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