Comparing multi-dimensional contingency fit to financial performance of organizations

In theory, it is widely accepted that an organization's optimal structure is contingent upon various situational factors such as market conditions, nature of work and properties of technology. In practice, providing practical advice based on this understanding has been difficult. This paper demonstrates that it is possible to find a correlation between financial performance, as measured by growth in Return on Assets, and degree of compliance with the recommendations of the contingency theory model known as Interaction Value Analysis (IVA). IVA is based on an abstract theoretical representation of organizational work as a series of value-adding interactions among rational value-maximizing agents. Six different dimensions of an organization's situation are represented as parameters of the equation that sums up the value added by all interactions within the organization. This "Multi-dimensional" approach is contrasted with the "Multi-contingency" model, which aggregates the effects of multiple contingent-design rules without considering how the rules overlap or otherwise influence one another. The success of the six-parameter IVA model in partially predicting financial performance is an inducement to expand IVA to include more of the parameters included in the Multi-contingency model.

[1]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship , 1996 .

[2]  Walid F. Nasrallah.  When does management matter in a dog-eat-dog world: An “Interaction Value Analysis” model of organizational climate , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[3]  R. Burton,et al.  A Computer Simulation Test of the M-Form Hypothesis , 1980 .

[4]  K. Weick.  Making Sense of the Organization , 2000 .

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

[6]  M. Mazumdar,et al.  Avoiding Complexity Catastrophe in Coevolutionary Pockets: Strategies for Rugged Landscapes , 1999 .

[7]  Peter W. Glynn,et al.  Interaction Value Analysis: When Structured Communication Benefits Organizations , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[8]  E. O'Connor,et al.  Gaining Advanced Manufacturing Technologies' Benefits: The Roles of Organization Design and Culture , 1992 .

[9]  Donna B. Stoddard,et al.  Reengineering the Organization , 1995 .

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

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

[12]  Henry Mintzberg.  Mintzberg on management : inside our strange world of organizations , 1989 .

[13]  O. Williamson.  Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations , 1979, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[14]  Oliver Hart,et al.  Firms, contracts, and financial structure , 1995 .

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

[16]  Ian M. Mitchell,et al.  Strategic Organization Design: Concepts, Tools & Processes , 1990 .

[17]  W. H. Davidow,et al.  The Virtual Corporation: Structuring and Revitalizing the Corporation for the 21st Century , 1992 .

[18]  Shoshana Zuboff,et al.  In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power , 1989 .

[19]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Communities of practice: Performance and evolution , 1994, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[20]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

[21]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[22]  R. Coase,et al.  The Firm, the Market, and the Law , 1990 .

[23]  Massimo Scanziani,et al.  Competing on the edge , 2002, Trends in Neurosciences.

[24]  Yan Jin,et al.  Simulating Project Work Processes and Organizations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design , 1999 .

[25]  W. Richard Scott.  Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems , 1981 .

[26]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[27]  E. Schein.  Organizational Culture and Leadership , 1991 .

[28]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Models for network evolution , 1996 .

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

[30]  A. CooperRick,et al.  The Year-End Effect in Junk Bond Prices , 1994 .