Essays on Managing the Organization Using the Contingency Thinking Theory Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Managing the Organization Using the Contingency Thinking Theory" is a good example of business coursework.   Effective management practices determine the achievement of organizational goals. With the demand for meeting organizational needs and proper management of resources, there have been increased pressures of finding better ways to manage the organizations and reforming organizational structure. According to contingency thinking theory, there is no one best way of managing organizations as presented by the old management theories (Torrington, Hall & Taylor,   2005, 155). The major theories that support one best way of managing organizations are Weber’ s bureaucracy theory and Taylor’ s scientific management theory.

The essay aims to oppose the stand presented by the old theories that there is only one best way of managing the organization using the contingency thinking theory. Management theories It is important to note that there is no one best way of management while using the contingency theory in thinking. Effective leaders often recognize that there of no best way of managing resources; as a result, they focus on the adoption of their style depending on the development level in the management of resources.

After World War II, the management formalism remained the dominant view of the management and organization. However, the previous theories of management dominated the view of organizations and management, which led to the creation of classical management theories like bureaucracy and Taylor’ s scientific management theories (Grandori & Prencipe,   2008, 235). Taylor’ s theory referred to the study of the work processes with the aim of reducing time while maximizing the productivity of the labour and minimizing all the unneeded movements. Such theory believes that within the capitalist economy, the agreement is only achievable through the application of power.

Weber’ s theory researched further and noted that the studies on bureaucracy and classification of the legitimate authority are based on rational-legal, charismatic, and traditional. According to the theory, materials and various economic forces are responsible for shaping the history and concerned with the white-collar functionaries and administrators responsible for the management of plans and intellectual parts. The study on Taylor’ s theory by Henry Mintzberg resulted in criticism. According to Mintzberg theory, obsession with efficiency seems to allow measurable benefits to overshadow the less quantifiable social significance completely while leaving behind the social values.

In addition, Robert Merton also criticized Weber’ s bureaucracy theory by noting that bureaucratic features that Weber believed to improve rationality and efficiency, could actually associate with the inefficiency and irrationality. In conclusion, Merton noted that bureaucracy contains its destruction seeds. In the post-1950s, some of the researchers on management tried to establish ways of successfully managing and organizing organizations. The main objective of such studies was to end with the best organizational structures. However, their findings revealed that successful and effective organizations do not apply the classical management method of thinking (Garud & Gehman,   2014, 11052).

The implications of integrating the classical management method assisted in the development of new direction in organizational management with contingency thinking being one of the directions. Contingency thinking has a unique perspective; nonetheless, it does not rely on the single best approach in managing the organization but offers the managements the opportunity of considering the manner that each approach operate. In addition, it also focuses on the differences between organizations and management to the other.


Garud, R., & Gehman, J. (2014). Theories of Performativity and the Performativity of Theories. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 11052-11052.

Grandori, A., & Prencipe, A. (2008). Organizational invariants and organizational change. European Management Review, 5(4), 232-244.

Kramar, R. (2013). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069-1089.

Modaff, D. P., Butler, J. A., & DeWine, S. (2012). Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Stoichev, K. P. (2014). The Role of Business Continuity Management in the Business Management System. Science Journal of Business and Management, 2(3), 97-105.

Torrington, D., Hall, L., & Taylor, S. (2005). Human resource management. Harlow, England: FT Prentice Hall.

White, P. A. (2009). Not by contingency: Some arguments about the fundamentals of human causal learning. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(2), 129-166.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us