UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 5.5 Free with a free account
The Contingency View: No Single Best Way to Manage
Principles of Management · Chapter 5: Modern Management PerspectivesSection 5.5 · lesson 23 of 11713 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Continuous Improvement in Action: Kaizen, Reengineering, and the Quality Movement →← Organizations as Systems: How the Parts Create the WholeNext lesson: Continuous Improvement in Action: Kaizen, Reengineering, and the Quality Movement →
In this lesson
No single best way to manage.
- State the contingency proposition and what it rejects
- Use the if-then-because form of a contingency claim
- Identify the 5 principal contingency variables
- Apply contingency reasoning to a management choice
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,699 words). Read along, or search it.
Modern Management Perspectives
The Contingency View
Here is a management question with a frustrating answer. What is the best way to structure a team? The honest answer is that it depends. This section shows why that answer can be rigorous, rather than a dodge. We start with the contingency proposition, and the two older positions it rejects. Then the three-part form every genuine contingency claim must take. Next, the five variables that recur across the research, and the studies that established them. We'll answer the obvious criticism, work through four practical applications, and close with a case.
The Contingency Proposition
What Works Under Which Conditions
The contingency proposition is short. The effectiveness of a management approach depends on the situation it is applied in. That changes the question a manager should ask. The question is never simply, what works, in the abstract. It is, what works under which conditions? This directly extends the equifinality principle that closed Subchapter five point four. Equifinality said different paths can reach comparable results. But it left a gap. Which path should you actually take? Contingency theory supplies the missing piece. It specifies which path fits which situation. Without it, the choice between paths would stay unexplained.
What It Rejects
2 Positions This Course Already Met
Contingency theory rejects two specific positions that this course has already covered. The first is the classical search for universal principles. That assumption runs through Fayol's fourteen principles, and the broader administrative theory of Subchapters three point five and three point seven. It held that a single correct structural arrangement exists, regardless of an organization's circumstances. The second is an early behavioral assumption. Participative approaches are always superior. This is the unqualified version of the human relations claim, from Subchapter four point one. It said involving employees in decisions reliably improves outcomes, whatever the task, the workforce, or the situation. Be careful about what is and is not being rejected here. Contingency theory does not claim participation is never valuable. It claims that whether participation helps depends on conditions. And those conditions must be specified, rather than assumed.
The Required Form
If, Then, Because
A genuine contingency statement has a specific, three-part form, and it's worth stating precisely. If these conditions, then this approach, because of this mechanism. All three parts are required. Suppose a statement names only the conditions and the recommended approach. There is no stated mechanism connecting them. That is not yet a contingency theory. It is merely an observed correlation. It may hold, or it may not, and nobody can say why. The mechanism is what turns an observation into an explanation. It states why the approach works under the specified conditions. And that is what makes the claim useful. It can be checked. It can be extended to new situations with some confidence. Or it can be shown to be wrong. That last property matters most.
Contingency Variables
5 Variables That Recur
Five variables recur across the contingency research this course draws on. Organizational size affects how much formal structure, and how many management layers, a coordination task actually requires. Technology and task routineness affect how much standardization, versus flexibility, a kind of work can tolerate. Environmental uncertainty and the rate of change affect how much an organization needs to adapt quickly. The alternative is the capacity to operate with settled, stable routine. Strategy affects which structure and management approach actually serve the competitive priorities an organization has chosen. And the characteristics of the workforce matter too. Its experience, its skill level, and its expectations. Those affect how much direction, versus autonomy, produces good results from the specific people involved. Notice that none of these variables tells you an answer on its own. Each one tells you where to look before you choose.
Table 5.5.1
Condition, Approach, Mechanism
Table five point five point one puts each variable into the full three-part form. Size. A large organization with many coordination points favors more formal structure, and more management layers. The mechanism is that informal coordination breaks down past a certain scale of interaction. Task routineness. Highly routine, repetitive tasks favor standardized procedure, and closer supervision. Because routine tasks have little genuine need for individual judgment. Environmental uncertainty. A fast-changing, unpredictable environment favors a flexible structure, with faster decision authority. Because rigid procedure cannot be rewritten fast enough to track rapid change. Strategy. Competing chiefly on cost efficiency favors standardized, tightly controlled operations. Because standardization and tight control are what produce low unit cost. And workforce characteristics. A highly experienced, skilled workforce favors greater autonomy, and less direct supervision. Because experienced workers already possess the judgment that close supervision exists to supply. In every row, the mechanism is the part that does the explaining.
Foundational Research
Where the Evidence Came From
Several documented research programs gave the contingency approach its empirical footing. The technology and structure studies looked at how organizations produced their output. The kind of technology was systematically associated with the kind of structure that fit it well. Routine, standardized production generally suited more formalized, tightly controlled structures than customized production did. The environment and structure studies looked outward. Organizations in stable, predictable environments tended to perform well with mechanistic structures. Rigid roles, and hierarchical control. Organizations in rapidly changing environments tended to do well with organic structures. Flexible roles, and lateral collaboration. That mechanistic and organic contrast is developed fully in Subchapter seven point eight. Finally, the differentiation and integration findings. Organizations facing more diverse, complex environments tended to develop more differentiation, meaning greater specialization between subunits. At the same time, they needed more deliberate integration, to coordinate those subunits back into a coherent whole. That links straight back to the coordination problem Subchapter three point seven called administrative theory's central concern.
The Criticism
Is It Just "It Depends"?
Contingency theory draws a recurring criticism, and it deserves a straight answer. The charge is that it can become an unfalsifiable excuse. Just say it depends, without ever specifying what it depends on. A vague hedge, dressed up as a theory. The answer is the three-part form you've already met. A genuine contingency claim names the specific conditions, the specific approach, and the specific mechanism connecting them. Compare two statements. It depends on the situation. That is not a contingency theory. Now the second one. Under high environmental uncertainty, an organic structure outperforms a mechanistic one. Why? Because rigid procedure cannot be rewritten fast enough to track rapid change. That second statement is a contingency claim. The difference between the two is the difference between an evasion, and a claim that can be checked against evidence.
Same Choice, 2 Conditions
How Tightly to Specify, How Far to Centralize
Here is one management choice, examined under two contrasting sets of conditions. The choice is how tightly to specify procedure, and how far to centralize decision authority. In a stable, predictable environment, the answer leans toward detailed, written procedures for routine decisions. Approval for most changes is centralized, roles are narrow and clearly defined, and performance is measured against a fixed standard. In a fast-changing, uncertain environment, the answer flips. Broad guidelines replace detailed procedures, with local discretion to adapt. Decision authority moves closer to the point of contact. Roles become flexible and overlapping, shifting with demand. And performance is judged against a moving target, revisited often. Here is the point to hold on to. Neither column is the objectively correct answer. Each is the answer the mechanism favors, given its own specific condition.
Worked Applications
Identify, State the Mechanism, Choose
The practical discipline has three steps. Identify the conditions that actually matter for the choice at hand. State the mechanism connecting those conditions to a specific approach. Then choose accordingly, rather than by default, or by imitation. Take hiring. A highly routine, low-variability role favors selecting for reliable rule-following. The mechanism is that routine work rewards consistency more than improvisation. Take reporting structure. A fast-moving, unpredictable market favors a flatter, faster-deciding structure. Because delay in decision-making is itself costly when conditions shift quickly. Take control systems. Highly measurable output favors output-based control, because results can be verified directly. But unmeasurable or long-delayed output favors behavior-based control. The output alone cannot yet be verified. And take communication style. An experienced, skilled team favors light-touch, outcome-focused communication. Because experienced people already possess much of the judgment that detailed instruction exists to supply.
A Logic That Travels
The Same Reasoning, Chapter After Chapter
Contingency reasoning is not confined to this section. It is the organizing logic behind several later topics. Structure, in Chapter seven, asks which organizational form fits which combination of size, technology, and environment. Leadership style, in Chapter ten, asks which approach fits which combination of task, follower, and situation. That is developed in full through Fiedler's contingency model, in Subchapter ten point one. And control systems, in Chapter twelve, ask which approach fits which level of task predictability and measurability. Each time, the logic is the same. Identify the relevant conditions, and let them determine the answer. This asks you to give up something genuinely comfortable. That is the security of a single, memorizable correct answer, the kind classical theory once seemed to promise. In exchange, you get a more durable skill. You can reason about a new situation by identifying its conditions. A rule memorized without its mechanism breaks the first time it meets something new. A mechanism you understand clearly travels to situations you have never encountered before.
Case Vignette
Farid Imports the Wrong Conditions
Here is a composite case, constructed for instruction. Farid had led a well-regarded initiative at a stable, long-established manufacturer. He flattened decision-making there, pushing routine approval authority down to frontline supervisors. It worked well. Newly hired to lead operations at a fast-growing technology startup, he introduced a nearly identical structure almost immediately. But the startup's frontline supervisors were themselves quite new to their roles. And its product and market were changing so fast that yesterday's routine decision could be today's wrong call. Those supervisors lacked the years of pattern recognition Farid's former staff had relied on. Decisions began going wrong, in ways that took longer to notice and correct than under the old, centralized approach. Farid's practice had not been a bad idea. It had been the right answer to a different set of conditions. A stable environment and an experienced workforce are exactly where frontline decision authority tends to work. He imported the practice without checking whether those conditions were actually present. Try a reverse problem. A manager's loose, flexible teams thrived at a fast-moving creative agency. At a safety-regulated manufacturing plant, the same approach produced confusion, and several near-miss safety incidents. Which condition differed between the two settings, and what mechanism explains the different results?
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Contingency View: No Single Best Way to Manage
What is the contingency approach to management?
What makes a contingency claim different from just saying it depends?
What are the main contingency variables in management?
Why can a management practice that worked in one company fail in another?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →