Classics

98: Managing Innovation — Burns & Stalker

Why do firms seemingly have difficulties converting new ideas into goods or services? The answer is in the classic book The Management of Innovation from Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker that explored the difficulties that firms, industries, and even nations had in innovating due to the disruptions that it brings to power structures and social fabric in organizations. They also explored key misunderstandings about innovation (such as that the false narrative that bureaucratic structures inherently cannot innovate) and the source of of conflicts across different departments and work groups trying to innovate.

91: Constructive Conflict – Mary Parker Follett

We return to the works of Mary Parker Follett and expand upon “The Law of the Situation” that we covered in Chapter 5. In this episode, we revisit Dynamic Administration with a look at the first five chapters as a whole – focusing on Chapter 1 (“Constuctive Conflict”), Chapter 3 (“Business as an Integrative Unity”), Chapter 4 (“Power”), and Chapter 5 (“How Must Business Management Develop in order to Possess the Essentials of a Profession”) that introduced Follett’s conception of professionalizing business.

85: Carnegie-Mellon Series #6 — Organizations

In this episode, we discuss the second edition of James March and Herbert Simon’s classic text 'Organizations.' In addition to the well-known concepts such as bounded rationality and satisficing, the book introduces an important critique of the mechanistic view that “classic” organization theory to that point approached organizations and its members. How do decisions get made? What causes individuals or join, stay in, or leave organizations? What about the causes and effects of conflict? We explore all this and more.

84: Professionalizing Business — Louis Brandeis

We discuss the life and works of Louis Brandeis who originated the term ‘scientific management’ that aimed at conserving effort and making work life more predictable, reducing worker stress and increasing satisfaction. He also advocated for a more altruistic and professionalized form of business leadership that served both the needs of customers or clients and those of the workers under their supervision. A collection of his lectures entitled Business – A Profession expounds on these ideas, and he includes a number of case studies and illustrations to show both the human and financial potential of his professed forms of management where profit would not be the only measure of a business’ success.

80: Management Theory & Practice — Sumantra Ghoshal

We discuss a critique of business education -- Sumantra Ghoshal’s article from the Academy of Management Learning and Education, “Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices.” He describes a feedback loop between schools and practitioners that has led to theories based on a “pretense of knowledge” that assumes causality and predictability of the business environment and a “gloomy vision” that assumes the worst of human nature. In effect, theories are built around ideas that managers cannot be trusted and matters of complexity can be managed through mathematical models, setting ethics and morals aside. A great think piece for considering the roles of business schools and professional education!

79: Labor Relations – Jane Addams

We discuss a famous speech by Jane Addams titled, A Modern Lear, her reflections on the events leading to and during the infamous Pullman Railway Strike of 1894. Using ideas drawn from the emergence of classic pragmatism and Shakespeare’s King Lear as an analogy, Addams took both the ownership and workers to task for the violence and provides a way to avoid a recurrence of such a tragedy. What insights are applicable to today’s contemporary situation? Can pragmatism provide a way forward?

71: Managerial Behavior — Melville Dalton

2020 ushered in a full year of major change and renewed a lot of conversations about how we work, live, and cooperate in organizations and societies. In that spirit, we discuss Melville Dalton's classic 1959 book "Men Who Manage: Fusions of Feeling and Theory in Administration." The study provided an intimate look at how men (as these were all men at the time) entered into the managerial culture of a firm, how the separations between managers are workers were structured and maintained, and how managers felt about their standing -- which ranged from secure to tenuous. In Part 1, we focus on the study itself, which is still very relevant not only for understanding what happens within the circle of managers but also how the boundaries can exclude others, particularly along gender lines.

65: Organizational Structure — The Aston School

Derek S. Pugh

With Special Guest Bob Hinings

The Aston Group was based in the United Kingdom and played a major role in the early development of organization theory and management science. Starting in the 1960s, they carried out a program of research that departed from the comparative study of work organizations in the Birmingham area in the UK and contributed landmark works on organizational structure and the development of contingency approach. Derek S. Pugh (pictured, 1930-2015) led the Group that included, among others, Bob Hinings, John Child, Lex Donaldson, David Hickson, Roy Payne, Diana Pheysey, and Charles McMillan. The collective spirit and the participation of scholars from a wide range of disciplines including psychology, sociology, political science, and economics make it reminiscent of the work of another important group, the Carnegie-Mellon School covered in several episodes in the podcast. 

We are therefore honored to welcome one of its members, Bob Hinings, as a special guest to talk about the Aston School, its contributions, and some of the stories behind them. Our conversation centered on the four papers published in Administrative Science Quarterly which revolutionized our understanding of organization structure, organizational forms and bureaucracy as well as expanding the methodological toolkit of organizational and management researchers. Specifically, the first papers proposed a new multidimensional conceptualization of bureaucracy in terms of formal organization structure (1963) and examined the clustering of these dimensions based on work organizations that lead to the now-famous notion of structuration of activities and concentration of authority (1968). Subsequent papers explored how the context impacts organization structure (e.g., size, control, location, dependence on other organizations) evidencing the particular importance of size (1969a). Finally, they brought together these multiple insights into a taxonomy of different structures and forms of bureaucracy (1969b). 

Part 1. Who was the Aston Group and Why Did They Form? 
 
Part 2. The Aston School’s Legacy and How it May View Contemporary Organizations
 
Read With Us:

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Macdonald, K. M., Turner, C., & Lupton, T. (1963). A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis. Administrative science quarterly, 289-315.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative science quarterly, 65-105.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969a). The context of organization structures. Administrative science quarterly, 91-114.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969b). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 115-126.

To Know More:

Donaldson, L., & Luo, B. N. (2014). The Aston Programme contribution to organizational research: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews16(1), 84-104.

Greenwood, R., & Devine, K. (1997). Inside Aston: a conversation with Derek Pugh. Journal of Management Inquiry6(3), 200-208.

Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, R. E. (1974). Structural conditions of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22-44.

Kostera, M. (2020). The Imagined Organization: Spaces, Dreams and Places. Edward Elgar Publishing.

60: Contingency Theory — Joan Woodward

Joan Woodward

Joan Woodward was a pioneer in organization theory, and in this episode we explore her seminal work Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, originally published in 1965. The book presents the results of an extensive longitudinal study of the technologies, processes, and systems used by over one hundred industrial firms concentrated in southeast England over a ten year period. The studies produced a finding that successful firms did not follow a single ‘best way’ to manage the firm, but that each had an optimal way based on the congruence or alignment between the technologies and the processes & systems to manage them. This included differences among firms regarding the dominance of marketing, research and development, and production; variations in status of employees among various roles, and variations in how success is measured. Follow-on studies examined how firms underwent transformational change from one form of industry to another, largely confirming the prior results.

In contrast to prevailing beliefs at the time, Woodward’s book concludes with what is now known as contingency theory, that there is no single perfect way to organize any industrial firm. Instead, the best way is contingent on the internal and external context.

Join us as we discuss this important text that represented one of the largest and most comprehensive look at industry in the mid-20th century. Could such large, complex research projects be done today? Listen to what Tom, Frithjof, Greetje, and Leonardo have to say about it!

Part 1. Not All Industrial Organizations are Alike?
Part 2. The Meaning and Relevance of Contingency Theory
Read With Us:

Woodward, J. (1980). Industrial organization: Theory and practice, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

To Know More:

TAOP Episode 58: Academy of Management Workshop LIVE on the Contingency Approach

TAOP Episode 16: Contingency Theory: Lawrence and Lorsch

58: Contingency Approach – AOM 2019 Workshop LIVE

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!

Full Episode (Postcards and All Speakers):
Introduction by Pedro Monteiro & Greetje Corporaal only:
Presentation by Sarah Kaplan only:
Presentation by Signe Vikkelsø only:
Presentation by Gino Cattani only:

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