A common critique on contingency theory is that: this theory separates the throughout part of organization participating overall performance, it is independent organizing process. Because this approach encourages managers make the decision and design the structure according to different contingencies. Written by one of the foremost scholars in the field, this volume presents a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the theories, evidence and methodological issues of contingency theory - one of the major theoretical lenses used to view organizations. It includes both an appreciation of the coherency.
![](/uploads/1/2/7/4/127403986/986556118.jpg)
-
Blau, P.M., and Schoenherr, P. A., 1971, The Structure of Organizations, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
-
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M., 1961, The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
-
Chandler, A.D. Jr., 1962, Strategy and Structure: chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
-
Caufield, C.C., 1989, An Integrative Research Review of the Relationship Between Technology and Structure: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa: Iowa City, Iowa.Google Scholar
-
Child, J., 1975, Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance, Part 2: A contingency analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 12: 12–27.Google Scholar
-
DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W., 1983, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields, American Sociological Review, 48:147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W., Introduction. In Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul, eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
-
Donaldson, L., 1987, Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency theory, Journal of Management Studies 24(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
-
Donaldson, L., 1995a (editor) Contingency Theory. Volume 9 in History of Management Thought Series, Dartmouth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
-
Donaldson, L., 1995b American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
-
Donaldson, L., 1996 For Positivist Organization Theory: Proving the Hard Core, Sage, London.Google Scholar
-
Donaldson, L., 2001, The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
-
Eccles, R.G., and Nohria N., 1992, Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
-
Edwards, J.R. and Parry, M.E., 1993, On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research, Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1577–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
Fligstein, N., 1985, The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919–1979,. American Sociological Review, 50: 377–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
Galunic, D.C., and Eisenhardt, K.M., 1994, Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm, in: Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 215–55.Google Scholar
-
Hamilton, R.T., and Shergill, G.S., 1992, The relationship between strategy-structure fit and financial performance in New Zealand: Evidence of generality and validity with enhanced controls. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 95–113.Google Scholar
-
Hunter, J.E., and Schmidt F.L., 2004, Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, Sage.Google Scholar
-
Johns, G., 1981, Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27:443–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
Keller, R.T., 1994, Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory, Academy of Management Journal, 37:167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
Kraatz, M.S., and Zajac E.J., 1992, Invisible Hand or Iron Cage? Market and Institutional Influence on Organizational Change.Google Scholar
-
Meilich, O., 2003, Bivariate models of fit in contingency theory: Critique and a polynomial regression alternative, Paper to Academy of Management, Seattle.Google Scholar
-
Merton, R.K., 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
-
Meyer, J.W., Scott, W.R., Strang, D., and Creighton, A.L., 1988, Bureaucratization without Centralization: Changes in the Organizational System of U.S. Public Education, 1940–80, in: Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Lynne G. Zucker, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
-
Miller, D., 1986, Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. StrategicManagement Journal, 7: 233–49.Google Scholar
-
Mintzberg, H., 1973, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
-
Palmer, I., and Dunford, R., 2002, Out with the old and in with the new? The relationship Between traditional and new organizational practices, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10: 209–225.Google Scholar
-
Parsons, T., 1961, Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations, in: Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Amitai Etzioni, New York, pp. 32–47Google Scholar
-
Pfeffer, J., 1982, Organizations and Organization Theory, Pitman, Marshfield.Google Scholar
-
Priem, R.L., and Rosenstein, J., 2000, Is organization theory obvious to practitioners? A test of one established theory, Organization Science, 11: 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
Rogers, M., 2005, Contingent Corporate Governance: A Challenge to the Theories of Universal Board Structure. PhD Thesis, Australian Graduate School of Management, Universities of New South Wales and Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
-
Scott, W. R., 1995, Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
-
Van de Ven, A.H., and Robert D., 1985, The concept of fit in contingency theory, in: Research in Organizational Behaviour, 7, Edited by B.M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 333–65.Google Scholar
-
Whittington, R., Mayer M., and Curto F., 1999, Chandlerism in post-war Europe: Strategic and structural change in France, Germany and the UK, 1950–1993, Industrial and Corporate Change, 8: 519–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-
Woodward, J., 1965, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
![Elements of contingency theory Elements of contingency theory](/uploads/1/2/7/4/127403986/966216499.jpg)
![](/uploads/1/2/7/4/127403986/986556118.jpg)