Contingency Fit, Institutional Fit, and Firm Performance: A Metafit Approach to Organization-Environment Relationships

In this paper, we attempt to reconcile contingency and institutional fit approaches concerning the organization–environment relationship. Whereas prior scholarly research has examined both theories and compared their impacts on organizational fit and performance, we lay the groundwork for a metafit approach by investigating how contingency and institutional fit interact to influence firm performance. We test our theoretical framework using a data set of 3,259 respondents from 1,904 companies, examining task environmental demands and institutional demands on organizational design across a broad range of industries and firm size classes. Our results show that contingency and institutional fit provide complementary and interdependent explanations of firm performance. Importantly, our findings indicate that for firms under conditions of “quasi fit” rather than perfect contingency fit or optimal institutional fit, improvements in contingency and/or institutional fit will result in better performance. However, firms with high contingency fit are less vulnerable to deviation from institutional fit in the formation of firm performance, whereas firms with perfect institutional fit will slightly decrease their performance when they strive to achieve contingency fit.

[1]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations. , 1995 .

[2]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[3]  James Guthrie,et al.  Strategy, Size and Performance , 1989 .

[4]  M. Ventresca,et al.  How Organizations Change: The Role of Institutional Support Mechanisms in the Incorporation of Higher Education Visibility Strategies, 1874-1995 , 2004 .

[5]  Richard L. Priem.  Executive Judgment, Organizational Congruence, and Firm Performance , 1994 .

[6]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory , 1996 .

[7]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research , 1991 .

[8]  Terry Hill,et al.  Production/Operations Management: Text and Cases , 1991 .

[9]  V. G. Ouchi,et al.  A conceptual framework for the design and organizational control mechanisms , 1979 .

[10]  L vonBertalanffy,et al.  General system theory, a new approach to unity of science. 5. Conclusion. , 1951 .

[11]  Børge Obel,et al.  Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: The Dynamics of Fit , 2003 .

[12]  Daniel A. Levinthal.  Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection-Interrelated Processes of Change , 1991 .

[13]  Bass Re.  General system theory; a new approach to unity of science. 3. Unity of nature. , 1951 .

[14]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field , 2009 .

[15]  C. R. Hinings,et al.  Organizational Diversity and Change in Institutional Theory , 1998 .

[16]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Size (and competition) among organizations: modeling scale‐based selection among automobile producers in four major countries, 1885–1981 , 2003 .

[17]  D. Pugh,et al.  Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal , 1969 .

[18]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[19]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Environment--strategy coalignment: an empirical test of its performance implications , 2011 .

[20]  W. Dill.  Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy , 1958 .

[21]  David L. Deephouse.  To Be Different or to Be the Same? It's a Question (and a Theory) of Strategic Balance , 1998 .

[22]  M. Hitt,et al.  Direct and Moderating Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-Based Perspective , 2001 .

[23]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[24]  J. Benders.  Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive , 1999 .

[25]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  The economic efficiency of corporate culture , 1988 .

[26]  A. Lewin,et al.  Co-evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms: From Evolution to Co-evolution , 2003 .

[27]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[28]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit , 1984 .

[29]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  Charles C. Snow,et al.  Designing Organizations: 21st Century Approaches , 2008 .

[31]  W VolberdaHenk,et al.  Contingency Fit, Institutional Fit, and Firm Performance , 2012 .

[32]  P. Blau.  A FORMAL THEORY OF DIFFERENTIATION IN ORGANIZATIONS , 1970 .

[33]  L. Bourgeois.  Performance and consensus , 1980 .

[34]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[35]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[36]  R. V. Hoek.  Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage , 2000 .

[37]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences , 1993 .

[38]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structuring of Organizations , 1979 .

[39]  Charles Williams,et al.  Comparing Evolutionary and Contingency Theory Approaches to Organizational Structure , 2008 .

[40]  J. Pennings.  Structural Contingency Theory: A Multivariate Test , 1987 .

[41]  Lex Donaldson,et al.  RESOLVING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CONTINGENCY AND INSTITUTIONAL THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN , 2008 .

[42]  M. Dirsmith,et al.  Coordination and Control in a Government Agency: Contingency and Institutional Theory Perspectives on GAO Audits , 1994 .

[43]  William H. Glick,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research , 1985 .

[44]  Marjorie A. Lyles,et al.  Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field , 2009 .

[45]  R. I. Sutton,et al.  Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: a study of drug abuse treatment units. , 1991, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[46]  Charles W. Hofer.  Toward a Contingency Theory of Business Strategy , 1975 .

[47]  R. Burton,et al.  Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design , 1995 .

[48]  B. McNamara,et al.  The institutionalization of the good death. , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[49]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[50]  Henry L. Tosi,et al.  Contingency Theory: Some Suggested Directions , 1984 .

[51]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[52]  Danny Miller,et al.  Strategy, Environment and Performance in Two Technological Contexts: Contingency Theory in Korea , 1996 .

[53]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Special Issue: Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations: Knowledge as a Contingency Variable: Do the Characteristics of Knowledge Predict Organization Structure? , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[54]  S. Briggs,et al.  On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. , 1988 .

[55]  Shahid A. Zia,et al.  Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries & Competitors , 2013 .

[56]  Pamela R. Haunschild,et al.  Modes of Interorganizational Imitation: The Effects of Outcome Salience and Uncertainty , 1997 .

[57]  J. March,et al.  Organizational Learning , 2008 .

[58]  Ed Clark,et al.  Transforming Former State Enterprises in the Czech Republic , 1995 .

[59]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[60]  R. Duncan.  Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty. , 1972 .

[61]  Børge Obel,et al.  Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[62]  Z. Griliches.  HYBRID CORN: AN EXPLORATION IN THE ECONOMIC OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE , 1957 .

[63]  L. James,et al.  rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. , 1993 .

[64]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[65]  E. Trist,et al.  The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments , 1965 .

[66]  L. Zucker.  Institutional Theories of Organization , 1987 .

[67]  D. Hambrick.  Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types. , 1983, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[68]  D. Wicks.  Institutionalized Mindsets of Invulnerability: Differentiated Institutional Fields and the Antecedents of Organizational Crisis , 2001 .

[69]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  A sociological view on why firms differ , 1993 .

[70]  Nicolaj Siggelkow.  Evolution toward Fit , 2002 .

[71]  Simon C. Parker,et al.  A General Framework for Estimating Multidimensional Contingency Fit , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[72]  Michel Lander,et al.  Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis Of Institutional Theories Of Organization , 2009 .

[73]  Allan P. Jones,et al.  Apples and Oranges: An Empirical Comparison of Commonly Used Indices of Interrater Agreement , 1983 .

[74]  Paul Bate,et al.  The Impact of Organizational Culture on Approaches to Organizational Problem-Solving , 1984 .

[75]  Børge Obel,et al.  Erratum: Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[76]  R. Veliyath.  Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering , 1996 .

[77]  L. Zucker.  The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. , 1977 .

[78]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Concept of Fit in Contingency Theory. , 1984 .

[79]  Ilídio Barreto,et al.  To Conform or to Perform? Mimetic Behaviour, Legitimacy-Based Groups and Performance Consequences , 2006 .

[80]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[81]  Olivier Boiral,et al.  ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[82]  A. Lewin,et al.  Prolegomena on Coevolution: a Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms , 1999 .

[83]  R. Greenwood,et al.  Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism , 1996 .

[84]  A. Morrison,et al.  Business-Level Competitive Strategy: A Contingency Link to Internationalization , 1992 .

[85]  L. G. Hrebiniak,et al.  Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism. , 1985 .

[86]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Testing a Model of Organizational Response to Social and Political Issues , 1994 .

[87]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Measuring And Assessing Organizations , 1980 .

[88]  Lex Donaldson,et al.  The Conflict Between Contingency and Institutional Theories of Organizational Design , 2008 .

[89]  M. Lindell,et al.  Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[90]  L. Donaldson.  The Contingency Theory of Organizations , 2001 .

[91]  R. I. Sutton,et al.  Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: a study of drug abuse treatment units. , 1991, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[92]  Matthew S. Kraatz,et al.  Exploring the Limits of the New Institutionalism: The Causes and Consequences of Illegitimate Organizational Change , 1996 .

[93]  John Child,et al.  The performance of cross-border units in China: a test of natural selection, strategic choice and contingency theories , 2003 .

[94]  V. Narayanan,et al.  Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed , 2007 .

[95]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[96]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory , 1967 .

[97]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935 , 1983 .

[98]  V. Zeithaml,et al.  The Contingency Approach: Its Foundations and Relevance to Theory Building and Research in Marketing , 1988 .

[99]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[100]  L. Donaldson.  STRATEGY AND STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT TO REGAIN FIT AND PERFORMANCE: IN DEFENCE OF CONTINGENCY THEORY , 1987 .

[101]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Optimal Structure, Market Dynamism, and the Strategy of Simple Rules , 2009 .

[102]  Matthew S. Kraatz,et al.  Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: a normative approach to strategic change , 2000 .

[103]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[104]  J. March.  Footnotes To Organizational Change , 1980 .

[105]  T. Lupton,et al.  A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis , 1963 .

[106]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. , 1990 .

[107]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Institutional Linkages and Organizational Mortality , 1991 .

[108]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[109]  Joan C. Woodward.  Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[110]  Charles C. Snow,et al.  Designing Organizations: 21st Century Approaches (Information and Organization Design Series) , 2008 .

[111]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Towards The Flexible Form: How To Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments , 1996 .