1

Introduction

It is amazing how today, in a few hours becomes obsolete or

if one can be so generous, it is yesterday. Technology and the

consequent globalization are pushing some us to be aliens in our

land and clime and changes are so fast, at the speed of light

that it becomes weary to catch up. Education has not helped

either; we have now savvy workforce and fastidious consumers

living in a turbulent environment. Things are no more same, no

one can accurately predict what is going to happen in the next

minute no matter how statistically competent and the possession

of esoteric knowledge of economics and political maneuver.

Organizations are open system, they affect their environments and

they are duly affected by the environment. Chief executives and

corporate decision makers are always on their feet to keep their

organizations alive in a changing environment. Was it not the

American foremost economist, Milton Friedman, chief speaker for

the classical view of social reasonability who said that the

sole purpose of corporation was to make profit while the

socioeconomic view opposed him that corporation should go beyond

2

making profit and care for other stakeholders outside the

corporation, a twist in ethics (Robins & Coulter, 2009).

Serena (2011) suggests that previous theories such as

Weber’s bureaucracy and Taylor’s scientific management had failed

because they neglected that management style and organizational

structure were influenced by various aspects of the environment:

the contingency factors. There could not be "one best way" for

leadership or organizational operation. Common to all contingency

approaches is the proposition that performance is a consequence

of the fit between several factors: structure, people,

technology, strategy, and culture. This is the rationale behind

the organizational reframing plan for my department and the aim

is to emphasize the applicability of Structural contingency

theory in organizational life utilizing the action research

process.

Statement of the Problem

Failed organizations are those without a fair degree of

differentiation (different parts of the Organization cannot

respond in a different manner) to deal with an uncertain and

changing environment. The implication of this is that the

3

strategy, management style from the top, the size and the

technological architecture of the organization should be in

tandem with the environmental forces. If the environment is

stable or the market situation does not show a highly

differentiated or complexity, the organizational internal

arrangement does not need to show a high strata of

differentiation via human capital, units, departments or teams.

Angel (n.d.) states that an organization overhauls its operations

to attain goals and deal with their environments and markets,

with the realization that there is no one best way to do so. It

is through working through teams and incorporating multiple

disciplines is a sure way to raise fresh knowledge and achieve

adaptability, compliance, and results. Organizations work to

attain goals and deal with their environments and markets, with

the realization that there is no one best way to do so. Working

through teams and incorporating multiple disciplines is a most to

raise fresh knowledge and achieve adaptability, compliance, and

results.

Serena writing on adaptability and structure, drawing from

Burns states that mechanistic organization corresponds with the

4

classical model and is adapted to stable environments while

organic organization with flexible structured and formal

organization type is more suited to turbulent environments. She

also discusses the following:

Technology and Structure

Serena harps on the work of Joan Woodward and her colleagues to

examine the relationship between technological processes and

organizational structure and found that the more complex the

technology, the greater the numbers of managers and managerial

levels the span of management of first line managers varies

depending on the type of production technology utilized and the

greater the technological complexity of the organization the

larger the number of clerical and administrative staff.

 Size and Structure

She relied on the work of Child who found that, in looking at

large organizations, those that are more bureaucratic had better

financial performance than those that were less bureaucratic. the

overall size of the organization and of its subunits affect

structure larger organizations tend to favor more standardized

activities while decentralization occurs with increase in size

5

and the larger the organization the more bureaucratic it is

likely to become.

 

Fig. 1. Serena (2001)

Literature Review: Outcome of Initial Research as the Rationale

Structural contingency theory (SCT).

From assignment M3: A1, Iwuanyanwu (2013), for a small business,

contingency plans are an essential part of making sure the

business continues to operate efficiently when faced with

6

challenges and difficulties. Specifically, contingency theories

in business often deal with staffing and structural efficiency

and management. When set in motion, contingency plans can change

the landscape of the business temporarily or permanently.

According to Long (2013), the word contingency refers to

having a backup plan in place, often referred to as a “Plan B".

Structural contingency theory suggests that companies have a plan

in place to guide organizational change when necessary.

Structural contingency theory points out that organizational

structure must be adaptable to each business and that each

business must make moves to ensure they are operating within the

most efficient structure to support the business. A variety of

factors, referred to as contingency factors, influence structural

contingency decisions and plans. Contingency theory is guided by

the general orienting hypothesis that organizations whose

internal features best match the demands of their environments

will achieve the best adaptation. Structural contingency theory

was coined by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) who argued that the

amount of uncertainty and rate of change in an environment

impacts the development of internal features in organizations.

7

Business Mate (2013) states that contingency theory is a

behavioral theory that claims that there is no single best way to

design organizational structures, which is likened to situational

leadership in which the style of leadership depends on the

situation on ground. It states that the best way to organize a

company is, however, contingent upon the internal and external

situations of the company.

Contingency approach to organizational design, the authors

continues tailors the design of the organization to the sources

of environmental uncertainties faced by the organization. The

point here is to design an organizational structure that can

handle uncertainties in the environment effectively and

efficiently. Jones (2010) defines organizational structure as the

formal system of task and authority relationships that control

how people coordinate their actions and use of resources to

achieve organizational goals, and contingency as event that might

occur and must be planed for. Some important contingencies for

organizations are:

Technology

Suppliers and distributors

8

Consumer interest groups

Customers and competitors

Government

Unions

Economic situations

According to Jones, the principal purpose of organizational

structure is one of control: to control the way people coordinate

their actions to achieve the mandates of organization and to

control the means used to motivate people to achieve these goals.

Organizational structure can give rise to bureaucratic,

centralized, decentralized or entrepreneurial settings and this

will surely have a great impact on how organization responds to

internal and external environments. In essence, creativity and

innovation are important aspects of the structural contingency

theory

Soylu (2008) states that SCT lays emphasis on the structural

fit of organizations with the environment and which fit produces

contingencies that lead to a fit between the organization and the

environment, and these contingency factors could be strategy,

size, task uncertainty and technology. The contingency factors in

9

turn dictate the type of organizational structure that could

produce a superior performance for the organization. When there

is misfit between the contingency variable and the structure of

the organization, there is usually lower organizational

performance. If there happens to be a change in the contingency

factors, the structure will be out of alignment and the

organization will need to go some structural changes to regain

the fit between the contingency variables and the structure. The

swinging pendulum from misfit to fit is said to be adaptive

change and this is the essence of contingency theory. It is worth

mentioning that these contingency variables are driven by

government institutions, industry, competitors, economic,

political and social outside the control of the organizations

Donaldson (1996) opines that the only condition for

organizations to be effective is only and only if they tailor

their structures to fit the contingency variables and the

environment. Structural contingency theory is synonymous with

organizational change and changes can only come to organization

when such organization is ready to learn. When organization

refuses to see the misfit between structure and the contingency

10

variable and the environment, it will die because it is not

learning. Change comes through innovation and creativity, and all

these are products of organizational learning. A learning

organization scans the environment at all times and it is through

this type of learning that an organization can see misfit between

structure and

Implementation of the Department Plan using Action Research Plan

and Issues

Action Research

Kolk (2013) states that the term “action research” was

coined by Kurt Lewin in 1944 to describe a process of

investigation and inquiry that occurs as action is taken to solve

a problem. Today we use the term to describe a practice of

reflective inquiry undertaken with the goal of improving

understanding and practice. You might consider “action” to refer

to the change you are trying to implement and “research” to refer

to your improved understanding of the learning environment.

Action research is a systematic approach to investigation that

helps people to find solutions to problematic situations they

face in their everyday lives. Unlike the traditional scientific

11

research that looks for generalizable explanations that might be

applied to all contexts, action research focuses on specific

situations and localized solutions. Action research enables

people in business, schools and community organizations to

increase the effectiveness of the work in which they engage

(Stringer, 2007). The imperative of action research is to create

a new vision that rejects the mindless application of

standardized practices across all settings and contexts and

instead advocates the use of contextually relevant procedures

formulated by inquiring and resourceful practitioners, Stringer

states.

A review of action research frameworks reveals several

common features. An action research project seeks to create

knowledge, propose and implement change, and improve practice and

performance (Stringer, 1996). Kemmis and McTaggert (1988) suggest

that the fundamental components of action research include the

following: (1) developing a plan for improvement, (2)

implementing the plan, (3) observing and documenting the effects

of the plan, and (4) reflecting on the effects of the plan for

further planning and informed action. New knowledge gained

12

results in changes in practice (Fullan, 2000a). Action research

is often conducted to discover a plan for innovation, change or

intervention and is collaborative. Based on Kemmis and

McTaggert's (1998) original formulation of action research and

subsequent modifications, Mills (2003) developed the following

framework for action research:

Describe the problem and area of focus.

Define the factors involved in your area of focus (e.g., the

curriculum, school setting, student outcomes, instructional

strategies and organizational strategic intervention).

Develop research questions.

Describe the intervention or innovation to be implemented.

Develop a timeline for implementation.

Describe the membership of the action research group.

Develop a list of resources to implement the plan.

Describe the data to be collected.

Develop a data collection and analysis plan.

Select appropriate tools of inquiry.

Carry out the plan (implementation, data collection, data

analysis).

13

Report the results.

This deductive approach implements a planned intervention,

monitors its implementation, and evaluates the results.

Fundamentally, action research is grounded in a qualitative

research paradigm whose purpose is to gain greater clarity and

understanding of a question, problem, or issue. Unlike

quantitative inquiry that is based on the precise definition,

measurement, and analysis of the relationship between a carefully

defined set of variables, action research commences with a

question, problem or issue that is rather broadly defined.

Investigators initially seek to clarify the issue investigated

and to reveal the way participants describe their actual

experience of that issue- how things happen and how it affects

them. In this situation, action research is necessarily based on

localized studies that focus on the need to understand how things

are happening, rather than merely on what is happening, and to

understand the way stakeholders concerned with the issue-

perceive, interpret, and respond to the events related to the

issue investigated. Action research is phenomenological (focusing

on the actual lives experiences of the people), interpretive

14

(focusing on the interpretation of acts and activities) and

hermeneutic (incorporating the meaning people make of events in

their lives) (Stringer, 2007).

The author continues that as an integral part of a complex

social system, researchers will always affect the lives of others

in some way when they modify their work practices or initiate new

activities. Researchers are likely to disrupt practices that have

long been institutionalized and that can have impacts on the

people’s ego, dignity, power, status, and career opportunities.

As the race continues to creating organizational change and

developing new theories during the implementation process, almost

in all situations, some people will resist changes of any sort

unless the processes are carefully crafted and defined and their

interests taken in to consideration. Significant change is also

likely to connect with many departments, outside organizations in

business setting, so participants may find themselves subject to

pressures to develop controlling and bureaucratic styles of

operation that may lose community focus and override the

principles of action research. Facilitators must work with

participants to ensure that they are able to maintain their

15

autonomy and integrity of their work but avoid style, manner, and

forms of operation that typify many bureaucratic settings. They

need, above all, to maintain approaches to development that

engage the participatory processes that foster a sense of

community among all participants. This strategic approach to

development work requires time and resources that must be

factored into scheduling and budgeting.

Kolk maintains that action research is a cycle of inquiry

and reflection and during the implementation process in both open

and closed systems; one has to determine 1) where one is, 2)

where one wants to be, and 3) how one is going to get there. In

general terms, the cycle follows these steps:

1. Identify the problem and envision success

2. Develop a plan of action

3. Collect data

4. Analyze data and form conclusions

5. Modify your theory and repeat the cycle

6. Report the results

16

Issues with Action Research Implementation

Leykum et all (2009) state that participatory action research is a

technique derived over the last 40 years from the sociological,

organizational, educational, and evaluation research literatures.

It is a research design that partners the researcher and

participants in a collaborative effort to address issues in

specific systems. They also note that it is a collaborative,

cyclical, reflective inquiry design that focuses on problem

solving, improving work practices, and the understanding of the

effect of the research or intervention as part of the research

process. It explicitly calls for making sense of the impact of

change, and refining actions based on this impact. Action research,

in most cases, is a team work, participatory in nature and in most

group dynamics, there must arise some issues in implementation.

17

According to Stringer (2007), the best of intentions, however,

oftentimes run against the harsh realities of daily lives of the

researchers and the participants when they reenter families, place

of work and community contexts, where various responsibilities and

crisis they may face pale new activities. As participants gear up

to implement the set research objectives, some of these issues may

come up: 1. Anxiety, doubt and threat, 2. Resistance to change, 3.

Helplessness, 4. Conflict.

1. Anxiety, doubt and threat

Stringer reports that in the early part of implementation

process, people will always find themselves on a limb. The people

who are affected by the research process-the stakeholders-then

doing new tasks or different approaches to routine tasks will

definitely proceed with impediments. The best plan cannot take all

the contingency into account, so performing new tasks comes with

doubt, anxiety and/or treat that impede their ability to continue

with the research activities.

2. Resistance to change

(Stringer, 2007) continues that as an integral part of a

complex social system, researchers will always affect the lives

of others in some way when they modify their work practices or

18

initiate new activities. Researchers are likely to disrupt

practices that have long been institutionalized and that can have

impacts on the people’s ego, dignity, power, status, and career

opportunities. As the race continues to creating organizational

change and developing new theories during the implementation

process, almost in all situations, some people will resist

changes.

3. Helplessness

Prilleltensky, Nelson and Peirson (2001) observe that power

and control are not inherited attributes that an individual

either has or has not; they are qualities with the environment.

“Learned helplessness” theory, proposes that exposure to

uncontrollable events will tend to lead to individuals losing

motivation and feeling helpless. In the action research carried

out by Rosenthal and Khalil (2010) in South Africa, they posit

that participating in community organizations or projects that

offer individuals opportunities to learn new skills such as

problem-solving and taking part indecision-making; can facilitate

the process of building empowerment. In the study, they continue,

all the participants come from impoverished backgrounds and have

19

experienced a number of traumatic events in their lives over

which they had no control (e.g. the death of loved ones due to

HIV/AIDS, the loss of homes and financial security, rejection by

friends and family etc.) With what they have done through, these

circumstances are likely to have led to the participants feeling

powerless and lacking motivation to do anything other than to

depend on some else to do things form them, and things they can

be able to do for themselves.

4. Conflict

Stringer maintains that in action research, conflict,

whether minor disagreements or major argument, are common.

People are different, work style, mood and preferences,

likes and dislikes are some of the factors that bring about

disagreement or conflicts in group working relationships,

and it is left to the researcher to maintain a neutral

position in a dispute among the participants.

Effectiveness of the Action Research Plan

What are the relevance of structural contingency theory on the

effectiveness on our departments, units and the entire

organization when it implemented using action research process?

20

This can be done by examining the strengths of structural

contingency theory, its use in tackling organizational dilemma

and its application in organizational learning

Strengths

1. SCT is the fulcrum of organizational change.

2. SCT is a control driver to arrest a turbulent environment

3. Innovation and creativity stand on the threshold of SCT to

unleash new products and grab new market shares.

4. Usefulness of structural contingency theory in solving global organizational dilemmas

Organizational change is defined by Jones (2010) as the process

by which organizations redesign their structures and cultures to

move from their present state to some desired future state to

increase their effectiveness. In essence, structure and culture

are the bedrocks on which managers stand to change the

organization so that it can be as effective as possible.

According to Jones, structure and culture are evolving and they

grow as organization grows and organization can be effective when

it is able to control the environment (internal and external) to

its advantage. Arresting the environment depends much on the type

21

of structure laid down in the organization, especially in terms

of innovation and creativity. Structural contingency theory

discusses how best to structure the organization contingent on

the prevailing elements in the environment.

Innovation is stifled in a bureaucratic setting while in non-

hierarchical setting, the employees are let loose to think and

make mistakes, knowledge is dispersed quickly and new product

development is the result for the organization to compete and

even be a market leader in the marketplace, while a loose

structure can guarantee a pervasive flow of information and

innovation to find a new way of creating new products to remain a

market leader or competitive and here comes the SCT.

Katz and Lazer (n.d.) stress that teams and small group

dynamics give a rich robust muscle to intra-organizational

networks and much work on team studies focus attention on the

variables that predict team effectiveness, and such variables are

cohesiveness, size, leadership, motivation, communication

patterns and group goals. Parker et all (2008) maintain that

intra-organizational relationship has become a primary importance

in the management of services and operations. Due to the rapidly

22

changing market, organizations have overhauled their system of

units and divisional relationship to coordinate the activities

required to develop, produce and deliver products and services to

the consumers in order to remain competitive. A loose structure

can guarantee a pervasive flow of information and innovation to

find a new way of creating new products to remain a market leader

or competitive and here comes the SCT.

Impact of Change in the Department with respect to external

environment

Organizational change is defined by Jones (2010) as the process

by which organizations redesign their structures and cultures to

move from their present state to some desired future state to

increase their effectiveness. In essence, structure and culture

are the bedrocks on which managers stand to change the

organization so that it can be as effective as possible.

According to Jones, structure and culture are evolving and they

grow as organization grows and organization can be effective when

it is able to control the environment (internal and external) to

its advantage. SCT is responsive in dealing with the environment

but arresting the environment depends much on the type of

23

structure laid down in the organization, especially in terms of

innovation and creativity. Structural contingency theory

discusses how best to structure the organization contingent on

the prevailing elements in the environment.

Innovation is stifled in a bureaucratic setting while in non-

hierarchical setting, the employees are let loose to think and

make mistakes, knowledge is dispersed quickly and new product

development is the result for the organization to compete and

even be a market leader in the marketplace. The type of structure

prevalent in an organization tells much about the culture there.

SCT is concerned with the best structural fit to run an

organization in a particular environment and it is the most

effective and appropriate for building and sustaining

organizational change.

Ethical and Diversity Aspect of the Plan

1. The value of individual and organizational ethics

From my assignment in M7: A1, ethics refers to well-founded

standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to

do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society,

fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to

24

those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain

from wrong doing. Ethics also refers to the study and

development of one's ethical standards, so it is necessary to

constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are

reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the

continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral

conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we

help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and

solidly-based (Velazquez et al, 1987). In this rat race for

organizational change and learning, individual and organization

can do unconscionable things to survive, but it will come to hunt

them at last and that is more reason why individual and

organizational ethics should be upheld, it is not a complicated

aspect of organizational learning; simply play by the rule of the

game.

2. The value of diversity and in both internal and external

environments

In this assignment, the internal and external environmental

drivers have been clearly stated. It has been stated time and

time again in management literatures that the best competitive

25

advantage any organization can peddle is the human workforce.

Come up with any competitive measures out there, competitors will

find it easy to copy them but what is difficult to be copied are

the behave of people in the organization, the organizational

structure and culture. Diversity unleashes creative minds that

are difficult to be mimicked. Inquisitives does not arise when we

look alike, talk alike and behave alike. Imagine when an

organization boosts individuals from Korea, Germany, India,

Nigerian, China, Poland, America, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Iraq,

Mexico and Denmark, Switzerland, Britain and France, and gain a

mixture of genders working in the strategy and innovative center

of any organization; it will be hot and sizzling. The learning

that can take place in a diverse workforce can be challenging,

replete with false starts but when it kicks off finally, it will

be like a moving train that can crush any obstacle.

Summary and Future Research Recommendation.

Summary

The crux of structural contingency theory is that there is

no best way to run an organization and environment is

deterministic to the structural arrangement in any organization.

26

The word contingency refers to having a backup plan in place,

often referred to as a “Plan B". Structural contingency theory

suggests that companies have a plan in place to guide

organizational change when necessary. Structural contingency

theory points out that organizational structure must be adaptable

to each business and that each business must make moves to ensure

they are operating within the most efficient structure to support

the business. A variety of factors, referred to as contingency

factors, influence structural contingency decisions and plans and

some of those contingency variables are: strategy, size of

organization, culture, management style and technology.

However, weaknesses of structural contingency theory includethe fact that:

1. SCT cannot function very well in a chaotic culture

2. The exit of one key personnel can send a shock wave on SCT

reliance

3. SCT changes as organizations grow, so it needs attention at

all times.

When there is misfit between the contingency variable and the

structure of the organization, there is usually lower

27

organizational performance. If there happens to be a change in

the contingency factors, the structure will be out of alignment

and the organization will need to go some structural changes to

regain the fit between the contingency variables and the

structure. The swinging pendulum from misfit to fit is said to be

adaptive change and this is the essence of contingency theory. It

is worth mentioning that these contingency variables are driven

by government institutions, industry, competitors, economic,

political and social outside the control of the organizations. To

carry out the plan of the relevance of SCT in our department, I

recommended action research process. The term “action research”

was coined by Kurt Lewin in 1944 to describe a process of

investigation and inquiry that occurs as action is taken to solve

a problem. Today we use the term to describe a practice of

reflective inquiry undertaken with the goal of improving

understanding and practice places and community developments.

Action research is a cycle of inquiry and reflection and during

the implementation process in both open and closed systems; one

has to determine 1) where one is, 2) where one wants to be, and

3) how one is going to get there. Just like any other

28

collaborative project, the implementation of action research

comes with its problems-conflict among participants, fears and

anxiety, helplessness and resistance to change.

Ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong

that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of

rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific

virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that

impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from wrong doing.

Ethics also refers to the study and development of one's ethical

standards, so it is necessary to constantly examine one's

standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded.

Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our

own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure

that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to

standards that are reasonable and solidly-based (Velazquez et al,

1987). Diversity is the process of creating and maintaining an

environment that naturally enables all participants to contribute

to their full potential in the pursuit of organizational

objectives (Thomas, 1993).

29

Change happens in organization when there is a gap between

what is desired and the result obtained. If organization is

faltering, losing market shares, customer’s demands are not met

and the competitors want to sniff life out of the organization,

there must be a change to arrest the dangerous signals. The only

organization that can survive these problems is one with flexible

structure and a learning organization, an organization that is

not afraid to try new ways of doing things, a creative and

innovative one that will harvest the full potential of its

diverse workforce by doing the right thing to survive. A learning

organization does not hide information by the individual creative

minds and at the individual level; it is not organizational

learning, only when the whole organization is involved. In a

learning organization, the top managers do not inhibit

innovations by reprimanding mistakes that are not planned.

Creativity that comes from diverse minds can be very

revolutionary and many organizations are tapping into this. There

is no inquisitives when we look alike, think alike and behave

alike, so learning that comes from diverse people are profound.

Future Research Recommendation

30

There are research possibilities on the area of structural

contingency theory according to Donaldson (1995). He says

continuity and accumulation are important aspects of the theory

development. He opines that further research should lay emphasis

on organizational effectiveness and the analysis of the fit

between the relationship between strategy and structure and if

the matching structure will link to organizational effectiveness.

This may be my dissertation.

References

References

31

http://www.intelligenceforecasting.com/english/articles/2010/Management%20Course%20II-May%2023,2010.pdf

Serena (2011) http://management-class.co.uk/management_centre/contingency_theory.htm

Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1993). Utilizing the talents of the new work

forces. In a Cohen 9ed.), the portable MBA in Management:

Insights from the experts at the best business schools. Wiley

Publishing, New York

Velasquez, M.; Andre, C.; Thomas Shanks, S.J., & Meyer, M. J.

(1987). Definition of ethics. Journal of Issues in Ethics,

11E V1 N1. Santa Clara University, Silicon Valley