Congruence, Contingency, and Theory Building

It is proposed that congruence and contingency are central features of Dubin's conditions for constructing and testing a theoretical model. Placing congruence and contingency research within an accepted framework for scientific inquiry is essential to understanding and predicting organizational phenomena. After reviewing select research, the present authors argue: (a) that congruence is defined by the laws of relationship of a theory's variables, and (b) that contingency is defined by the system states where the integrity of the system is maintained, but in a markedly different condition. Additional conceptual and empirical issues relating to congruence and contingency hypotheses are then discussed.

[1]  David M. Schweiger,et al.  Matching Managers to Strategies: A Review and Suggested Framework , 1984 .

[2]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[3]  L. Vogel,et al.  Strategy and Structure , 1986 .

[4]  H. Ansoff,et al.  From strategic planning to strategic management , 1976 .

[5]  R. Rumelt.  Strategy, structure, and economic performance , 1974 .

[6]  J. Terborg,et al.  Interactional Psychology and Research on Human Behavior in Organizations , 1981 .

[7]  P. Nystrom,et al.  Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization , 1976 .

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

[9]  Igor H.Ansoff.  Strategic Management , 1979 .

[10]  S. Kraemer.  Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Gregory Bateson , 1993, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[11]  R E Miles,et al.  Organizational strategy, structure, and process. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[12]  C. B. Schoonhoven.  Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency "theory.". , 1981, Administrative science quarterly.

[13]  Donald J. Willower,et al.  The Handbook of Organizations , 1967 .

[14]  Joseph L. C. Cheng,et al.  Toward an Integration of Organization Research and Practice: A Contingency Study of Bureaucratic Control and Performance in Scientific Settings. , 1983 .

[15]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Exploring the Concept of “Fit” in Strategic Management , 1984 .

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

[17]  W. Buckley.  Sociology and modern systems theory , 1967 .

[18]  L W Fry,et al.  Technology-structure research: three critical issues. , 1982, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[19]  L. Mealiea,et al.  An Alternative To Macro-Micro Contingency Theories: An Integrative Model , 1979 .

[20]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[21]  J. Hage,et al.  Theories of organizations , 1980 .

[22]  R. Kahn,et al.  The Social Psychology of Organizations , 1966 .

[23]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Person–situation interaction: Competing models of fit. , 1982 .

[24]  Jay R. Galbraith,et al.  Strategy implementation : the role of structure and process , 1978 .

[25]  M. Jelinek.  Technology, Organizations, and Contingency , 1977 .

[26]  John A. Seiler.  Systems analysis in organizational behavior , 1968 .

[27]  Jeffrey L. Kerr,et al.  ASSIGNING MANAGERS ON THE BASIS OF THE LIFE CYCLE , 1982 .

[28]  C. West Churchman,et al.  The Systems Approach , 1979 .

[29]  C. Perrow.  Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View , 1970 .

[30]  Roderick E. White,et al.  Toward a Model of Business Unit Performance: An Integrative Approach , 1981 .

[31]  William G. Egelhoff.  Strategy and Structure in Multinational Corporations: An Information- Processing Approach , 1982 .

[32]  K. Andrews.  The Concept of Corporate Strategy , 1971 .

[33]  G. G. Stanfield.  Technology and Organization Structure as Theoretical Categories , 1976 .

[34]  L. Greiner.  Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow , 1997 .

[35]  J. Werbel,et al.  Universalistic and Contingency Predictions of Employee Satisfaction and Conflict. , 1979 .

[36]  B. Chakravarthy.  Adaptation: A Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management , 1982 .

[37]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model , 1984 .

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

[39]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[40]  J. Toulouse,et al.  Toward a Multilevel Congruence Theory of Organization. , 1977 .

[41]  A. Meyer.  Adapting to environmental jolts. , 1982, Administrative science quarterly.

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