The Relationship Between Contingency Approach and Contingency Anchor

Introduction

The contingency approach in management and organizational theory posits that there is no one
best way to manage an organization. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent
(dependent) upon the internal and external situation. This approach contrasts with traditional
management theories that advocate for universal principles of management.

The concept of a contingency anchor complements the contingency approach by providing a

reference point or basis for making decisions within the contingency framework. The
contingency anchor serves as a guiding principle or set of criteria that help managers assess and
respond to situational variables effectively.

Historical Development of the Contingency Approach

The contingency approach to management and organizational theory has evolved significantly
over the past century, driven by a series of theoretical and empirical advancements that
challenged the idea of universal management principles. This evolution can be traced through
several key phases:

1. Classical Management Theories (Early 1900s)

The early 20th century was dominated by classical management theories, which advocated for
universal principles of management. Prominent among these were:

 Scientific Management: Frederick Taylor's work focused on efficiency and productivity

through standardized tasks and time-and-motion studies.
 Administrative Theory: Henri Fayol proposed five functions of management (planning,
organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling) and 14 principles of
management applicable to all organizations.
 Bureaucratic Theory: Max Weber emphasized a structured, rule-based, and hierarchical
approach to organization and management.

These theories assumed that there were best practices applicable to all organizations, regardless
of context.

2. Human Relations Movement (1930s-1940s)

The limitations of classical theories, particularly their neglect of human and social factors, led to
the Human Relations Movement. Key contributions included:

 Hawthorne Studies: Conducted by Elton Mayo and colleagues at Western Electric’s

Hawthorne plant, these studies revealed the significant impact of social relations and
employee morale on productivity.
  Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Abraham Maslow’s theory emphasized the importance
of addressing employee needs for motivation and satisfaction.

These contributions highlighted that management effectiveness could vary based on human
factors and social dynamics, setting the stage for the contingency approach.

3. Behavioural and Systems Theories (1950s-1960s)

Further developments in organizational theory began to recognize the complexity and variability
of organizational environments:

 Behavioural Theory: This theory focused on understanding human behavior in

organizational settings, recognizing the impact of individual and group behavior on
organizational effectiveness.
 Systems Theory: This approach viewed organizations as open systems interacting with
their environment, emphasizing the interdependence of various subsystems within the
organization.

These theories contributed to the understanding that organizations needed to be managed in ways
that were responsive to their internal and external environments.

4. Foundational Studies in Contingency Theory (1960s-1970s)

The contingency approach formally emerged during the 1960s and 1970s through several
seminal studies that highlighted the need for contextual management:

 Burns and Stalker (1961): In their study The Management of Innovation, they
differentiated between mechanistic and organic structures, showing that stable
environments favoured mechanistic structures while dynamic environments required
organic structures.
 Woodward (1965): Joan Woodward's research on manufacturing technology
demonstrated that the complexity of technology influenced the appropriate organizational
structure.
 Lawrence and Lorsch (1967): Their book Organization and Environment emphasized
the need for differentiation and integration within organizations to match environmental
demands.

These studies provided empirical support for the idea that there is no one best way to organize
and manage an organization.

5. Development of Specific Contingency Theories (1970s-1980s)

During this period, contingency theory was further refined and applied to specific aspects of
organizational behaviour and management:
  Fiedler's Contingency Model (1967): Fred Fiedler developed the contingency model of
leadership, suggesting that the effectiveness of a leadership style depended on the
situation, particularly leader-member relations, task structure, and positional power.
 Path-Goal Theory: Developed by Robert House, this theory posited that leaders should
adjust their behaviour based on the characteristics of their followers and the work
environment to achieve high levels of performance and satisfaction.
 Strategic Contingency Theory: This theory emphasized the alignment of organizational
strategies with external conditions to achieve effectiveness.

These specific theories expanded the contingency approach to various domains of management,
such as leadership, motivation, and strategy.

6. Integration with Strategic Management (1980s-1990s)

The contingency approach became increasingly integrated with strategic management during the
1980s and 1990s. Key developments included:

 Strategic Fit and Alignment: Concepts such as strategic fit and alignment emphasized
the importance of matching organizational strategies with environmental conditions and
internal capabilities.
 Resource-Based View (RBV): The RBV highlighted the importance of leveraging
unique organizational resources and capabilities. The contingency approach provided a
framework for aligning these resources with strategic goals and environmental demands.

7. Modern Developments and Applications (2000s-Present)

In recent decades, the contingency approach has continued to evolve, influenced by

advancements in technology, globalization, and the increasing complexity of organizational
environments. Modern applications include:

 Dynamic Capabilities: The concept of dynamic capabilities, introduced by Teece,

Pisano, and Shuan (1997), emphasizes the need for organizations to adapt and
reconfigure their resources in response to changing environments. The contingency
approach provides a framework for guiding these adaptations.
 Agile and Lean Management: Agile and Lean management practices emphasize
flexibility and responsiveness. The contingency approach helps ensure that these
practices are aligned with strategic objectives and environmental conditions.
 Cross-Cultural Management: The contingency approach is applied in cross-cultural
management to address the diverse cultural contexts in which multinational organizations
operate.

The contingency approach emerged as a response to the limitations of classical management

theories, which proposed universal solutions to management problems. Key contributions
include:
  Burns and Stalker (1961): Their study on organizational structure and management
styles highlighted those mechanistic structures suited stable environments, while organic
structures were better for dynamic environments.
 Lawrence and Lorsch (1967): They emphasized that different subunits of an
organization might require different management practices depending on their particular
environments.

These foundational studies underscored the importance of aligning management practices with
specific situational factors, thus laying the groundwork for the contingency approach.

Defining the Contingency Approach

The contingency approach is predicated on the belief that management effectiveness is

contingent upon the fit between the manager's actions and specific situational factors. These
factors can include:

 Environment: External conditions such as market stability, competition, and regulatory

frameworks.
 Technology: The technological complexity of the organization’s processes.
 Organizational Size: Larger organizations may require more formalized structures.
 Organizational Life Cycle: Different stages of an organization's development (e.g.,
startup vs. maturity) may necessitate different management approaches.

Historical Development of the Contingency Anchor

The concept of the contingency anchor evolved alongside the contingency approach in
management, providing a critical framework for guiding decision-making in the face of varying
situational factors. The development of the contingency anchor is rooted in several key historical
advancements in management theory and organizational studies.

1. Early Management Theories

Before the emergence of the contingency approach, early management theories such as Scientific
Management (Frederick Taylor) and Administrative Theory (Henri Fayol) emphasized universal
principles of management. These theories suggested that certain management practices could be
applied universally across all organizations for maximum efficiency.

2. The Rise of Human Relations Movement

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Human Relations Movement, led by Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne
Studies, shifted focus from rigid structures to human factors in the workplace. This movement
highlighted the importance of social factors and employee well-being in influencing productivity,
laying the groundwork for recognizing the variability in management practices.

3. Development of Contingency Theory

The 1950s and 1960s saw the formal development of the contingency theory, which posited that
the effectiveness of management practices depended on the specific circumstances faced by an
organization. Key contributions during this period include:

 Burns and Stalker (1961): Their research on mechanistic and organic structures showed
that organizational effectiveness was contingent on the stability or dynamism of the
environment.
 Lawrence and Lorsch (1967): They proposed that different subunits of an organization
required different management practices based on their environmental contexts.

4. Emergence of the Contingency Anchor

As the contingency theory evolved, scholars and practitioners recognized the need for a more
structured way to guide decision-making within the contingency framework. The idea of a
contingency anchor emerged as a means to provide a stable reference point amidst the flexible
and adaptive nature of contingency management. The contingency anchor concept began to take
shape through:

 Conceptual Clarifications: Scholars like Donaldson (2001) articulated the need for
guiding principles that help managers align their adaptive strategies with the core values
and goals of the organization.
 Practical Applications: The contingency anchor was further refined through practical
applications in various industries, where organizations used specific anchors (e.g.,
innovation, customer satisfaction) to guide their adaptive strategies.

5. Integration with Strategic Management

During the 1980s and 1990s, the contingency anchor concept became increasingly integrated
with strategic management theories. Key developments included:

 Strategic Fit: Concepts such as strategic fit and alignment emphasized the importance of
aligning organizational strategies with environmental conditions. The contingency anchor
served as a tool to maintain this alignment consistently.
 Resource-Based View: The Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm, popularized by
Barney (1991), highlighted the importance of leveraging unique organizational resources
and capabilities. The contingency anchor helped ensure that adaptive strategies were
aligned with these critical resources.

6. Modern Developments and Applications

In recent decades, the contingency anchor has continued to evolve, influenced by advancements
in technology, globalization, and the increasing complexity of organizational environments.
Modern applications include:

 Dynamic Capabilities: The concept of dynamic capabilities, introduced by Teece,

Pisano, and Shuen (1997), underscores the need for organizations to adapt and
 reconfigure their resources in response to changing environments. The contingency
anchor helps guide these adaptations by providing a consistent strategic focus.
 Agile and Lean Management: Agile and Lean management practices emphasize
flexibility and responsiveness. The contingency anchor ensures that these practices are
aligned with overarching strategic objectives, such as customer satisfaction or operational
efficiency.

The Role of Contingency Anchor

A contingency anchor serves as a guiding principle or benchmark within the contingency

approach. It helps managers navigate the myriad of situational factors by providing a consistent
point of reference. The anchor ensures that while the approach remains flexible and responsive, it
does not lose direction or consistency .

Relationship Between Contingency Approach and Contingency Anchor

1. Guidance and Consistency

o The contingency anchor provides stability and consistency in decision-making
within the flexible framework of the contingency approach. It ensures that while
managers adapt to changing circumstances, they do so in a manner that is aligned
with the organization’s core principles or strategic goals.
2. Framework for Analysis
o The contingency anchor acts as a framework for analysing situational variables. It
helps managers determine which variables are most critical and how to prioritize
them. For instance, a technology firm might use innovation as its contingency
anchor, guiding decisions related to structure, culture, and processes.
3. Alignment with Organizational Goals
o The anchor helps ensure that adaptive actions taken under the contingency
approach are aligned with the broader organizational goals. For example, a
customer-centric organization might use customer satisfaction as a contingency
anchor, guiding all adaptive measures to ensure they enhance customer
experience.
4. Evaluation and Adjustment
o The contingency anchor provides a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of
contingency measures. It allows organizations to assess whether adaptive
strategies are successful in achieving desired outcomes and make necessary
adjustments. This feedback loop is crucial for continuous improvement.
5. Strategic Coherence
o The contingency anchor fosters strategic coherence by ensuring that all adaptive
measures are part of a cohesive strategy. This coherence is essential for
maintaining organizational integrity and effectiveness over time.

Practical Applications

1. Organizational Design
 o In organizational design, the contingency approach might suggest different
structures for different divisions based on their environments. The contingency
anchor ensures that these structures, while varied, all support the overarching
strategic goal, such as innovation or efficiency.
2. Leadership Styles
o The contingency approach acknowledges that different situations require different
leadership styles. The contingency anchor helps leaders choose styles that align
with the organization's values and objectives, ensuring consistent leadership
across the organization.
3. Human Resource Practices
o HR practices can be tailored to different groups within the organization based on
contingency factors like job function and team dynamics. The contingency anchor
ensures that these practices contribute to a unified organizational culture and
strategic direction.
4. Change Management
o In change management, the contingency approach helps organizations adapt to
external pressures and internal dynamics. The contingency anchor provides a
benchmark for measuring the success of change initiatives, ensuring they support
long-term goals.

Case Studies

1. Apple Inc.
o Apple's use of innovation as a contingency anchor illustrates how the company
adapts its management practices to different market conditions while maintaining
a focus on innovative products and services.
2. Toyota
o Toyota's emphasis on quality as a contingency anchor demonstrates how the
company adapts its production and management practices to different markets and
regulatory environments while ensuring product quality remains paramount.

Challenges and Limitations

1. Complexity and Ambiguity

o The complexity of assessing all relevant situational variables and determining the
appropriate anchor can be challenging. Ambiguity in defining and applying the
contingency anchor might lead to inconsistent decisions.
2. Dynamic Environments
o Rapidly changing environments can render a previously effective contingency
anchor obsolete, necessitating frequent reassessment and adaptation.
3. Resistance to Change

Organizational inertia and resistance to change can impede the effective implementation of
contingency-based strategies, even with a well-defined anchor. The Contingency
Approach and Contingency Anchor: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Uses
Advantages

1. Flexibility and Adaptability

 Advantage: The contingency approach allows organizations to be more flexible and

adaptive to changes in their internal and external environments. Managers can tailor their
strategies and structures based on specific situational factors.
 Example: A company facing increased competition can quickly adjust its marketing
strategies and organizational structure to remain competitive.

2. Improved Decision-Making

 Advantage: By considering a wide range of situational variables, the contingency

approach can lead to more informed and effective decision-making. Managers can
evaluate the unique aspects of each situation before acting.
 Example: A tech startup can use data on market trends and customer feedback to decide
whether to pivot its business model.

3. Alignment with Organizational Goals

 Advantage: The contingency anchor ensures that adaptive measures align with the
organization’s strategic goals and core principles, leading to coherent and consistent
management practices.
 Example: A customer-centric company might use customer satisfaction as an anchor,
guiding all decisions to enhance the customer experience.

4. Enhanced Organizational Performance

 Advantage: Organizations that effectively implement the contingency approach tend to

perform better because their management practices are more closely aligned with
environmental demands and organizational needs.
 Example: A manufacturing firm that adapts its production processes based on
technological advancements and market demands can improve efficiency and product
quality.

Disadvantages

1. Complexity and Resource Intensity

 Disadvantage: The contingency approach can be complex to implement, requiring

significant resources to analyse situational variables and develop appropriate responses.
 Example: A multinational corporation might need extensive data collection and analysis
to tailor strategies for different markets, which can be resource-intensive.

2. Ambiguity and Inconsistency

  Disadvantage: Without clear guidelines, the flexibility of the contingency approach can
lead to ambiguity and inconsistent decision-making. Managers may struggle to determine
the best course of action in complex situations.
 Example: In a rapidly changing industry, different managers might adopt conflicting
strategies, leading to organizational confusion.

3. Resistance to Change

 Disadvantage: Implementing a contingency-based strategy often requires change, which

can be met with resistance from employees and other stakeholders. This resistance can
impede the effective application of contingency measures.
 Example: Employees used to a stable organizational structure might resist changes aimed
at making the company more agile and responsive.

4. Dependency on Accurate Information

 Disadvantage: The effectiveness of the contingency approach heavily relies on the

availability and accuracy of information about situational factors. Inaccurate or
incomplete data can lead to poor decisions.
 Example: A company might make strategic decisions based on outdated market research,
leading to ineffective adaptations.

Uses

1. Organizational Design and Structure

 Use: Organizations can use the contingency approach to design and structure their
operations in a way that best fits their specific context. This includes choosing between
mechanistic and organic structures based on environmental stability.
 Example: A startup in a dynamic tech industry might adopt a flat, flexible structure,
while a manufacturing company in a stable market might use a more hierarchical
structure.

2. Leadership and Management Styles

 Use: The contingency approach helps in selecting appropriate leadership and

management styles that match situational demands. Leaders can adjust their approach
based on the needs of their team and organizational context.
 Example: A leader might adopt a more participative style in a creative industry, whereas
a more directive style might be necessary in a crisis situation.

3. Strategic Planning

 Use: The contingency approach aids in strategic planning by encouraging managers to

consider a variety of external and internal factors. This leads to more robust and
adaptable strategic plans.
  Example: A retail company might develop different strategies for urban and rural
markets based on demographic and economic factors.

4. Human Resource Management

 Use: HR practices can be tailored to different segments of the organization using the
contingency approach. This includes recruitment, training, and performance management
practices that fit the needs of different departments or units.
 Example: A tech firm might have different recruitment strategies for its R&D department
compared to its sales department, based on the specific skills and attributes required for
each.

5. Change Management

 Use: In change management, the contingency approach provides a framework for

understanding and managing the impact of change initiatives. The contingency anchor
helps ensure that changes are aligned with organizational goals.
 Example: A company undergoing digital transformation can use the contingency
approach to assess the impact on different departments and tailor its change management
strategies accordingly.

6. Risk Management

 Use: The contingency approach can enhance risk management by allowing organizations
to develop contingency plans for various potential scenarios. This proactive approach
helps mitigate risks more effectively.
 Example: A financial institution might use contingency planning to prepare for economic
downturns, regulatory changes, or cyber threats.

Conclusion

The contingency approach and contingency anchor together provide a comprehensive framework
for managing organizations in a dynamic and complex environment. The flexibility and
adaptability of the contingency approach, combined with the guiding stability of the contingency
anchor, enable organizations to make informed, coherent, and effective decisions. Despite the
challenges associated with complexity, resource intensity, and potential resistance to change, the
benefits of improved decision-making, alignment with organizational goals, and enhanced
performance make these concepts valuable tools for modern management.

The contingency approach and contingency anchor are interdependent concepts that together
enhance organizational flexibility and effectiveness. The contingency anchor provides a stable
reference point within the adaptable framework of the contingency approach, ensuring that
adaptive measures are coherent, aligned with strategic goals, and effective in varying
circumstances. Understanding and effectively implementing these concepts can lead to more
responsive and resilient organizations capable of thriving in dynamic environments.
References

1. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock

Publications.
2. Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage Publications.
3. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing
Differentiation and Integration. Harvard Business School Press.
4. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
5. Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford University
Press.
6. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of
strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22.
7. Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
10(3), 289-320.
8. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Longman
Publishing Co., Inc.
9. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall.
10. Daft, R. L. (2015). Organization Theory and Design. Cengage Learning.
11. Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall.
12. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for
organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447-465.
13. Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Contingency theory: Some suggested directions.
Journal of Management, 10(1), 9-26.
14. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2016). Management. Pearson Education.
15. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson.
16. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row.
17. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational
behaviour. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35-51.
18. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster.
19. Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's
Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
20. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of
organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 91-114.
21. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a
reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
22. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change.