Theory in Business Research

Contingency Management Theory

Contingency management makes the assertion that managers normally make decisions in reference to the existing situation within the organization rather than using the philosophy that one strategy suits all (Donaldson, 2001). The theory can best be described as a theory that works on the argument that there is no other suitable way to organizing a company, leading it as well as making sound choices. Instead, the optimal action course is dependent upon external as well as internal situation. The manager in this context therefore develops and implements the most important actions based on the existing situation most essential aspects for efficiency to be achieved (Donaldson, 2001). Managers may opt to utilize a participative approach in acquiring thoughts and gaining insights of the issue from the employees rather than being authoritative.

Based on the utility and falsifiability criteria by Bacharach, contingency theory can adequately be refuted which is achievable through the use of experience within organizations. In addition, its content presents a primary bridge amid the theoretical and the practical application and its usefulness is essential since it can be utilized in explaining and making predictions for organizational results. In that through the use of the approach employees are bound to become motivated thus creating satisfaction, high productivity and ultimate success for the organization. In addition, it emphasizes on participation and efficiency rather that the utilization of authority which can be used in creating better employees relation. The contingent theory is an effective management theory since it makes emphasis on efficiency through the application of different approaches to solving persisting issues within an organization. In addition, the theory is more participative and does not encourage authority which is therefore essential in motivating employees to share insights and thoughts regarding an issue (Donaldson, 2001).

Case Assignment

Case 1

In this case, the authors utilize a qualitative approach since the argument here is inductive in that it has a constructed reality. In that, the claims made by the author offers supportive rationales in support of the probable truth of the research conclusion. The research has thoroughly followed the life cycle of a research that led to its publication. In that, the ideas have been developed and created by a number of authors following detailed research from a number of sources. In addition, the research has offered a discussion of its findings to show the link between its thesis and the conclusion. The case stated that the measures of quality performance have competition while infrastructure includes managing the support and labor force (Flynn, Schroeder & Sakakibara, 1995). The research was not involved in any kind of deviation since the conclusion supports the developed hypothesis and also support the study’s purpose. In this case, the researcher could also use a pragmatic approach which has mixed methods. We should follow the life cycle so as not deviate from the objective. The objective might not be fully covered if a more relative approach is not utilized which may create inaccuracy and the lack of dependability of the results.

Case 2

In the second case, the Authors uses quantitative approach. This is shown by the use of data in numerical form and the statistical data is utilized in offering justification to the study’s conclusion. The authors try to explain the forces that determine system usage and their corresponding demerits. Despite the fact that the forces are useful they are characterized by a number of flaws. A detailed research life cycle has been followed as the author offers, the purpose, a review of literature for supporting the given thoughts, an investigation, thorough findings, interpretations, discussion as well as a conclusion. The partnership has also been done since the publication is a peered review. The author points out some of the limitations according to behavioral intentions, behavioral expectations and facilitating conditions in the use of the system by giving better ways to use it. (Huettermann, Doering & Boerner, 2014)

The author could have also used pragmatic research approach to explaining the theory of determinants of behaviors. This approach is free to explain a theory in a mixed up way in that it can use any of the approaches, therefore, the author has the freedom using it in their research. Since the no limitation in the use of pragmatic approach the author has the power to expound on the theory in many ways. Here techniques of different nature could be used. Following the life cycle aids in the flow of the research of the author thus giving the good connection of the ideas. This approach can be utilized in maintaining consistency, creating accuracy as well as the reliability of the study as the failure may create a number of flaws.

Case 3

The authors utilize a qualitative approach to explaining the influence of leaders’ behaviors to those that happen to be on their side. According to the study, leaders should be a good example to others, demonstrate unity, guidance and also involve people in the governing (Venkatesh, Brown, Maruping, & Bala, 2008). The study should have utilized a participatory approach to explaining leaders’ behaviors in their governing process. The use of this approach would enable to respond to certain situations that are favorable to people. The article significantly followed a life cycle of publication research by offering detailed and evaluative literature review in relation to the study. Lifecycle following is essential since it leads to a smooth flow and consistency. The participatory approach should be utilized to ensure that the study does not deviate from the provided purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

References

Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage Publ.

Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. O., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The Impact of Quality Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659-691.

Huettermann, H., Doering, S., & Boerner, S. (2014). Leadership and team identification: Exploring the followers' perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 413-432. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.010

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting Different Conceptualizations of System Use: The Competing Roles of Behavioral Intention, Facilitating Conditions, And Behavioral Expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 483-502.