Woodward, Technology, Organizational Structure and Performance — A Critique of the Universal Generalization

Donaldson, Lex

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1976.tb00902.x

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Child and Mansfield (1972) showed that the technology relationship with structure was weaker than the size relationship, so that a similar weakness of technology as an explanatory variable was found in the National study as had been in the Aston study. The role of technology as an influence on organizational structure has been the subject of much discussion (Blau et al 1976;Caufield 1989;Collins and Hull 1986;Dawson and Wedderburn 1980;Donaldson 1976;Eilon 1977;Gerwin 1979;Hull and Collins 1987;Khandwalla 1974;Lincoln et al 1986;Marsh andMannari 1980, 1989;Miller et al 1991;Mohr 1971;Reeves and Turner 1972;Reimann 1977Reimann , 1980Reimann and Inzerelli 1979;Singh 1986;Woodward 1970;Zwerman 1970). Child (1972b) criticized the Aston studies' explanation of structure by size, and asserted that there was choice of structure exercised by managers and other power-holders, which he termed strategic choice.…”

Section: Aston Contribution To Organizational Research 89mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Aston Programme Contribution to Organizational Research: A Literature Review

Donaldson

Luo

2013

Int J Management Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the literature about the Aston Programme of organizational research, in particular, its studies of organizational structure. The intellectual commitments of the Aston Programme are explicated and contrasted with the then dominant traditions of organizational research. The methodology is explained, with its emphasis on quantitative variables, reliable scales and statistical methods. The way successive studies confirmed or challenged Weberian bureaucracy is discussed. The major structural scales and their short forms are described. The relationships among the structural variables and between them and the contextual variables of size, technology and public accountability are outlined. The generalizability of these relationships in organizational research across countries is considered. The paper offers a roughly chronological narrative in three phases: the original Aston study, the National study and then on to the many subsequent replication and extension studies and reviews of them. Some cognate organizational research studies are brought in that confirm the Aston Programme. The need to continue the Astonian Cartesian approach rather than the configurational approach is emphasized. In closing, the Aston legacy is briefly summated and a vision for a future Aston Programme is offered in an Epilogue.

show abstract

Section: Aston Contribution To Organizational Research 89mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The role of technology as an influence on organizational structure has been the subject of much discussion (Blau et al . ; Caufield ; Collins and Hull ; Dawson and Wedderburn ; Donaldson ; Eilon ; Gerwin ; Hull and Collins ; Khandwalla ; Lincoln et al . ; Marsh and Mannari , ; Miller et al .…”

Section: Second Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

The Aston Programme Contribution to Organizational Research: A Literature Review

Donaldson

Luo

2013

Int J Management Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At LBS I worked on various issues (Donaldson 1975a;Donaldson and Lynn 1976), mostly within the Aston programme, including the dimensionality of organizational structure (Donaldson 1975c) and the relationship of structure with technology (Donaldson 1976). Zwerman (1970) had published a US study that replicated Woodward's (1965) findings that technology was the key.…”

Section: Entering Academiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Vita Contemplativa

Donaldson

2005

Organization Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…This is the case, for instance, of virtual social networking, which was initially planned to be a digital version of the world of personal connections but was soon seen by organizations as an opportunity (and soon after, a need) to interact with the market through richer channels. In fact, the interplay of technology and organizations has been popular among organization scholars for a long time, especially since the landmark work of Woodward (1965) on the oftentimes intriguing (Donaldson, 1976) relationships of production technology, organizational structure, and organizational performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence and industry 4.0: The next frontier in organizations

Nascimento

Bellini

2018

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editor-in-chief, BAR-Brazilian Administration Review In 2016, Professor Andrew Ng, from Stanford University, stated that artificial intelligence (AI) is the new electricity (Lynch, 2017). Such analogy illustrates the magnitude of the impacts of AI on businesses and society that are expected in coming years. That strong claim turned out to be very popular among AI researchers and practitioners, and has been frequently quoted in mass media.

show abstract

Woodward, Technology, Organizational Structure and Performance — A Critique of the Universal Generalization

Cited by 30 publications

References 14 publications

The Aston Programme Contribution to Organizational Research: A Literature Review

The Aston Programme Contribution to Organizational Research: A Literature Review

Vita Contemplativa

Artificial intelligence and industry 4.0: The next frontier in organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About