Abstract
Organizational design is concerned with aligning critical elements of the organization with situational factors facing the firm to affect a criterion (or criteria) of interest. Major perspectives on design can be classified as either classical or contingency approaches. Classical theories advocate universalistic prescriptions concerning design. Contingency approaches argue that appropriate choices of design depend on factors like technology, environmental uncertainty or information-processing needs. The central concept in modern organizational design is the fit between these organizational and situational variables.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Burns, T., and G.M. Stalker. 1962. The management of innovation. New York: Quadrangle Books.
Drazin, R., and A.H. Van de Ven. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 514–539.
Fayol, H. 1916. Administration Industrielle et Générale: Prévoyance, Organisation, Commandement, Coordination, Controle. Paris: H. Dunod et E. Pinat.
Galbraith, J.R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J.R., and R. Kazanjian. 1986. Strategy implementation: The role of structure and process. St Paul: West.
Galbraith, J.R., and D. Nathanson. 1978. Strategy implementation: The role of structure and process. St Paul: West.
Gulick, L., and L. Urwick. 1937. Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Hrebiniak, L.G., and W. Joyce. 1980. Implementing strategy. New York: Macmillan.
Hrebiniak, L.G., W. Joyce, and C. Snow. 1989. Strategy, structure, and performance: Past and future research. In Strategic human resource management, ed. C.C. Snow. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Joyce, W. 2005. What really works: Building the 4+2 organization. Organizational Dynamics 34: 118–129.
Joyce, W., J. Slocum, and M.A. Von Glinow. 1982. Person-situation interaction: A test of competing models of fit. Journal of Occupational Behavior 3: 265–280.
Joyce, W., N. Nohria, and B. Roberson. 2003. What really works? New York: HarperCollins.
Lawrence, P.R., and J.W. Lorsch. 1967. Organizations and environments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
March, J.G., and H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Perrow, C.B. 1972. Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schoonhoven, C.B. 1981. Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency ‘theory’. Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 349–377.
Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tushman, M., and D. Nadler. 1982. A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics 9: 35–51.
Weber, M. [1922] 1968. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this entry
Cite this entry
Joyce, W. (2018). Organizational Design. In: Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_729
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_729
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-53721-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00772-8
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences