Configuration Theory

Conceptual Overview

Configuration/archetype theory developed from structural-contingency theory. Early work in structuralcontingency theory was often atheoretical in nature. Research uncovered empirical regularities between structures and contingencies. In 1977, Galbraith offered an underlying theory. He specified that organizational structures have different informationprocessing capabilities and that contingencies have different information-processing requirements. For example, highly routine technologies and stable contexts are predictable and thus require informationprocessing capabilities encoded in rules and routines characteristic of bureaucratic structures. Nonroutine technologies and unpredictable environments, in contrast, require information-processing capabilities that enable free-flowing communication between individuals occupying roles that are not tightly defined and constrained, i.e., nonbureaucratic structures.

Structural-contingency theory arose from four streams of research. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a series of case studies demonstrated that the Weberian bureaucratic form was not always effective. Technology, environmental uncertainty, and organizational size placed restrictions on whether a fully bureaucratic organizational form was appropriate. Burns and Stalker, for example, distinguished between “mechanistic” (highly bureaucratic) and “organic” (more loosely structured) organizational structures, with the former coping well with relatively predictable circumstances and the latter with rapidly changing and unpredictable circumstances. That is, the appropriateness of the organic and mechanistic organizational forms is “contingent” upon the degree of task and environmental uncertainty that an organization has to confront. The distinction between organic and mechanistic structures is one of the most often cited in organization theory and remains one of its most robust contributions. It has been applied at the level of the organization and at the level of work groups, with relatively consistent results. It is an early example of configuration/archetype theory because of the emphasis upon the overall pattern of organizational arrangements. However, unlike later versions of configuration/archetype theory, it implied that only one organizational form would be effective in any given set of contingent circumstances and gave no attention to the role of institutional processes.

A second set of studies contributing to the emergence of structural-contingency theory explored whether the constituent elements of bureaucratic organizations (e.g., centralization, formalization, standardization, specialization/division of labor) occur together as described by Weber. Consistently, large-scale surveys found considerable variation in the patterning of these elements, indicating the existence of multiple organizational forms. These findings led to exploration of the influence of organizational size (which leads to decentralization but high formalization and standardization) and technology. Although these studies did not logically imply that structural dimensions should be treated separately, in practice early empirical studies treated them independently rather than as elements in an overall configuration.

...