• Tweet

  • Mail service

  • Share

  • Save

  • Print

During the past 30 years, managers have been bombarded with two competing approaches to the problems of human administration and organization. The start, usually called the classical schoolhouse of organization, emphasizes the need for well-established lines of say-so, clearly defined jobs, and authorization equal to responsibility. The 2d, frequently called the participative arroyo, focuses on the desirability of involving organization members in decision making so that they will exist more than highly motivated.

Douglas McGregor, through his well-known "Theory X and Theory Y," drew a distinction betwixt the assumptions about homo motivation which underlie these two approaches, to this effect:

  • Theory X assumes that people dislike work and must exist coerced, controlled, and directed toward organizational goals. Furthermore, most people adopt to be treated this way, so they can avoid responsibility.
  • Theory Y—the integration of goals—emphasizes the average person's intrinsic interest in his work, his desire to be self-directing and to seek responsibility, and his capacity to exist creative in solving business problems.

It is McGregor's conclusion, of form, that the latter approach to arrangement is the more desirable one for managers to follow.1

McGregor's position causes defoliation for the managers who effort to cull between these ii conflicting approaches. The classical organizational approach that McGregor associated with Theory X does work well in some situations, although, as McGregor himself pointed out, at that place are also some situations where it does non piece of work finer. At the aforementioned time, the approach based on Theory Y, while it has produced good results in some situations, does not e'er exercise so. That is, each approach is effective in some cases but not in others. Why is this? How tin managers resolve the confusion?

A New Arroyo

Recent work by a number of students of direction and organisation may aid to answer such questions.ii These studies indicate that there is not ane best organizational arroyo; rather, the all-time approach depends on the nature of the work to be done. Enterprises with highly predictable tasks perform meliorate with organizations characterized by the highly formalized procedures and management hierarchies of the classical approach. With highly uncertain tasks that require more extensive problem solving, on the other mitt, organizations that are less formalized and emphasize self-control and member participation in decision making are more effective. In essence, co-ordinate to these newer studies, managers must design and develop organizations and so that the organizational characteristics fit the nature of the task to be done.

While the conclusions of this newer arroyo volition brand sense to most experienced managers and tin alleviate much of the confusion about which approach to choose, at that place are still ii important questions unanswered:

1. How does the more formalized and decision-making organization affect the motivation of system members? (McGregor'southward nearly telling criticism of the classical approach was that it did non unleash the potential in an enterprise's human being resources.)

ii. Equally important, does a less formalized organization always provide a high level of motivation for its members? (This is the implication many managers have drawn from McGregor's work.)

We have recently been involved in a study that provides surprising answers to these questions and, when taken together with other recent work, suggests a new set of basic assumptions which motion beyond Theory Y into what nosotros telephone call "Contingency Theory: the fit between task, organization, and people." These theoretical assumptions emphasize that the appropriate pattern of organisation is contingent on the nature of the work to exist done and on the particular needs of the people involved. We should emphasize that we accept labeled these assumptions as a step beyond Theory Y considering of McGregor's own recognition that the Theory Y assumptions would probably be supplanted by new knowledge within a short time.3

The Study Design

Our written report was conducted in iv organizational units. Two of these performed the relatively certain task of manufacturing standardized containers on loftier-speed, automated production lines. The other two performed the relatively uncertain piece of work of research and development in communications engineering. Each pair of units performing the aforementioned kind of task were in the same large company, and each pair had previously been evaluated past that company's direction as containing one highly effective unit and a less effective one. The study blueprint is summarized in Exhibit I.

Exhibit I. Study Design in "Fit" of Organizational Characteristics

The objective was to explore more than fully how the fit between system and chore was related to successful operation. That is, does a proficient fit between organizational characteristics and task requirements increase the motivation of individuals and hence produce more effective individual and organizational functioning?

An especially useful approach to answering this question is to recognize that an private has a strong need to master the world around him, including the task that he faces equally a member of a piece of work organization.four The accumulated feelings of satisfaction that come up from successfully mastering ane's environment can be called a "sense of competence." We saw this sense of competence in performing a particular chore as helpful in understanding how a fit between task and organizational characteristics could motivate people toward successful performance.

Organizational dimensions

Because the four study sites had already been evaluated by the respective corporate managers as high and depression performers of tasks, we expected that such differences in functioning would be a preliminary inkling to differences in the "fit" of the organizational characteristics to the job to be done. But, first, we had to ascertain what kinds of organizational characteristics would determine how advisable the organisation was to the particular job.

We grouped these organizational characteristics into two sets of factors:

1. Formal characteristics, which could be used to approximate the fit between the kind of task being worked on and the formal practices of the organization.

ii. Climate characteristics, or the subjective perceptions and orientations that had developed among the individuals about their organizational setting. (These too must fit the task to be performed if the arrangement is to be effective.)

Nosotros measured these attributes through questionnaires and interviews with near forty managers in each unit to decide the ceremoniousness of the arrangement to the kind of job being performed. Nosotros likewise measured the feelings of competence of the people in the organizations so that we could link the ceremoniousness of the organizational attributes with a sense of competence.

Major findings

The principal findings of the survey are best highlighted by contrasting the highly successful Akron plant and the high-performing Stockton laboratory. Because each performed very different tasks (the former a relatively certain manufacturing job and the latter a relatively uncertain inquiry chore), we expected, as brought out earlier, that there would have to be major differences between them in organizational characteristics if they were to perform effectively. And this is what nosotros did find. But we besides found that each of these effective units had a better fit with its item task than did its less effective counterpart.

While our major purpose in this article is to explore how the fit between task and organizational characteristics is related to motivation, we first desire to explore more fully the organizational characteristics of these units, then the reader volition amend understand what we hateful by a fit betwixt chore and organisation and how information technology tin can atomic number 82 to more effective beliefs. To do this, we shall identify the major emphasis on the contrast between the high-performing units (the Akron plant and Stockton laboratory), simply we shall too compare each of these with its less effective mate (the Hartford plant and Carmel laboratory respectively).

Formal characteristics

Beginning with differences in formal characteristics, nosotros found that both the Akron and Stockton organizations fit their respective tasks much better than did their less successful counterparts. In the anticipated manufacturing task environment, Akron had a pattern of formal relationships and duties that was highly structured and precisely defined. Stockton, with its unpredictable inquiry task, had a low degree of structure and much less precision of definition (see Exhibit II).

Exhibit Ii. Differences in Formal Characteristics in High-performing Organizations

Akron's pattern of formal rules, procedures, and control systems was and so specific and comprehensive that information technology prompted one managing director to remark:

"Nosotros've got rules here for everything from how much pulverization to use in cleaning the toilet bowls to how to cart a dead body out of the plant."

In contrast, Stockton'south formal rules were so minimal, loose, and flexible that 1 scientist, when asked whether he felt the rules ought to be tightened, said:

"If a man puts a nut on a screw all day long, yous may need more rules and a job definition for him. Only nosotros're not novices here. We're professionals and not the kind who need close supervision. People around hither do produce, and produce under relaxed conditions. Why tamper with success?"

These differences in formal organizational characteristics were well suited to the differences in tasks of the two organizations. Thus:

  • Akron's highly structured formal practices fit its predictable task because behavior had to exist rigidly defined and controlled around the automated, loftier-speed production line. In that location was actually only i style to accomplish the plant'southward very routine and programmable task; managers divers information technology precisely and insisted (through the institute's formal practices) that each man do what was expected of him.

On the other hand, Stockton's highly unstructured formal practices fabricated just every bit much sense considering the required activities in the laboratory merely could not exist rigidly defined in accelerate. With such an unpredictable, fast-changing task equally communications technology research, in that location were numerous approaches to getting the task done well. As a consequence, Stockton managers used a less structured pattern of formal practices that left the scientists in the lab free to respond to the changing task situation.

  • Akron's formal practices were very much geared to short-term and manufacturing concerns every bit its task demanded. For instance, formal product reports and operating review sessions were daily occurrences, consistent with the fact that the through-put time for their products was typically only a few hours.

By contrast, Stockton's formal practices were geared to long-term and scientific concerns, as its task demanded. Formal reports and reviews were made just quarterly, reflecting the fact that inquiry often does not come up to fruition for three to five years.

At the two less effective sites (i.e., the Hartford found and the Carmel laboratory), the formal organizational characteristics did non fit their respective tasks virtually as well. For example, Hartford's formal practices were much less structured and controlling than were Akron'due south, while Carmel's were more restraining and restricting than were Stockton'due south. A scientist in Carmel commented:

"There'south something here that keeps you lot from being scientific. It's hard to put your finger on, simply I gauge I'd phone call it 'Mickey Mouse.' At that place are rules and things here that make it your manner regarding doing your job as a researcher."

Climate characteristics

Every bit with formal practices, the climate in both loftier-performing Akron and Stockton suited the respective tasks much meliorate than did the climates at the less successful Hartford and Carmel sites.

Perception of structure:

The people in the Akron plant perceived a great deal of structure, with their behavior tightly controlled and defined. One manager in the plant said:

"We can't let the lines run unattended. We lose money whenever they do. So nosotros make sure each human knows his chore, knows when he can take a break, knows how to handle a alter in shifts, etc. It's all spelled out clearly for him the day he comes to work hither."

In contrast, the scientists in the Stockton laboratory perceived very piffling structure, with their behavior just minimally controlled. Such perceptions encouraged the individualistic and creative behavior that the uncertain, rapidly irresolute research task needed. Scientists in the less successful Carmel laboratory perceived much more than construction in their organization and voiced the feeling that this was "getting in their way" and making it hard to do effective research.

Distribution of influence:

The Akron found and the Stockton laboratory likewise differed substantially in how influence was distributed and on the graphic symbol of superior-subordinate and colleague relations. Akron personnel felt that they had much less influence over decisions in their establish than Stockton's scientists did in their laboratory. The job at Akron had already been conspicuously defined and that definition had, in a sense, been incorporated into the automatic production flow itself. Therefore, in that location was less demand for individuals to take a say in decisions concerning the work procedure.

Moreover, in Akron, influence was perceived to be concentrated in the upper levels of the formal structure (a hierarchical or "top-heavy" distribution), while in Stockton influence was perceived to be more than evenly spread out among more levels of the formal structure (an egalitarian distribution).

Akron'south members perceived themselves to have a low degree of liberty vis-à-vis superiors both in choosing the jobs they work on and in handling these jobs on their own. They also described the type of supervision in the plant as existence relatively directive. Stockton'due south scientists, on the other hand, felt that they had a great deal of freedom vis-à-vis their superiors both in choosing the tasks and projects, and in treatment them in the way that they wanted to. They described supervision in the laboratory every bit existence very participatory.

It is interesting to notation that the less successful Carmel laboratory had more of its decisions fabricated at the height. Because of this, there was a definite feeling by the scientists that their detail expertise was not existence effectively used in choosing projects.

Relations with others:

The people at Akron perceived a dandy deal of similarity amid themselves in groundwork, prior work experiences, and approaches for tackling job-related problems. They likewise perceived the degree of coordination of effort among colleagues to be very high. Considering Akron's task was then precisely defined and the behavior of its members so rigidly controlled around the automatic lines, it is easy to come across that this design also made sense.

By contrast, Stockton's scientists perceived not only a peachy many differences among themselves, peculiarly in education and groundwork, simply also that the coordination of effort among colleagues was relatively low. This was appropriate for a laboratory in which a great variety of disciplines and skills were present and individual projects were of import to solve technological issues.

Time orientation:

As we would wait, Akron'due south individuals were highly oriented toward a relatively short time span and manufacturing goals. They responded to quick feedback concerning the quality and service that the establish was providing. This was essential, given the nature of their task.

Stockton's researchers were highly oriented toward a longer time bridge and scientific goals. These orientations meant that they were willing to wait for long-term feedback from a research project that might accept years to complete. A scientist in Stockton said:

"We're not the kind of people here who demand a pat on the dorsum every day. We can wait for months if necessary before we get feedback from colleagues and the profession. I've been working on 1 projection now for 3 months and I'g still non sure where it's going to accept me. I tin can live with that, though."

This is precisely the kind of behavior and attitude that spells success on this kind of task.

Managerial style:

Finally, the individuals in both Akron and Stockton perceived their main executive to have a "managerial style" that expressed more than of a business organisation for the task than for people or relationships, but this seemed to fit both tasks.

In Akron, the technology of the task was and then dominant that top managerial behavior which was not focused primarily on the task might have reduced the effectiveness of functioning. On the other hand, although Stockton's enquiry chore chosen for more than individualistic trouble-solving behavior, that sort of beliefs could have become segmented and uncoordinated, unless the top executive in the lab focused the group's attention on the overall enquiry job. Given the individualistic bent of the scientists, this was an of import force in achieving unity of effort.

All these differences in climate characteristics in the ii high performers are summarized in Exhibit III.

Exhibit Iii. Differences in "Climate" Characteristics in High-performing Organizations

As with formal attributes, the less effective Hartford and Carmel sites had organization climates that showed a perceptibly lower caste of fit with their respective tasks. For example, the Hartford plant had an egalitarian distribution of influence, perceptions of a low degree of construction, and a more participatory blazon of supervision. The Carmel laboratory had a somewhat summit-heavy distribution of influence, perceptions of high structure, and a more directive blazon of supervision.

Competence Motivation

Because of the difference in organizational characteristics at Akron and Stockton, the two sites were strikingly different places in which to work. But these organizations had two very important things in common. Offset, each organization fit very well the requirements of its task. Second, although the behavior in the two organizations was different, the outcome in both cases was effective task operation.

Since, as we indicated before, our primary concern in this study was to link the fit betwixt organization and job with individual motivation to perform effectively, nosotros devised a two-function examination to measure the sense of competence motivation of the individuals at both sites. Thus:

The first part asked a participant to write artistic and imaginative stories in response to 6 ambiguous pictures.

The 2nd asked him to write a artistic and imaginative story nigh what he would be doing, thinking, and feeling "tomorrow" on his job. This is called a "projective" test considering information technology is assumed that the respondent projects into his stories his own attitudes, thoughts, feelings, needs, and wants, all of which can be measured from the stories.v

The results indicated that the individuals in Akron and Stockton showed significantly more feelings of competence than did their counterparts in the lower-fit Hartford and Carmel organizations.6 Nosotros found that the system-task fit is simultaneously linked to and interdependent with both individual motivation and constructive unit performance. (This interdependency is illustrated in Exhibit IV.)

Exhibit IV. Bones Contingent Relationships

Putting the conclusions in this grade raises the question of crusade and result. Does constructive unit operation event from the chore-organization fit or from college motivation, or perchance from both? Does higher sense of competence motivation event from constructive unit performance or from fit?

Our respond to these questions is that we do not remember there are any single cause-and-effect relationships, but that these factors are mutually interrelated. This has of import implications for management theory and practice.

Contingency Theory

Returning to McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y assumptions, nosotros can now question the validity of some of his conclusions. While Theory Y might assistance to explicate the findings in the ii laboratories, nosotros clearly demand something other than Theory X or Y assumptions to explicate the findings in the plants.

For instance, the managers at Akron worked in a formalized organization setting with relatively piffling participation in decision making, and yet they were highly motivated. According to Theory 10, people would piece of work hard in such a setting only considering they were coerced to do and so. According to Theory Y, they should have been involved in decision making and been self-directed to feel so motivated. Zero in our data indicates that either set of assumptions was valid at Akron.

Conversely, the managers at Hartford, the low-performing institute, were in a less formalized organization with more participation in decision making, and even so they were not as highly motivated like the Akron managers. The Theory Y assumptions would suggest that they should have been more than motivated.

A manner out of such paradoxes is to land a new gear up of assumptions, the Contingency Theory, that seems to explain the findings at all 4 sites:

1. Homo beings bring varying patterns of needs and motives into the work organisation, simply one fundamental need is to achieve a sense of competence.

2. The sense of competence motive, while it exists in all human beings, may exist fulfilled in different ways by dissimilar people depending on how this demand interacts with the strengths of the individuals' other needs—such as those for power, independence, construction, achievement, and affiliation.

3. Competence motivation is virtually likely to be fulfilled when there is a fit betwixt chore and organisation.

4. Sense of competence continues to motivate even when a competence goal is achieved; once i goal is reached, a new, higher one is set.

While the central thrust of these points is articulate from the preceding discussion of the report, some elaboration tin be fabricated. First, the idea that different people take unlike needs is well understood by psychologists. Withal, all as well oftentimes, managers assume that all people accept similar needs. Lest nosotros be accused of the same error, we are saying merely that all people accept a need to feel competent; in this ane style they are similar. But in many other dimensions of personality, individuals differ, and these differences will determine how a item person achieves a sense of competence.

Thus, for example, the people in the Akron plant seemed to be very unlike from those in the Stockton laboratory in their underlying attitudes toward uncertainty, authority, and relationships with their peers. And because they had unlike need patterns along these dimensions, both groups were highly motivated past achieving competence from quite different activities and settings.

While at that place is a need to further investigate how people who work in different settings differ in their psychological makeup, i important implication of the Contingency Theory is that nosotros must not only seek a fit between organization and task, but besides between job and people and between people and organization.

A farther point which requires elaboration is that one'south sense of competence never actually comes to rest. Rather, the real satisfaction of this need is in the successful functioning itself, with no diminishing of the motivation as one goal is reached. Since feelings of competence are thus reinforced by successful performance, they can be a more consequent and reliable motivator than salary and benefits.

Implications for managers

The major managerial implication of the Contingency Theory seems to rest in the job-arrangement-people fit. Although this interrelationship is complex, the best possibility for managerial action probably is in tailoring the organization to fit the job and the people. If such a fit is achieved, both effective unit of measurement performance and a higher sense of competence motivation seem to result.

Managers can start this process by considering how sure the job is, how ofttimes feedback about task operation is bachelor, and what goals are implicit in the task. The answers to these questions volition guide their decisions about the blueprint of the management hierarchy, the specificity of job assignments, and the utilization of rewards and control procedures. Selective employ of preparation programs and a general accent on appropriate management styles volition move them toward a task-organization fit.

The problem of achieving a fit among task, organization, and people is something we know less virtually. Every bit we take already suggested, we need further investigation of what personality characteristics fit various tasks and organizations. Fifty-fifty with our limited knowledge, however, there are indications that people volition gradually gravitate into organizations that fit their particular personalities. Managers can help this process by becoming more than aware of what psychological needs seem to best fit the tasks bachelor and the organizational setting, and by trying to shape personnel choice criteria to accept account of these needs.

In arguing for an approach which emphasizes the fit amidst job, organization, and people, we are putting to rest the question of which organizational approach—the classical or the participative—is best. In its place we are raising a new question: What organizational approach is most appropriate given the chore and the people involved?

For many enterprises, given the new needs of younger employees for more autonomy, and the rapid rates of social and technological change, information technology may well be that the more participative approach is the near advisable. But there volition withal be many situations in which the more controlled and formalized organization is desirable. Such an organization need non exist coercive or punitive. If it makes sense to the individuals involved, given their needs and their jobs, they will observe it rewarding and motivating.

Last Note

The reader will recognize that the complexity we have described is not of our ain making. The basic deficiency with before approaches is that they did not recognize the variability in tasks and people which produces this complexity. The strength of the contingency approach we accept outlined is that it begins to provide a way of thinking nigh this complexity, rather than ignoring it. While our noesis in this surface area is still growing, we are certain that any acceptable theory of motivation and organization will have to take account of the contingent relationship between task, organization, and people.

1. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York, McGraw-Colina Volume Company, Inc., 1960), pp. 34–35 and pp. 47–48.

two. See for case Paul R. Lawrence and Jay Westward. Lorsch, Organization and Environs (Boston, Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1967); Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory & Practice (New York, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1965); Tom Burns and Chiliad.M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation (London, Tavistock Publications, 1961); Harold J. Leavitt, "Unhuman Organizations," HBR July–August 1962, p. 90.

3. McGregor, op. cit., p. 245.

4. See Robert W. White, "Ego and Reality in Psychoanalytic Theory," Psychological Issues, Vol. 3, No. 3 (New York, International Universities Press, 1963).

five. For a more detailed description of this survey, see John J. Morse, Internal Organizational Patterning and Sense of Competence Motivation (Boston, Harvard Business Schoolhouse, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1969).

6. Differences between the two container plants are meaning at .001 and between the research laboratories at .01 (one-tailed probability).

A version of this commodity appeared in the May 1970 issue of Harvard Business Review.