FIT, EQUIFINALITY, AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: A TEST OF TWO CONFIGURATIONAL THEORIES.
Abstract
Mintzberg's and Miles and Snow's configurational theories have both received widespread attention. Most researchers, however, have interpreted these theories in terms of categories of organizations rather than organizational configurations based on ideal types. We explicated the logical structure of configurational theories and developed a set of configurational fit models that are congruent with alternative assumptions of equifinality, which is the premise that multiple organizational forms are equally effective. Then the two theories were formalized with these models and tested empirically. Contrary to our expectations, the results do not support Mintzberg's theory that organizations will be more effective to the extent that they resemble his five ideal types. In contrast with these null results, configurational fit based on Miles and Snow's theory predicted 24 percent of the variance in overall organizational effectiveness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This research stream shared the underlying assumption that effectiveness can be attributed to the internal consistency, or fit, among the patterns of relevant contextual, structural and strategic factors.
“This research stream shared the underlying assumption that effectiveness can be attributed 'to the internal consistency, or fit, among the patterns of relevant contextual, structural and strategic factors' (Doty et al., 1993: 1196).”
From Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective (2017) · cites this paper as Doty et al., 1993
A second commonality among management researchers' inductive use of QCA is the elaboration of 'typological theories' that describe a complex web of causal relationships among multiple and interdependent elements.
“A second commonality among management researchers' inductive use of QCA is the elaboration of 'typological theories' that describe a complex web of causal relationships among multiple and interdependent elements (Doty et al., 1993; Fiss, 2011).”
From Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective (2017) · cites this paper as Doty et al., 1993
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 101 · Cited by 1,198
- Authors
- DOTY, D. H., GLICK, W. H., & HUBER, G. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- ORCID
- DOTY, D. H.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1993-12-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1196-1250
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W1981751052
- Cited by
- 1,198
- References
- 101
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 57
- FWCI
- 20.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Organizational Management and Leadership
- Keywords
- configuration theory, organizational effectiveness, equifinality, organizational fit, Miles and Snow, organizational forms, ideal types
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
