Background
Classical management sought one best set of principles, and human relations theory stressed human factors. With the open-system view of systems theory in the 1960s, organizations came to be seen as adapting to their environments, giving rise to contingency theory's "it depends".
Key studies
- Burns and Stalker (1961): stable environments suit mechanistic organizations with clear rules and hierarchy; fast-changing ones suit organic organizations with lateral communication and flexible roles.
- Woodward (1965): among British manufacturers, successful structures differed by unit, mass or continuous-process technology.
- Lawrence and Lorsch (1967): more uncertain environments require greater differentiation among departments and stronger integration.
- Thompson (1967): coordination depends on technology and pooled, sequential or reciprocal interdependence.
Leadership
Fiedler's contingency model holds that task- or relationship-oriented leaders succeed depending on leader-member relations, task structure and position power; Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership follows the same logic (see leadership theory).
Evaluation
It offers realistic guidance and spurred empirical research, but contingencies and "fit" are loosely defined, and the theory treats organizations as passively adapting, underplaying managers' strategic choice (Child, 1972).
References
- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock.
- Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.
- Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School.
- Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
- Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage.