The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Task Contingent Model of Work-Unit Structure
Abstract
The authors are grateful for support of this research from the Wisconsin Employment Security Division, Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, and the Center for Business and Economic Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Kent State University. Appreciation is also extended to Elmer Burack, Anant Negandhi, Johannes Pennings, Richard Schoenherr, and Joseph Schwitter for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper. A model for explaining structural variations between work units within the complex organization is presented. Based upon an analysis of the impact of task difficulty and task variability on intraorganizational structure, a taxonomy of alternative work-unit structures is derived. The taxonomy suggests that work units within a complex organization can be classified into three basic structural modes: (1 ) a systematized mode, (2) a service mode, and (3) a group mode; with variations in each mode. However, the structural distinction between modes is one of kind or type, while the distinctions within modes is one of degree. Data on 120 work units within a large government employment-security agency are presented. Empirical support was found for the taxonomy. The work units sampled at six different levels of structure did discriminate empirically on the bases of task difficulty and variability using a fixed-effects model, and were shown to fit in different cells of the taxonomy as predicted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Cited by
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations
Ven, A. H. V. D., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2094477 · Cited by 1,979
Self-citationMeasures of Perrow 's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale.
Withey, M., Daft, R. L., & Cooper, W. H. (1983) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256134 · Cited by 361
Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.05.001 · Cited by 202
Sequential Variety in Work Processes
Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.5.528.16760 · Cited by 152
Metadata
- Authors
- de Ven, A. H. V., & Delbecq, A. L.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1974-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017716155
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Task Contingent Model of Work-Unit Structure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2393888
- The paper
- de Ven, A. H. V., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). A Task Contingent Model of Work-Unit Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393888
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.