Comments on 'Contingency and Choice in Organization Theory' (Georg Schreyögg, OS 1/4: 305-326)

Abstract

In Organization Studies 1/4, Schreyögg has argued that the contingency-design approach to the study of organizations has a number of shortcomings. These are related to the neglect of the analysis of political processes and of historically specific institution al settings. The present reply points out that a number of the supposed inadequacies of the contigency-design framework are based on a mischaracterization. Further, many of the issues addressed in a political action analysis are different from those examined in design research. Only the pursuit of contigency-design enquiries can provide the answers sought on the consequences of structural arrangements.