Whatare the two most important theories regarding environmental andstructural fit? Why? How might you combine the best elements of eachof these theories to be of greatest use to your company? The two mostimportant theories regarding environment and structural fit are thestructural adaptation theory (proposed by Johnson, Hollenbeck, Ilgen,Humphrey, Meyer and Jundt) and contingency theory (Hollenbecket al., 2011).This is because business environments are often subject to change(Wulf,Stubner & Blarr, 2010).Consequently, certain organizational structures may fail to easilyfit themselves into a number of environments (Battilana& Casciaro, 2012).Therefore, this necessitates management to redesign theirorganizational structure so that they can blend with theirenvironment in order to get the most out of it (). Additionally,organizational structure is a multidimensional construct, and itsdegree of complexity, formalization as well as centralizationdictates whether or not it fits into its environment (Hollenbecket al., 2011).
Elementsof structural adaptation and contingency theories can be combined tobetter ones company (Lex, 2001). For example, the optimal leadershipstructure element in contingency theory is closely similar to energymobilization element in structural adaptation theory (Chenhall,2003). These two elements share a common agenda of optimizing theleadership structure of business organization (Battilana& Casciaro, 2012),thus can be combined to the advantage of a company.
Atwhat point does extant research on organizational structure becomeobsolete? Why? Is the application of foundational research valid inthe modern organization? Why or why not? Generally, extant researchon organizational structure becomes obsolete when current findingsconfirm that they no longer provide efficient and effectiveinterpretation and explanation of prevailing behavior patterns(Worley& Mohrman, 2014).Menguc& Auh (2010)observed that rapid development and innovation in technology have andcontinues to cause changes in all spheres of life, including businessmanagement and labor relations. Consequently, previous models,strategies, and change efforts are rendered invalid (Ibarra, 1991).For instance, yesterday’s research that explained certain behaviorpatterns in teams of workers fails to generate insights that canadequately address the present organization environment (Albers& Lawler, 2014).
AlbersMohrman, S., & E. Lawler III, E. (2014). Designing organizationsfor sustainable effectiveness: A new paradigm for organizations andacademic researchers. Journalof Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,1(1),14-34.
Battilana,J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, andinstitutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academyof Management Journal,55(2),381-398.
Chenhall,R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within itsorganizational context: findings from contingency-based research anddirections for the future. Accounting, organizations and society,28(2), 127-168.
Hollenbeck,J. R., Ellis, A. P., Humphrey, S. E., Garza, A. S., & Ilgen, D.R. (2011). Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differentialimpact of centralizing versus decentralizing team decision-makingstructures. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes,114(1),64-74.
Ibarra,H. (1991). Structural Alignments, Individual Strategies, andManagerial Action: Elements Toward a Theory of Getting Things Done.Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
LexDonaldson. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
Menguc,B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution ofproduct innovation capabilities: The role of organizationalstructure. Industrialmarketing management,39(5),820-831.
Worley,C. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (2014). Is change management obsolete?.OrganizationalDynamics,43(3),214-224.
Wulf,T., Stubner, S., & Blarr, H. (2010). Ambidexterityand the Concept of Fit in Strategic Management–Which BetterPredicts Success.HHL Working Papers, Leipzig Graduate School of Management.