I summarize my view of organization theory and then explain how it developed over my life. I stress that it arose gradually from a series of empirical tests, so that my views are based on good reasons, despite being in some ways unconventional. Early influences upon me include the non-conformist climate of my school days and the empirical ethos at the University of Aston. I have long been interested in the creation of social science. This has been informed by the philosophy of science, which emphasizes the centrality of theory and its empirical testing. My early work in the Aston programme laid the basis for commitment to functionalism and generalization. The vociferous rejection of this style of research by ideologically oriented critics led me to defend it, both theoretically and philosophically. My later work on strategy and structure led me to reject strategic choice and embrace situational determinism. I analysed these and other research topics as being within structural contingency theory. I also used this theory frequently in my business school teaching. In the USA, newer theories arose, which, collectively, fragmented organizational theory. I critiqued these theories, and this fragmentation. Moreover, I became convinced that contingency theory in its classic variant is more correct than newer variants, and offered detailed argumentation. My empirical research also found that crises of low performance triggered adaptive structural change. From that, I created organizational portfolio theory, which draws upon finance to explain performance fluctuations and the resultant organizational change and lack of change. More recently, I offered an integrated statement of structural contingency theory and ideas for its future development theoretically and methodologically.
Exploration of Theory Based Evaluation in Public Organizations - Exploring the Utility of Structural Contingency Theory -
