behaviors, and outcomes.
Critique of SCT
(1) Imprecise concepts & propositions: “more an orienting strategy or
metatheory” than a falsifiable system of theoretical propositions
(2) Empirically, environment-technology & structures “loosely coupled”:
equifinality – a multiplicity of org’l forms can thrive in identical
environmental conditions  complex environ’l-form interactions
(3) Emphasizes managerial adaptation to environ’l constraints, but
underspecifies how managers can/should respond to particular
external forces when redesigning internal organizational structures
•John Child’s (1972) strategic choice explanation that managers are not
highly constrained by environments & technologies, but may exercise
substantial choice (agency) in shaping their orgs’ structures
•By obtaining sufficient political power resources to cope with
uncertainties threatening their orgs, managers may overcome
environmental-technical constraints on org’l survival and performance
RESOURCE DEPENDENCE THEORY
As no org is self-sufficient, all must obtain resources from their environs.
Power originates in social & economic exchanges, under uncertain
conditions, when orgs seek to acquire vital resources but avoid
dependence on orgs that supply those resources. (Pfeffer & Salancik 1978)
RESOURCES (money, participants, legitimacy)
must be obtained from an org’s environments
POWER DEPENDENCE – an actor controlling
crucial resources can set advantageous
exchange rates and create recipient dependency
Powerlessness = dependency on others for resources
Organizational power accrues to actors able to cope with others’
uncertainties, in absence of substitutable alternatives. Crozier’s
(1964) famous example of tobacco factory maintenance workers,
who kept no repair records & destroyed the manuals, hence making
the firm dependent on them to keep routine production going.
Some RDT Propositions
Macro-structural conditions affecting inter- & intraorg’l dependencies:
• How critical is a resource to org or subunit’s operations?
• What control do others exercise over the resource’s allocation?
• Are substitutes or alternative sources available?
P1: Greater org’s dependence on external source for critical resources,
the more it complies with source’s demands about structures & actions
EX School curricula shaped more by state legislators or by local voters?
P2: Coalitions of external stakeholders shape org’l practices & policies
EX 1980s campaign demanding that colleges & foundations divest their
stocks of corporations doing business with apartheid South Africa
P3: Org’l subunits acquiring critical resources have more internal power
EX Why do business school & law professors make much higher salaries
than social work & women’s studies teachers?
Power is Relational
Power in organizations is inherently the property of a
relationship between actors. Max Weber’s two
famous definitions explicitly asserted that power
(Macht) is not the resources held by an actor, but
occurs during situated interactions involving actors
with potentially opposed interests and goals.
‘Power’ is the probability that one actor within a social relationship
will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance,
regardless of the basis on which that probability rests. (1947:152)
We understand by ‘power’ the chance of a man or a number of men to
realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of
others who are participating in the action. (1968:962)
Some power is based on force (coercion). But, if actors willingly assent
or consent to obey another’s commands, power becomes legitimate
authority (Herrschaft), which may be based on actors’ traditional,
charismatic, or rational-legal beliefs in the rightness of their relationship.
Social Exchange: Power & Dependence
Peter Blau and Richard Emerson theorized that unequal social
exchanges generate power dependencies within dyads
Power is a structural relationship, inverse to the
cost that one actor willingly pays to another for an
exchange. If actor B accepts a higher cost than
actor A, then B has a greater dependence on A.
“A’s power over B is (1) directly proportional to the
importance B places on the goals mediated by A and
(2) inversely proportional to the availability of these
goals to B outside the A-B relation.” (Emerson 1962)
If you need a service from a more powerful person (e.g., a professor), you face four alternatives:
1. Coerce her to give the service [use physical threats or blackmail]
2. Supply her with a service/good she needs in exchange, resulting in relative equality
3. Find the needed service from another source
4. Do without the service
If none of these alternatives is possible, then you’re dependent on the powerful person and must
exchange deference in order to receive the needed service. (Blau 1964:118-119)
Power Bases & Tactics
French & Raven’s classic typology (1960) of five bases of power:
Coercive – Forced against will: Boss demands you wash her car
Reward – Play for pay: Boss promises you a rai$e for good work
Legitimate – It’s right to do: Boss asserts she has authority to act
Referent – Personal charisma: Boss is a legend in her own mind
Expert – Know-it-all: Boss hangs her CSOM diplomas on wall
Behavioral tactics for the most profitable use
of power resources (Kipnis et al. 1980):
Assertiveness
Ingratiation
Rationality
Exchange
Upward appeal
Coalition formation
References
Child, John. 1972. “Organization Structure, Environment, and Performance: The Role of
Strategic Choice.” Sociology 6:1-22.
Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Emerson, Richard M. 1962. “Power-Dependence Relations.” American Sociological Review 27:
31-40.
French, John P. R. Jr. and Bertram Raven. 1960. “The Bases of Social Power.” Pp. 607-623 in
Group Dynamics edited by D. Cartwright and A. Zander. New York: Harper and Row.
Hickson, D.J., C.R. Hinings, C.A. Lee, R.E. Schneck and J.M. Pennings. 1971. “A Strategic
Contingencies’ Theory of Intraorganizational Power.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16:216229.
Hulin, Charles L. and M. Roznowski. 1985. “Organizational Technologies: Effects on
Organizations’ Characteristics and Individuals’ Responses.” Research in Organizational
Behavior 7:39-85.
Kipnis, D., S.M. Schmidt and I. Wilkinson. 1980. “Intraorganizational Influence Tactics:
Explorations in Getting One’s Way.” Journal of Applied Psychology 65:440-452.
Galbraith, Jay. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1982. Organizations and Organization Theory. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organization: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Woodward, Joan. Management and Technology. London: HMSO.