contingency theory

65: Organizational Structure — The Aston School

June 9, 2020 Pedro Monteiro

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 Reviews, 16(1), 84-104.

Greenwood, R., & Devine, K. (1997). Inside Aston: a conversation with Derek Pugh. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6(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

January 14, 2020 Tom Galvin
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

16: Contingency Theory – Lawrence and Lorsch

August 30, 2016 Dmitrijs Kravcenko

Paul Lawrence (1922-2011) and Jay Lorsch

Paul Lawrence (1922 – 2011) and Jay Lorsch (1932) are/were two scholars associated with the contingency school. Important figures in the field of management and organizational studies, their collaboration produced important works including the award winning book “Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration” and a series of papers which advance an open systems perspective on organizations.
The contingency school postulates that there is not one best way to structure work or an organization. An optimum course of action depends – is contingent – on the external and local conditions in which an organization is inserted. This represents an alternative to most assumptions from scientific management and shifts attention of organization scholars beyond internal dynamics to the external environment of an organization.
In this episode, we read the classic article “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations” published in 1967 in Administrative Science Quarterly, arguably the flagship journal of our discipline. In this work, Lawrence and Lorsch investigate the relation between organizational characteristics and their environment, and stipulate that an organization’s economic performance is determined by its ability to meet integration and differentiation requirements according to their environment.

The paper is based on a comparative study of six industrial organizations and data was obtained via questionnaires and interviews with senior executives. The researchers compare the degree of integration and differentiation between subgroups in each company (i.e., sales, production and research and development subsystems) as they attempt to meet requirements from their sub-environments (i.e., science, market and technical-economic). The paper shows that the most economic successful organizations were the ones that managed to fulfil the dual goal of differentiation and integration. Finally, the authors explore the conditions that lead to more or less effectiveness in integrative devices.

So, how does integration and differentiation happen? And what does it mean to meet requirements from the environment? Join us as we explore these concepts and ideas in Episode 16! 

You may also download the audio files here:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 

Read with us:

Lawrence, P., and Lorsch, J. (1967) Differentiation and Integration in Complex Systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (1), 1-47.

 

5: The Law of the Situation – Mary Parker Follett

January 26, 2016 Dmitrijs Kravcenko

Mary Parker Follett

Mary Parker Follett (September 3, 1868 – December 18, 1933) was an American social worker, management consultant, and philosopher who did trailblazing work in the fields of organizational theory and organizational behavior. This episode is a review of one of Follett’s lectures, The Giving of Orders, contained in a collection of Follett’s lectures and writings that was assembled by Lyndall Urwick at the end of her life in an effort to preserve her ideas for others. Follett believed that exploring “the science of the situation” involved both management and workers studying the situation together. In many ways, Follett was ahead of her time in emphasizing the need for systems thinking (understanding “the whole situation”) and espousing the belief that workers should have a much more prominent role in functions that had traditionally been considered the province of management such as planning and execution of work.

Follett identified the importance of cross-organizational processes within hierarchical organizations, which was an important development supporting matrix-style organizations such as DuPont in the 1920s. She advocated non-coercive power-sharing in the workplace based on the use of her concept of “power with” rather than “power over.” Follett coined the term “win-win” in conflict resolution. She believed organizations would benefit from embracing conflict as a means of achieving diversity and integrated solutions rather than merely compromising.

Follett viewed organizations as networks of groups rather than as hierarchical structures, and paid special attention to the influence of human relations within the group. In the text for the podcast, The Giving of Orders, Follett revealed her pragmatist approach to management through taking a responsible attitude toward experience, depersonalizing orders through identifying and obeying the “law of the situation,” and balancing supervision with worker autonomy.

Follett disagreed with interpretations of scientific management that reduced managers to giving orders and charging workers to comply with those orders. In her view, “the essence of scientific management the attempt to find the law of the situation” (p. 33). A manager’s job was “not how to get people to obey orders, but how to devise methods by which we can best discover the order integral to a particular situation” (p. 33). Follett was an early advocate of systems thinking, advising leaders and works to “study the entire situation.” She believed that “the joint study of the problem [prepares] the attitude for integration” of diverse perspectives on situations encountered. Follett believed that workers were just as capable as managers of determining the law of the situation through the “authority of expertise.” It is the situation that determines what needs to be done, not managers alone because of their positions within the organizational hierarchy.

Join us as we discuss Follett’s alternative take on the scientific management practices discussed in Episodes 1 and 2.

You may also download the audio files here:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Also read an exclusive TAOP essay, “A Letter About Mary Parker Follett,” by Albie Davis.
Read with us:

Follett, Mary Parker. “The giving of orders.” Scientific foundations of business administration (1926), 29-37.  Available through the Mary Parker Follett Network (scroll to page 10 of the hyperlinked document).

To Learn More: 

Davis, A.M. (2015) When Webb met Follett: Negotiation Theory and the Race to the Moon, Negotiation Journal, 31(3), 267-283.