ABSTRACT
Structural contingency theory has dommated the study of organ1zat1onal des1gn and performance dunng the past twenty years. However. despite 1ts favorable status. contmgency theory is contmually be1ng called 1nto quest1on because of Its apparent Inability to resolve persistent theoretical and empirical problems. The recent commentanes on cont1ngency theory (Schoonhoven. 1981; Mohr, 1982; Tos1 and Slocum, 1984; Fry and Schellenberg, 1984; Van de Ven and Drazm. 1985) all suggest that basic changes m theory and methodology are needed. Ironically, management researchers have recently proposed theones that are. at the1r core. even more complex and unresolved systems of contingency propositions; for example, the McKinsey 7-S framework (Pascale and Athas. 1981). Theory Z (Ouch1. 1981 ). the e1ght charactenstics that fit together 1n excellent compan1es (Peters and Waterman. 1982), and expansions of Leavitt's diamond model for design1ng mnovative organ1zations and for organ1zing the stages of growth of new ventures (Galbraith, 1982).
