Contingency Theory and Entrepreneurship
Contingency theory proposes that an organization's success is determined by how well its internal resources, structure, and strategies align with the external environment in which it operates. This external environment includes factors such as political, economic, social, and technological conditions.
The concept of fit is central to contingency theory, as it refers to the degree to which the organization's characteristics match those of the environment in which it operates. A good fit between the organization and its environment can lead to greater success, while a poor fit can lead to inefficiencies and even failure.
The understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for organizational design and administration is a major component of contingency theory. Depending on the particular environmental conditions in which they function, various organizations may require various structures, resources, and methods. For instance, a company operating in a highly regulated sector would need a more rigid, hierarchical structure to adhere to rules, whereas a company working in a more dynamic, uncertain environment might need a structure that is more adaptable and flexible.
Contingency theory also recognizes the importance of ongoing monitoring and adaptation to ensure that the organization's structure, resources, and strategies continue to fit with changing environmental conditions. This requires a willingness to be responsive to changing circumstances and to adjust organizational design as needed to maintain a good fit with the environment.
At the heart of the theory is the assumption of equifinality, that is, that there are many different ways to achieve performance and that the right way depends upon the conditions in the environment of the firm in question (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). This also implies that a one-size-fits-all approach to strategy is doomed to fail.
For example, when a firm’s technological environment is characterized by rapid change or turbulence, then a firm may perform better with a more organic structure (flatter hierarchy, less formal control, etc…), whereas when a firm’s technological environment is stable, then a more mechanistic structure (top down, centralized, formal) may be better (Miller and Toulouse, 1986).
Entrepreneurship researchers have found support for contingency theory in new ventures too. For instance, Chowdhury (2011) finds that new ventures dealing with complex customer environments should avoid high levels of formalization as compared with those facing simpler customer environments. Similarly, Wiklund and Shepard (2005) demonstrated that CEOs with an entrepreneurial orientation lead firms to greater success in dynamic environments with low capital availability.
The concept of fit is central to contingency theory, as it refers to the degree to which the organization's characteristics match those of the environment in which it operates. A good fit between the organization and its environment can lead to greater success, while a poor fit can lead to inefficiencies and even failure.
The understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for organizational design and administration is a major component of contingency theory. Depending on the particular environmental conditions in which they function, various organizations may require various structures, resources, and methods. For instance, a company operating in a highly regulated sector would need a more rigid, hierarchical structure to adhere to rules, whereas a company working in a more dynamic, uncertain environment might need a structure that is more adaptable and flexible.
Contingency theory also recognizes the importance of ongoing monitoring and adaptation to ensure that the organization's structure, resources, and strategies continue to fit with changing environmental conditions. This requires a willingness to be responsive to changing circumstances and to adjust organizational design as needed to maintain a good fit with the environment.
At the heart of the theory is the assumption of equifinality, that is, that there are many different ways to achieve performance and that the right way depends upon the conditions in the environment of the firm in question (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). This also implies that a one-size-fits-all approach to strategy is doomed to fail.
For example, when a firm’s technological environment is characterized by rapid change or turbulence, then a firm may perform better with a more organic structure (flatter hierarchy, less formal control, etc…), whereas when a firm’s technological environment is stable, then a more mechanistic structure (top down, centralized, formal) may be better (Miller and Toulouse, 1986).
Entrepreneurship researchers have found support for contingency theory in new ventures too. For instance, Chowdhury (2011) finds that new ventures dealing with complex customer environments should avoid high levels of formalization as compared with those facing simpler customer environments. Similarly, Wiklund and Shepard (2005) demonstrated that CEOs with an entrepreneurial orientation lead firms to greater success in dynamic environments with low capital availability.
Sources:
Lawrence, P. R., and Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.
Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of business venturing, 20(1), 71-91.
Miller, D., and Toulouse, J. M. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms. Management science, 32(11), 1389-1409.
Chowdhury, Sanjib. "The moderating effects of customer driven complexity on the structure and growth relationship in young firms." Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 3 (2011): 306-320.
Lawrence, P. R., and Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.
Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of business venturing, 20(1), 71-91.
Miller, D., and Toulouse, J. M. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms. Management science, 32(11), 1389-1409.
Chowdhury, Sanjib. "The moderating effects of customer driven complexity on the structure and growth relationship in young firms." Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 3 (2011): 306-320.
