Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
4-1977
Todd I. Stewart
United States Air Force
Luthans, Fred and Stewart, Todd I., "A General Contingency Theory of Management" (1977). Management Department Faculty
Publications. 179.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/179
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Management Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 181-195. Used by permission.
A General Contingency
Theory of Management
FRED LUTHANS
University of Nebraska
TODD I. STEWART
United States Air Force
A major goal of any academic pursuit is the myriad of complementary, but more often con-
development of an overall theory which can flicting assumptions and constructs. About 15
serve as a conceptual framework for understand- years ago Koontz (22) identified six major theo-
ing, research, and application (8). The search for retical approaches to management: process, de-
such a theory in management has resulted in a cision theory, empirical, human behavior, social
system and mathematical. He appropriately la-
belled the existing situation as the "management
Fred Luthans (Ph.D. - University of Iowa) is Professor of
Management at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
theory jungle". Today there are at least four
widely recognized theoretical approaches to
Todd 1. Stewart (M.S. - Southern Methodist University) is an
officer in the United States Air Force and a doctoral candidate
management: process, quantitative, behavioral
at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. and systems.
There has been a proselytic tendency on the
Received 7/26/76; Accepted 9/7/76; Revised 10/15/76. part of theorists identified with the various ap-
181
182
A General Contingency Theory of Management
proaches. Prominent theorists promote their quantitative and behavioral concepts in-
ascribed frameworks as conceptually valid and to an interrelated theoretical system
pragmatically applicable to all organizations in (26).
all situations, criticizing alternative approaches as
2. Functionally incorporate the systems
conceptually weak, myopic in perspective and perspective to organization and man-
inapplicable to practice.
agement, particularly in developing and
During the formative years of the theoretical defining specific functional relationships
development of management, the process ap- between situational factors, manage-
proach dominated (11, 31, 41). But with the ac- ment concepts and applications, and or-
celerating theoretical development, research ganizational performance.
and application of the behavioral and quantita-
tive approaches, the process approach proved to 3. Provide a pragmatic basis for analyzing
be an inadequate theoretical framework. and interpreting the existing body of
In recent years, the systems approach has management knowledge and empirical
emerged as an important conceptual framework research, thereby facilitating under-
which attempts to integrate and redirect some standing, prediction and control (8).
divergent theoretical management constructs. 4. Provide a framework for systematic and
Systems concepts such as the environmental su- coordinated direction of new research
prasystem, the interrelated nature of constituent on the complex functional relationships
organizational subsystems, and system boundary between management and situational
permeability which lead to the concepts of variables.
"closed" and "open" systems have been particu- 5. Establish a mechanism for effectively
larly useful in integrating process, quantitative translating theoretical constructs and the
and behavioral constructs (21, 40).
results of empirical research into man-
The systems approach will undoubtedly con- agement information and application
tinue to have a significant integrating effect, but techniques that are relevant and useful
it is not pragmatic enough to serve as a theoreti- to the practitioner.
cal framework for the understanding, research,
and practice of management (20). At the same This article proposes that a General Contingency
time there is a growing awareness that the proc- Theory (GCT) can best meet these important
ess, quantitative and behavioral advocates have goals for the field of management.
been unable to substantiate their respective
claims for universality. Although each construct Toward a General Contingency Theory
from the various approaches to management has
The Situational Approach
been effective in particular situations (12, 24, 36,
38), quantitative advocates have had consider- A situational perspective has been receiving
increased attention. Partly the result of open sys-
able difficulty accommodating behavioral factors,
and behavioral theorists have been only mar- tems thinking and probably more a direct result
of the growing skepticism surrounding the uni-
ginally successful in solving management prob-
lems more adaptable to quantitative approaches. versality assumption of other management ap-
There is need for a new theoretical frame-
proaches, the situational approach argues that
the most effective management concept or tech-
work for management - not just another ap-
nique depends on the set of circumstances at a
proach but one that can achieve the following
particular point in time (3, 7, 26, 30).
goals:
Child (5) relates the situational approach to
1. Integrate and synthesize diverse process, open systems thinking and the universalist ap-
Academy of Management Review - April 1977 183
proach to closed system thinking. There is a con- 2. Leadership and Behavioral Applications.
ceptual dichotomy between situational and uni- Fiedler's (12) model demonstrated a con-
versalist approaches. Although the universalist/ tingent relationship between environ-
closed-system constructs ignore potentially sig- mental variables, leadership style, and
nificant, but complicating, situational variables, effectiveness. Other recent behaviorally
they are easier to apply in practice. The situation- oriented applications include models of
al approach takes a more conceptually realistic, job design (15) and behavioral change
but complex, open systems perspective, making (27).
practical application much more difficult. In
3. Quantitative Applications. Although
other words, the situational approach achieves
specific applications are not yet devel-
greater conceptual validity at the expense of
oped, increasing attention is given to sit-
practical applicability. uational considerations. Groff and Muth
One way of resolving the dichotomy sug- note that:
gested by Child is to propose a synthesis of the
two extremes. The goal would be to modify the the capabilities developed within the
operations area should match the re-
situational approach in such a way as to maintain
quirements of the firm. These require-
theoretical (open systems) validity, but, at the ments are determined primarily by the
same time, improve its potential as a framework characteristics of the environment in
for practical application. A contingency ap- which the firm operates (13, p. 4).
proach seems best able to accomplish this goal.
Miller and Starr (29) developed specific
The Contingency Approach contingency relationships between var-
ious situations and quantitative deci-
The contingency approach is generically sit- sion-making techniques that lead to ef-
uational in orientation, but much more exacting fective performance.
and rigorous. As used in this discussion, the con-
tingency approach is defined as identifying and The contingency approach has also played
developing functional relationships between en- an important part in classification taxonomies
vironmental, management and performance var- for organizational systems. With the recent em-
iables. There have been diverse contingency ap- phasis on open-systems models, many of these
plications. Some of the more widely recognized classification frameworks are based directly or
include the following: indirectly on the nature of the organization's en-
vironmental suprasystem. Particular attention is
1. Organization Design. Woodward's (42) devoted to the manner in which the organiza-
classic study of British companies dem- tion interacts with its environment. Katz and
onstrated contingent relationships be- Kahn (21), Burns and Stalker (2), Thompson (40),
tween environmental variables (technol- Terryberry (39), Perrow (34) and Etzioni (10) of-
ogy), management variables (organiza- fer organizational typologies that are environ-
tion structure), and performance. Prob- mentally based. In general, these taxonomies
ably the most widely recognized work were developed through a deductive method-
has come from Lawrence and Lorsch (24). ology. In contrast, Haas, et al. (14), Pugh, et al.
Chandler (4) found a contingent rela- (35), McKelvey (28) and others have taken an
tionship between environment, struc- inductive approach. They propose taxonomies
ture/strategy, and performance. There is developed empirically through multivariate
also more recent work on contingency analysis. McKelvey concludes:
approaches to organization design (17, The recent flourishing of contingency ap-
38, 40). proaches ... is in fact a grassroots response to
184 A General Contingency Theory of Management
the absence of useful classifications . . . Or- or positive control of the organization's resource
ganization and management researchers need managers (6). Thompson (40) and others have
contingency theories because there is no tax- emphasized that an organization can affect the
onomy to make it clear that one does not, for
example, and only for example, apply findings
environment in which it operates. In the context
from small British candy manufacturers to of this discussion, such influences are indirect
large French universities (28, p. 523). results of the manager operating more directly
on organizational resources to produce some
desired change in the system. As the organiza-
A Contingency Model
tion and its management gain more direct con-
of the Organization
trol over a segment of its environment, this seg-
ment is effectively annexed into the organiza-
The formulation of a General Contingency
tional system as its boundaries are expanded. As
Theory of Management must start with a sound
environmental variables are not subject to the
construct of the organization system. Drawing
direct control of management, they must be
on the work of Katz and Kahn (21), Thompson
(40), Churchman (6), Shetty and Carlisle (38),
considered as "givens" or independent varia-
bles in the contingency framework.
Lorsch and Morse (25), and Kast and Rosen-
A distinction is made between external and
zweig (20), an organization can be defined as a internal environmental factors. External envi-
social system consisting of subsystems of re-
ronmental variables, such as federal legislation,
source variables interrelated by various manage-
are considered to be outside the organizational
ment policies, practices and techniques which
interact with variables in the environmental su- system. Internal environmental variables are also
beyond the direct control of the manager in
prasystem to achieve a set of goals or objectives.
question, but are within the control of the for-
The goals and objectives are defined by constit-
mal organizational system. For example, the en-
uents of the social system in terms of relevant
environmental and resource constraints. This vironment for a middle manager is not only af-
fected by those factors external to the organiza-
definition emphasizes several important con-
tion but, probably more important, by the in-
structs relevant to development of a comprehen-
ternal environment (e.g., top management pol-
sive contingency theory of management.
icy) over which he or she has no control.
First, the systems paradigm is viewed as con-
Another important refinement is to distin-
ceptually viable. A systems perspective is needed
guish between specific and general variables.
to emphasize the organization's inherent inter-
action with its external environment and, in- Specific environmental variables affect the or-
ganization directly and significantly, while gen-
ternally, the organization is comprised of inter-
eral environmental variables have only an indi-
related subsystems. Second is identification of
rect influence on the organization and provide a
relevant system variables, which can be placed
context for the more directly relevant specific
into a taxonomical hierarchy of primary, second-
factors. A synthesis of the classification schemes
ary and tertiary levels.
offered by Duncan (9), Hall (16), Kast and Ro-
senzweig (20) and Negandhi (32) suggests the
The Primary System Variables
following representative general environmental
The primary variables are the elemental variables: cultural, social, technological, educa-
"building blocks" of the organization. Specifi- tional, legal, political, economic, ecological and
cally, the primary system includes environmen- demographic. Representative specific environ-
tal, resource and management variables. mental variables would include customers/cli-
Environmental Variables - These factors af- ents, suppliers (including labor), competitors,
fect the organization, but are beyond the direct technology and socio-political factors.
Academy of Management Review - April 1977 185
Resource Variables - These are tangible ments as raw materials, plant, equipment, capital
and intangible factors over which management and product or service. Since the set of resource
has more direct control and on which it operates variables on which the manager operates is a
to produce desired changes in the organiza- "given" at any particular point in time, they too,
tional system or its environmental suprasystem like environmental variables, are treated as inde-
(6). Clearly particular variables may transfer be- pendent variables in the contingency function.
tween environmental and resource states (with Management Variables - A manager is de-
reference to a specific manager or group of man- fined as any individual within the organization
agers), as management gains or loses direct con- system having formal authority to make decisions
trol over such factors. For example, if an organ- affecting the allocation or utilization of available
ization depends on the independent commercial resources. Management variables are those con-
trucking industry for delivery of supplies and cepts and techniques expressed in policies, prac-
distribution of products, its means of transpor- tices and procedures used by the manager to
tation is effectively an environmental variable. operate on available resource variables in de-
Should this same organization acquire its own fining and accomplishing system objectives.
trucks and drivers to gain control of this trans- Recognizing the eclectic nature of the contin-
portation variable (i.e. expansion of the organi- gency construct, process, quantitative and be-
zation's system boundaries), the transportation havioral concepts are all represented as man-
factor is now a resource variable. agement variables. On a more micro perspective,
Many system variables simultaneously ex- process variables include planning/goal-setting,
hibit both environmental and resource charac- organizing, communicating and controlling. Be-
teristics. Extending the transportation example, havioral variables can be further classified into
even though an organization may own its own individual (motivational techniques, reward sys-
trucks and employ its own drivers, these drivers, tems, etc.) and group/inter-group (organization
while employees of the organization (and there- development techniques, leadership styles, etc.).
fore resource variables), are also likely to be Quantitative variables can be classified into
members of the Teamsters Union and not sub- areas such as decision-making models and infor-
ject to the total control of management. The ex- mation/data management.
tent to which management's influence over Relationship Between the Primary Variables
these operators is limited is a measure of the en-
- Relationships between the primary system
vironmental quality of this system variable. A variables are illustrated in the Venn diagram of
particular system variable can be a resource var- Figure 1. This figure illustrates the role that man-
iable to one manager and an environmental var- agement plays in coordinating interaction of the
iable to another manager in the same organiza- resource subsystem and environmental supra-
tion. In the final analysis, the manager is also (at system. Specifically, it illustrates the concept
least partially) a resource to superiors and a criti- proposed by Thompson (40) in which the man-
cal factor in the environment of subordinates. agement subsystem serves as a "buffer" between
Resource variables can be classified as hu- the uncertain environment (i.e., the set of sto-
man and non-human. Human resource variables chastic environmental variables) and what he
include both demographic characteristics such called the organization's "core technology".
as number, skills, knowledge, size, race and age,
and behavioral characteristics including individ- The Secondary System Variables
ual and social behavior and such attendent con-
cepts as needs, attitudes, values, perceptions, Figure 1 also illustrates the secondary sys-
expectations, goals, group dynamics and conflict. tem variables, which result from interaction of
Non-human resource variables include such ele- subsets of the primary variables. As shown, there
186
A General Contingency Theory of Management
\Nlk **a
Ema
SITUATION (E x R)
ORGANIZATION (M x R) SECONDARY
Em~z
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA (M x E)
are three important secondary system variables: tem with which the manager must interact and
situation, organization and performance criteria. operate.
Situation Variables - The set of variables Organizational Variables - The intersection
defined by the interaction of environmental (E)of managerial (M) and resource (R) variable sets
and resource (R) variables are called situational results in a secondary subsystem variable set de-
variables in the secondary subsystem. This set fined as operational organizational variables.
describes the given state of the organization sys- This set presents a relatively closed-system de-
Academy of Management Review - April 1977 187
From the contingency model of the organi- 7. P ij= f(S i x Mj) s.t. P ij .GE. P* ij
zation, it is apparent that system performance is
Further, by similarly indexing specific perform-
a function of the interaction of subsystem vari- ance criteria as:
able sets. This suggests that a GCT function will
be of the following general form: 8. PCk k= 1,2,...,n
PCk
.0 0 ,Mj
MANAGEMENT VARIABLES
i SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
theoretical approach to management. First, the which secondary or indirect research can be
Mj axis includes management concepts and ap- conducted. For example, by holding Mj and
plication techniques from the process,quantita- PCk variables constant and varying Si, func-
tive and behavioral schools. These concepts are tional relationships could be developed relating
systematically integrated by their functional in- a given management concept or technique at a
teraction with specific situational and perform- given performance level across a range of situa-
ance criteria variables, as well as to the resultant tions. Only after a particular management vari-
level of system performance or output. Secondly, able M has been systematically and empirically
the GCT matrix, derived directly from a systems- validated across a wide range of situations Si
based model of the organization, incorporates could a practical claim for universality be justi-
both environmental and resource factors as con- fied. In this way, research progress could be
stituent elements of these situational variables. made in an orderly, systematic manner, thereby
The matrix framework functionally relates these building an integrated, valid general theory of
independent situational variables to manage- management.
ment concepts, performance criteria and system Implications for Management Practice -
performance. Thus the matrix also satisfies the Perhaps the acid test of the GCT matrix is its po-
third definitive objective, providing a pragmatic tential for translating theoretical constructs and
basis for organizing, analyzing and interpreting associated empirical research data into manage-
the existing body of management knowledge. ment information and application techniques
Implications for Research - The GCT matrix that are relevant to the practitioner. The key to
can also provide an integrating framework for facilitating this application is development of an
existing research findings and serve as a guide operational matrix, i.e. a data base of contingen-
for future research. Churchman notes that: cy functions organized in the format of the GCT
... so much social research is conducted in a matrix framework. Development of an opera-
fragmented way in which enormous amounts tional GCT data base in turn depends on availa-
of data are collected, correlated and filed bility of the data reduction instruments neces-
away in reports that at best have a mild inter- sary to translate the existing body of manage-
est to the reader, and at worst are totally ir- ment research into functional contingency rela-
relevant for decision-making purposes (6, p.
102).
tionships. To be of value to the practitioner,
these data reduction instruments, or a comple-
The empty cells of the matrix indicate specif- mentary set of diagnostic instruments, must also
ic combinations of situational, management and be effective in analyzing, measuring and defin-
performance criteria variables for which a func- ing the current state of system variables in opera-
tional relationship to system performance has tional organizations. In addition, storing and
yet to be defined. The framework can also be manipulating the vast amount and wide variety
used to identify contingency functions that re- of data implied in an operational GCT data base
quire validation by rigorous, empirically-based matrix requires efficient and effective auto-
research methodologies. For example, functions mated data processing hardware and software.
that have been derived deductively from case For example, a GCT matrix dimensioned at only
studies are candidates for validation through 100 discrete states on each axis generates an ar-
replication in controlled laboratory or field ex- ray of one million cells or system state combina-
periments. tions. Consequently, the development of a real-
Finally, the framework can serve as an im- istic GCT data base depends in part on availa-
portant vehicle for inductively or deductively bility of adequate computer support.
generating hypotheses for testing and validation. These problems represent formidable bar-
The framework itself provides a data base upon riers to application of the GCT approach to man-
191
Academy of Management Review - April 1977
b. Identify those system performance cri- c. Determine if the results of the interven-
teria (PCk) for which P ijk is less than tion are consistent with the results pre-
P* ijk dicted by the data base.
192
A General Contingency Theory of Management
d. Update the data base to reflect the re- variable value in its steady-state mode, and also
sults of the intervention (to insure the such critical parameters as state stability/state dy-
continuing accuracy and validity of the namics and the relative deterministic/stochastic
data base). nature of the variable state value.
Instruments and techniques must be devel-
The steps of this algorithm are illustrated in the
oped to apply these system variable state taxon-
schematic of Figure 4.
omies to source data. Essentially, this problem
A specific example is described in the finite
breaks down into two specific applications. First,
conceptual matrix of Figure 5. Assume that the
data reduction instruments must be devised to
Step 1 diagnosis reveals that the organization is
translate the research data currently reported in
currently in the state represented by (S 4 x M 1).
the management literature into appropriate tax-
Step 1 would also identify unsatisfactory per- onomical dimensions included in the GCT ma-
formance against, for example, criteria C3 (i.e.
trix data base. Secondly, a similar set of instru-
P4, 1, 3 is less than P* 4, 1, 3). In a systematic
ments and techniques is required to support the
search of the matrix, (S 4 x M 2) and (at least) (S 2
contingency audit of an operational organiza-
x M 4) result in performance levels that exceed
tion. Such diagnostic tools provide the neces-
the associated P* ijk. However, adopting a change
sary operational link between the data base of
strategy that results in system state (S 4 x M2)
empirically-expressed management contingency
suggests that performance will become unsatis-
functions and the complex problematic realities
factory as measured against criteria PC1 and
confronting the practicing manager.
PC4. In contrast, system states (S4 x M3) and
A second fundamental problem attendant
(S2 x M4) both satisfy all performance objec-
to development of an operational GCT matrix is
tives. Based on this determination, the system
expression of the contingency functions them-
manager selects the most potentially effective
selves, i.e. the lawful relationships between the
intervention strategy, i.e., to change the manage-
various system variable state values. Like the state
ment variable from M 1 to M 3 in situation state
variables which constitute the other necessary
S4, or to change both management and situa-
component element of a true theory, these re-
tional (resource) variables from (S4 x M ) to
lationships must be operationally defined. Any
(S2 x M 4). The actual choice of intervention
scheme for expressing these functions must ef-
would depend on the decision criteria employed
fectively accommodate the range in types of in-
by the manager.
teractions reported in the management research
literature.
Operationalizing the GCT Framework
Dubin (8) recognizes a relative hierarchy of
A number of complex developmental prob- three general forms of interaction expressions.
lems must be resolved if the GCT matrix con- Categoric laws of interaction indicate that the
struct is to be effectively operationalized and value of one system variable is associated with
extended beyond the state of intellectual exer- the value of another. Sequential laws of interac-
cise. First, an operational taxonomy must be de- tion express time ordered relationships between
veloped that effectively defines and measures the values of two or more system variables. Se-
the state of each primary and secondary system quential laws are commonly used to suggest cau-
variable. Such a taxonomy must be comprehen- sal relationships between various system variable
sive enough to handle the highest order of op- states. A deterministic law of interaction is one
erational measures (nominal, ordinal, interval that associates specific deterministic values of
and ratio scales) that can be validly applied to a one system variable with deterministic values of
particular system variable state. Ideally, these another. GCT contingency functions may be
variable taxonomies must describe both a system categoric, sequential or deterministic.
Academy of Management Review - April 1977 193
PCk
D S LT MjkS2
S4
Si
FIGURE 5. An ofExample
a Finil te Contingency Matrix.
signed to identify and discuss specific problems, ment research and development. As the rate of
assumptions and decision processes attendant change and the associated degree of complexity
to development of operational system variable continues to accelerate, the influence of envi-
taxonomies, data reduction and contingency ronmental variables will be increasingly signifi-
audit instruments, operational measures of con- cant to effective management. This increasing
tingency functions, and a computer code for environmental impact should make a contingen-
feasibility testing. cy approach to management more important in
the future. However, if the contingency ap-
proach is to realize its potential as an effective
Conclusions and Implications
for the Future construct for maintaining and improving man-
agerial effectiveness in a hyperdynamic environ-
ment, its development must proceed in a system-
In spite of the significant practical problems atic, unified and directed manner. The General
to be resolved, GCT offers the theorist, research- Contingency Theory of Management is offered
er and practitioner a real and potential frame- as a conceptually-pragmatic, research-based
work for integrating existing contingency ap- framework with considerable potential for im-
proaches and for orchestrating future manage- pact on the future course of management.
REFERENCES
- The Universals vs. The It-All-Depends," Organiza- 16. Hall, R. H. Organizations: Structure and Process (Engle-
tional Dynamics (Summer 1974), 2-18. wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972).
6. Churchman, C. W. The Systems Approach (New York: 17. Hellriegel, D., and J. W. Slocum, Jr. "Organization De-
Delta, 1968). sign: A Contingency Approach," Business Horizons
7. Dessler, G. Organization and Management: A Contin- (April 1973), 59-68.
gency Approach (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 18. Hofer, C. W. "Toward A Contingency Theory of Business
1976). Strategy," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18
8. Dubin, R. Theory Building (New York: The Free Press, (December 1975), 784-810.
1969). 19. Hunt, J. G., et al. "Upper Level Technical Orientation
9. Duncan, R. B. "Characteristics of Organizational Envi- and First Level Leadership Within a Noncontingency and
ronment and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty," Contingency Framework," Academy of Management
Administrative Science Quarterly (September 1972), 313- Journal (September 1975), 476-488.
327. 20. Kast, F. E., and J. E. Rosenzweig. Organization and Man-
10. Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organi- agement: A Systems Approach (New York: McGraw-
zations (New York: The Free Press, 1961). Hill, 1974).
11. Fayol, H. General and Industrial Management (London: 21. Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organ-
Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1949). izations (New York: Wiley, 1966).
Academy of Management Review - April 1977 195
22. Koontz, H. "The Management Theory jungle," Academy 33. Pennings, J. M. "The Relevance of the Structural Contin-
of Management Journal (December 1961), 174-188. gency Model of Organizational Effectiveness," Adminis-
23. Korman, A. K., and R. Tanofsky. "Statistical Problems of trative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20 (September 1975), 393-
Contingent Models in Organization Behavior," Academy 410.
of Management Journal, Vol. 18 (June 1975), 393-397. 34. Perrow, C. "The Short and Glorious History of Organiza-
24. Lawrence, P. R., and J. W. Lorsch. Organization and Envi- tional Theory," Organizational Dynamics (Summer 1973),
ronment: Managing Differentiation and Integration 3-14.
(Boston: Harvard, 1967). 35. Pugh, D. S., et al. "An Empirical Taxonomy of Structures
25. Lorsch, J. W., and J. J. Morse. Organizations and Their of Work Organizations," Administrative Science Quar-
Members: A Contingency Approach (New York: Harper terly (March 1969), 115-126.
& Row, 1974). 36. Reif, W. E., and F. Luthans. "Does Job Enrichment Really
26. Luthans, F. Introduction to Management: A Contingency Pay Off?" California Management Review (Fall 1972), 30-
Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976). 37.
27. Luthans, F., and R. Kreitner. Organizational Behavior 37. Shetty, Y. K. "Is There a Best Way to Organize a Business
Modification (Glenview, II.: Scott, Foresman, 1975). Enterprise?" S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal
28. McKelvey, B. "Guidelines for Empirical Classification of (April 1973), 47-52.
Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly (De- 38. Shetty, Y. K., and H. M. Carlisle. "A Contingency Model
cember 1975), 509-525. of Organizational Design," California Management Re-
29. Miller, W. M., and M. K. Starr. Executive Decisions and view, Vol. 15 (Fall 1972), 38-45.
Operations Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- 39. Terryberry, S. "The Evolution of Organizational Environ-
Hall, 1970). ments," Administrative Science Quarterly (March 1968),
30. Mockler, R. J. "Situational Theory of Management," Har- 590-613.
vard Business Review (May-June 1971), 146-154. 40. Thompson, I. D. Organizations in Action (New York:
31. Mooney, J. D., and A. C. Reiley. Onward Industry! (New McGraw-Hill, 1967).
York: Harper & Brothers, 1931). 41. Urwick, L. The Elements of Administration (New York:
32. Negandhi, A. R. "Comparative Management and Organ- Harper & Brothers, 1943).
ization Theory: A Marriage Needed," Academy of Man- 42. Woodward, J. Industrial Organization: Theory and Prac-
agement Journal (June 1975), 334-344. tice (Oxford University Press, 1965).