Literature review 12

The key concepts and the just outlined early studies of the classic school of contingency
theory have not been without criticism (Schoonhoven 1981; Schreyögg 1980; Tosi and
Slocum 1984; van de Ven et al. 2012). Particularly, the configurational school proposed a
new approach to contingency theory. There still is a lively academic debate on the core
conclusions and assumptions of contingency theory. The criticism and defense of the classic
school of contingency theory is covered in-depth by Donaldson (2001; 2006) and Qiu,
Donaldson, and Luo (2012). The next chapter covers the key criticism of the configurational
school and outlines assumptions and research approaches of this school of contingency
theory.

2.1.2 Configurational school of contingency theory

2.1.2.1 Comparison of assumptions between classic and configurational

school

Miller (1981) was one of the first to call “Toward a New Contingency Approach” as the title
of one of his papers. He is a founding scholar of the configurational school of contingency
theory. The configurational school builds on the classic school of contingency theory but
develops new concepts and assumptions to address its perceived shortcomings (Meyer, Tsui,
and Hinings 1993; Miller 1981). Table 2 juxtaposes the differences of the classic and
configurational school. The next paragraphs of this chapter revisit the assumptions of the
classic school as summarized by the scholars of the configurational school, provide an
overview of their criticism, and introduce the assumptions of the configurational school.

Table 2: Classic school and configurational school of contingency theory

Underlying assumptions Classic school Configurational school

Mode of inquiry Reductionist analysis Holistic synthesis

Systems of design variables
Concept of fit
Relationships between determinants
and design variables
Characteristics of organizational
change
Effectiveness assumptions
Sources: Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings (1993, p. 1177); Meyer, Goes, and Brooks (1993, p. 94)
Aggregates of weakly constrained
components
Fit between determinants and design
variables
Unidirectional and linear
Continuous incremental change
Unifinality: One best way to organize
in a given situation
Configurations of strongly constrained
components
Fit between determinants and design
variables; consistency between the
design variables
Reciprocal and nonlinear
Episodic revolutionary change
(“leapfrogging”)
Equifinality: There are several best
ways to organize in a given situation

As shown in Table 2, the underlying assumptions are compared in terms of mode of

inquiry, systems of design variables, concept of fit, relationships between determinants and
design variables, characteristics of change, and the effectiveness assumptions.