A review of literature that spans over a century devoted to defining an organization reveals that any definition which might be functional is subjective. The field of organizational theory and management is characterized by numerous approaches, each with its own set of definitions reflecting a certain bias.
Central to Thompson (1967), Burns and Stalker (1961) and recently Clegg, Konberger and Pitsi
(2005) was the environment of the organization hence they defined organizations in the context of their environment. Each organization is defined in the context of its environment. The works of Perrow (1986), Woodward (1980) and Tata and Prasad (2004) explained organizations in terms of their technologies. Weber (1947,) conceptualized organizations …show more content…
Besides it is difficult to generalize case study findings (Yin, 2004).
The contingency theory which informs the contemporary view of structure tasks organizational structure with dealing with contingencies. In management circles “a contingency is something that mangers cannot avoid”, Clegg, Kornberger, Pitsi (2005: 125). Major contingences have been identified as size, technologies and environment (Clegg, Kornberger, Pitsi, 2005). Central to the contingency theorists is how organizational structure deals with size, environments and technology and how each of these contingencies determines structural design. Contingency theorists have however informed organizational structure researchers with causal laws between
8
organizational structure (structural variables) and its contingencies.
Despite the varied origination of what organizational structure is, there seem to be a consensus on its definition and variables. Robbins (2006) describes structure by its functions and variables.
Key variables of organizational structure emerge. The first being complexity referring to the amount of vertical, horizontal and spatial differentiation. The second being formalization in reference to the degree of the use of rules and procedures. The third is centralization …show more content…
With rapid growth of industries after the Second World War, centralization was thought to lead to greater effectiveness due to the ability of the decision maker to plan, coordinate and control activities Hage and Aiken
(1967). With growing technology and complex environments that organizations find themselves operating in centralization was thought to be a hindrance to employee innovation, adaptiveness and involvement and hence the later and contemporary researchers concluded that it adversely affected performance (Andrews, 2009, Anderson and Brown, 2010). Fitness enables organizations to perform. It is the production of organizational fitness that the researcher is interested in. The extent of which centralization has on organizational fitness has not received attention among scholars hence is relatively unknown a gap that the research proposes to attend.
The degree to which jobs are codified and range of variation or latitude tolerated within the rules is called formalization by PertusaOrtega,
ZaragozaSaez,
ClaverCortes,
(2010),Wang and Tai
(2003) referred to formalization the same way as PertusaOrtega,
Central to Thompson (1967), Burns and Stalker (1961) and recently Clegg, Konberger and Pitsi
(2005) was the environment of the organization hence they defined organizations in the context of their environment. Each organization is defined in the context of its environment. The works of Perrow (1986), Woodward (1980) and Tata and Prasad (2004) explained organizations in terms of their technologies. Weber (1947,) conceptualized organizations …show more content…
Besides it is difficult to generalize case study findings (Yin, 2004).
The contingency theory which informs the contemporary view of structure tasks organizational structure with dealing with contingencies. In management circles “a contingency is something that mangers cannot avoid”, Clegg, Kornberger, Pitsi (2005: 125). Major contingences have been identified as size, technologies and environment (Clegg, Kornberger, Pitsi, 2005). Central to the contingency theorists is how organizational structure deals with size, environments and technology and how each of these contingencies determines structural design. Contingency theorists have however informed organizational structure researchers with causal laws between
8
organizational structure (structural variables) and its contingencies.
Despite the varied origination of what organizational structure is, there seem to be a consensus on its definition and variables. Robbins (2006) describes structure by its functions and variables.
Key variables of organizational structure emerge. The first being complexity referring to the amount of vertical, horizontal and spatial differentiation. The second being formalization in reference to the degree of the use of rules and procedures. The third is centralization …show more content…
With rapid growth of industries after the Second World War, centralization was thought to lead to greater effectiveness due to the ability of the decision maker to plan, coordinate and control activities Hage and Aiken
(1967). With growing technology and complex environments that organizations find themselves operating in centralization was thought to be a hindrance to employee innovation, adaptiveness and involvement and hence the later and contemporary researchers concluded that it adversely affected performance (Andrews, 2009, Anderson and Brown, 2010). Fitness enables organizations to perform. It is the production of organizational fitness that the researcher is interested in. The extent of which centralization has on organizational fitness has not received attention among scholars hence is relatively unknown a gap that the research proposes to attend.
The degree to which jobs are codified and range of variation or latitude tolerated within the rules is called formalization by PertusaOrtega,
ZaragozaSaez,
ClaverCortes,
(2010),Wang and Tai
(2003) referred to formalization the same way as PertusaOrtega,