Abstract
The contingency theory approach to organizational design traditionally treats underfit as producing equal performance loss as overfit, so that the effects of these misfits on performance are symmetrical. Recently, an asymmetric view has been proposed, in which underfit produces lower performance than overfit. This chapter analyzes these views. The effects of underfits and overfits on benefits and costs are distinguished. The differential effects on organizational performance of underfit and overfit are to be understood by their effects on benefit and costs. Implications are drawn for organization theory and design. For future empirical research, it is specified how to correctly identify differential performance effects of underfits and overfits. In a managerial design perspective, underfit is liable to occur in growing organizations and to rob them of some of their potential growth. While underfit will lead to an acute condition, overfit will be more chronic.
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
Bertalanffy L v. (1968) General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications, 2nd edn. George Braziler: New York.
Burton R, Lauridsen J, Obel B (2002) Return on assets loss from situational and contingency misfits. Management science 48 (11): 1461–1485.
Burton R, Lauridsen J, Obel B (2004) The impact of organizational climate and strategic fit on firm performance. Human Resource Management 43 (1): 67–82.
Burton R, Obel B (1998) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: Developing theory for application, 2nd edn. Kluwer: Boston.
Burton R, Obel B (2004) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit, 3rd edn. Kluwer: Boston.
Child J (1972) Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology 6: 1–22.
Child J (1975) Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance, Part 2: A contingency analysis. Journal of Management Studies 12: 12–27.
Donaldson L (1987) Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defense of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies 24 (1): 1–24.
Donaldson L (1996) Structural contingency theory. In: Clegg S, Hardy C, Nord W (eds), Handbook of organization studies. Sage: London, pp 57–76.
Donaldson L (2001) The contingency theory of organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Doty D, Glick W, Huber G (1993) Fit, equifinality and organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 38 (8):1196–1250.
Drazin R, Van de Ven A (1985) Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 514–539.
Galbraith J (1974) Organization design: An IP view. Interfaces 4 (3): 28–37.
Galbraith J (1977) Organization design. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Grinyer PH, Yasai-Ardekani M (1981) Strategy, structure, size and bureaucracy. Academy of Management Journal 24 (3): 471–486.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson GB (1982) Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.
Keller RT (1994) Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal 37: 167–79.
Klaas P, Lauridsen J, Håkonsson DD (2006) New developments in contingency fit theory. In: Burton RM, Eriksen B, Håkonsson DD, Snow CC (eds), Organizational design: The evolving state-of-the-art. Springer Science and Business Media: New York.
Meyer A, Tsui A, Hinings C (1993) Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal 38 (6):1175–1195.
Miller D, Friesen P (1980) Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal 23: 591–614.
Naman J, Slevin D (1993) Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical results. Strategic Management Journal 14:137–153.
Scott R (2003) Organizations, 5th edn. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Simon H (1982) The sciences of the artificial, 2nd edn. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Tushman M, Nadler D (1978) IP as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review 3: 613–624, July.
Van de Ven AH, Drazin R (1985) The concept of fit in contingency theory. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 7. JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, pp 333–365.
Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review 14 (3): 423–444.
Woodward J (1965) Industrial organization: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press: London.
Zajac E, Kratz M, Bresser R (2000) Modelling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to strategic change. Strategic Management Journal 21: 429–453.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klaas, P., Donaldson, L. (2009). Underfits Versus Overfits in the Contingency Theory of Organizational Design: Asymmetric Effects of Misfits on Performance. In: Bøllingtoft, A., Håkonsson, D., Nielsen, J., Snow, C., Ulhøi, J. (eds) New Approaches to Organization Design. Information and Organization Design Series, vol 8. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0627-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0627-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0626-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-0627-4
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)