Vol. 21, No.

2 Stern Reviews DONALDSON

Review:
American Anti-Management Theories of
Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation
by Lex Donaldson, 1995 (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge) $29.95, softback, pp. xiv + 263.

A short space can hardly do justice to a volume such as this which undertakes a
sweeping critique of the entire field of organisation theory from its broadest
level of paradigm development to its underlying assumptions and empirical base.
Let me proceed with a brief synopsis, then venture comment on this unusually
detailed work. Here, Prof. Donaldson, perhaps academe’s most well known
advocate of organisational contingency models, has staked a claim to a moral high
ground in which the structural contingency theory of organisations is presented
as the most useful, correct and positive of paradigms for understanding
organisations. Four perspectives generated largely in the US since the 1970s are
presented as steps backward in the progress of organisation theory as a scientific
endeavour.
The critique of population ecology, institutional theory, resource dependence
and organisational economics (transaction costs and agency) runs the gamut
A to Z. American academics are seen as too concerned with novelty and careerism
to fully investigate the better theory, structural contingency; rather, they seek to
develop their own theories, terms and ideas in order to enjoy momentary fame
while simultaneously reducing the scientific merit of organisation studies. The
attention to inventing terms and models diverts scholars from replicating, testing
and filling out the contingency approach which is identified as preceding the
others.
American organisation theory is characterised as antimanagement because
the four newer models do not present management in a positive light. Rather than
striving to make organisations perform better by making structure fit the
contingencies facing the organisation, managers in these theories are painted as
either having no effective role or of having selfish and aggrandising motives
behind their actions.
Donaldson’s wide ranging attack is upon the founding assumptions and
evidence for each of the four schools of thought. Population ecology, the most
distant model from contingency is cited for both its common criticisms and the less
well known. After the standard critique of the vague definition of organisational
form and its rejection of managers as responding efficaciously to environmental
conditions, Donaldson adds the lack of identity between the evolutionary biology
metaphor and the Hannan and Freeman (1977) version of ecological theory. He
condemns their failure to explain everything about organisational structure, their
obsession with birth and death rates of organisations and their failure to test out
everything implied by their theory.
The next victim, institutional theory, receives blows for alternative
interpretations of data in several studies, some contradictory results, the
impossibility that organisational managers might just imitate other organisations
without having an efficiency rationale, its antifunctionalist bias and its concern

– 189 –
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT December 1996

with symbolism instead of efficiency. The remaining theories receive more harsh
treatment as they come closer to substituting for structural contingency
explanations. The attack is upon data reported in several primary studies, the
immorality of positing less than noble motives for some managers, social
conscience, the need for a positivist scientific model, and in the resource
dependence model, the daring thought that organisations can alter their
environments.
The criticisms are so plentiful that some hit the mark, but a substantial portion
represent inaccuracy, exaggeration and extreme interpretations. Because of the
complexity of the critique, examining its details may be less helpful than an
analysis of the underlying values, forms of critique and assumptions of
Donaldson’s effort.
The four contemporary organisation theories which have appeared in
America since the 1970s are being attacked because they represent rejection of
structural contingency theory. Donaldson believes contingency theory answers
the questions raised by these newer theories and represents a uniting banner
under which the scientific study of organisation structure can thrive and provide
advice to managers. He attributes the emerging theories to careerism, obsession
with novelty, failure to be rational and poor empirical analysis. The motives of the
scientists stand impugned and the pluralism of organisation studies condemned.
Does structural contingency explain it all better? Was the proposal of
alternative models purely self serving by ambitious American academics? Having
been a student of Jim Thompson (whom Donaldson cites as a fundamental
contingency theorist), I was nurtured on contingency theory and have no
discomfort with its strengths as well as the weaknesses which stimulated
alternative theories. The theory’s basic premise is that firms will perform better
when their structures match the contingencies imposed by their size, technology,
environment and several other variables. The managers’ role is to adjust the
organisation structure until it fits the contingencies.
Though Donaldson mentions Thompson’s 1967 Organizations in Action as
a fundamental work, he does not elaborate on it in defending contingency models,
and has good reason not to do so. Thompson’s contingency model is one which
anticipates and perhaps requires the creation of the resource dependence theory
which Donaldson seeks to discredit. Yes, the environment created contingencies
which required structural elaboration from the organisation, but the organisation
also developed strategies to manage that environment which included forming
coalitions and coopting of outside elements, the same strategies for which Pfeffer
and Salancik (1978) are condemned by Donaldson. Thompson even posits that
the choice of these tactics for contending with the environment is preference
ordered by those involving the least penetration by the outside organisation: the
maintenance of autonomy variable of resource dependence theory.
Thompson, attempting to deal with the major breech in contingency models
asked how managers make the adjustment to get the ‘right’ fit. Donaldson’s
contingency theory proposes no model of process; change comes by management
reading the contingencies and making adjustments because of good will or
commitment to organisational goals. Instead, Thompson argued that the very
decisions about these adjustments were contingent upon managers’ agreement on
goals and complete knowledge of cause and effect. When agreement on intent

– 190 –
Vol. 21, No. 2 Stern Reviews DONALDSON

was lacking, bargaining among managers took place; when causal relations were
unclear, judgment was used and when both were uncertain, inspiration became the
tool for adjustment. Having introduced uncertainty, and potential disagreement,
which are quite natural, the absence of a process theory in contingency
explanations becomes a critical shortcoming.
A short jump leads to Pfeffer’s models of power and dependence. Those who
must exercise judgment or bargain and believe in the correctness of their
individual or coalition positions will use power and influence to have their
judgments and positions adopted. It is not necessary to posit an evil manager out
only for self aggrandising power when that power is a necessary resource for
having that manager’s judgment accepted in the adaptation process. Whether the
strategy is merger or creation of a new budgeting process, power is required in the
process of reaching a decision. This is not to deny that some managers may seek
power and control for its own sake or to stimulate personal career, but the failure
of contingency theory to address the process question begged the positing of
alternative theoretical positions. In terms of Donaldson’s paradigm proliferation
concern, the unanswered research questions of contingency formulations called
for further paradigm development.
The enthusiasm with which Donaldson attacks resource dependence theory,
contingency’s most similar competitor, spills over to some rather extreme forms of
argument. For example, resource dependence is criticised for Weick’s (1969) idea
of an enacted environment. Weick posited a form of post hoc rationalisation in
which decisions are justified afterwards by interpreting environmental factors as
consistent with the decision reached. To label this idea as implying that resource
dependence theorists do not believe in a physical world and fancifully argue that
perceptions actually create the environment, is a tactical use of unjustified
distortion. The fitting of contingency to structure requires managerial perception
as well. That managers follow the classic rational model of organisational decision
making is easily challenged; decisions are justified by perceptions of available
data.
In his attack on institutionalism, Donaldson argues that there is no evidence
that organisations imitate one another to create symbolic legitimacy and thereby
improve their operating positions in their task environments. Again, Thompson’s
version of contingency asked what happens when both goals and causes are
unclear or in dispute; inspirational decision making was proposed. His example
was the foreign service which operates at the symbolic level on most occasions,
training staff in protocol, a symbolic culture of behaviour allowing decisions to be
made and actions to be taken when outcomes and goals are unclear. Institutional
theory posits that in unclear circumstances under ambiguity or lack of clear norms,
imitation is much more than the kindest form of flattery; it becomes the strategy of
choice. Institutional theory is not inconsistent with the idea that social conditions
explain organisational action, and it does provide an explanation for some of the
process dimensions which contingency ignores.
The concept of rationality is itself abused in the analysis. The four models are
accused of irrationality, but the attack is based upon either economic rationality
alone or Donaldson’s personal notion of what is rational. There is no recognition
of the emerging idea of social rationality or how social objectives might affect
decisions. More critical is the inconsistency in the application of the rationality

– 191 –
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT December 1996

concept. A defence of Weber’s substantive rationality is made when convenient,

but had Donaldson applied the same construct to the four alternative models, the
irrationality charge would have faded away. Donaldson’s meaning of ‘rationality’
remains obscure.
Beyond the idea that contingency’s failure to deal with process explanations
called forth alternatives, there are other central issues requiring discussion in order
to interpret Donaldson’s critique. The rhetoric of this volume condemns US
organisation theorists for spinning out new paradigms daily in their quest for fame,
but the four models dissected here all appeared in the 1970s, a decade after the
contingency work cited by Donaldson. Twenty years having passed since the last
model worthy of note appeared scarcely suggests that paradigms are popping like
spring flowers. Over the past 20 years many scholars have been doing exactly
what is required. They test, revise, discover limitations and try using these theories
to guide research. Had Prof. Donaldson given more attention to the recent work
rather than concentrating on the founding authors, a more enlightening text might
have resulted.
The condemnation of these four theories for attributing less than positive or
efficacious roles to management is described as an inappropriate position for
business school faculty to maintain. This argument runs directly counter to
Donaldson’s own concern with the scientific integrity of organisational theory as
a field. That these theories are too sociological is a fascinating condemnation as
the models other than organisational economics were proposed by sociologists or
social psychologists. What interest should these social scientists hold? In
opposition to this sociology of knowledge critique made by Donaldson, I have
argued elsewhere (Stern & Barley 1996) that living in business schools has led US
sociologists who inhabit them to an overly narrow and business centred view of
organisations.
In spite of the mix of moral philosophy and science coupled with the book’s
detailed inspection of sentences and data, this work may keep readers interested.
There is something to the issue of US organisation theorists focusing on novelty
and the invention of new terms. Donaldson lays out the basic premises of each
theory well, and the critiques are written with such unequivocality, that those in
the field will become instantly emotionally involved. Organisation theorists cannot
read this book without finding themselves barbecued, steamed or boiled
somewhere among the paradigms.

– 192 –
Vol. 21, No. 2 Stern Reviews DONALDSON

References
Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. 1977, ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American
Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, pp. 929–964.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. 1978, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Stern, R.N. & Barley, S.R. 1996, ‘Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s
neglected mandate’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, pp. 146–162.
Thompson, J.D. 1967, Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Weick, K.E., 1969, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Robert N. Stern
Professor of Organisational Behaviour
ILR-Cornell University
and Visiting Professor
School of Management
Queensland University of Technology

– 193 –
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT December 1996

– 194 –