Contingency Theory
Definition
The essence of contingency theory is that best practices depend on the contingencies of the
situation. Contingency theory is often called the “it all depends” theory, because when you ask a
contingency theorist for an answer, the typical response is that it all depends. While this may sound
simplistic, assessing the contingencies on which decisions depend can be a very complex. Contingency
theorists try to identify and measure the conditions under which things will likely occur. Since human
service practice varies substantially, contingency theory offers a useful approach to model and predict
CAP practice.
The term contingency as used in contingency theory is similar to its use in direct practice. A
contingency is a relationship between two phenomena. If one phenomenon exists, then a conclusion can
be drawn about another phenomenon. For example, if a job is highly structured, then a person with a
freewheeling disposition will have problems with the job. Contingencies can sometimes be considered
conditions.
Application of Contingency Theory to Human Services Management
Contingency theory attempts to relate research on many management variables, for example,
research on professionalism and centralized decision making or worker education and task complexity. It
allows you to analyze a situation and determine what variables influence the decision with which you are
concerned. A management contingency model is below. The center circle represents the agency. Notice
that the primary internal contingency on which management depends is the agency’s purpose or goals.
The people hired, technology used, tasks performed, and organizational structure are all heavily
influenced by an agency’s goals. This contingency model is based on Carlisle, H.M. (1976) Management
Concepts and Situations, Science Research Associates Inc.
Environment
Political
forces and
institutions
Inputs of
resources, policy,
theories, values,
etc.
Sociocultural
forces and
Institutions
Technological
forces and
Institutions
Technology
Tasks
Purpose/
goals
Structure
People/
manager
Outputs of
services provided,
behaviors
changed, goals
met, rules/ethics
Economic
forces and
Institutions
The table below further defines the contingencies in the figure above. Notice that contingency theory can
incorporate other theories of how contingencies interact, e.g., Maslow’s view of human need helps
understand agency goals.
UTA School of Social Work, Community and Administrative Practice, Dr. Schoech 22-Jan-06 Page 1
Internal Organizational Contingencies
Purpose/goals (Drucker MBO ties goals to tasks, Peters--excellence, Patti--effectiveness)
Economic-profit
Well defined
Few coordinated
Accountability focused
vs
vs
vs
vs
Social/change
Ill defined
Multiple conflicting
Efficiency or effectiveness focused
People (managers/staff/clients/stakeholders) (human relations schools, Theory Y & successors [Maslow,
McGregor, Schein]
Very organized or unionized
Identity to a profession
Youthful and inexperienced
High skills (dexterity, interpersonal, reasoning)
vs
vs
vs
vs
High needs for affiliation, power, achievementMcClelland
High level of training/education
Coherent values/culture, little diversity
(compared to clients)
High payment for work
vs
vs
vs
vs
Not organized or unionized
Identity to the organization
Older and experienced
Low skills (dexterity, interpersonal, reasoning,
etc.)
Low needs for affiliation/power/achievement
Low level of training/education
Divergent values/culture, diversity consistent
with clients
Volunteer
Structure (classical [Fayol, Weber]& structuralists cybernetics, systems, TQM)
Large
Single administrative hierarchy
One central location
Much interaction between workers
Centralized authority & power
Participatory management
Individual work problem solving
Well defined rules and procedures
Many communication channels
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
Small
Dual hierarchy: professional/administrative
Many physical locations
No interaction between workers
Decentralized authority/power
No involvement of workers in management
Team approach to work & problem solving
Informal rules and procedures
No communication channels
Tasks (Focus of scientific management (Taylor) and its successors, TQM)
Work with people
New each time
Very complex
Highly structured
Highly stressful
vs
vs
vs
vs
Vs
Work with things
Repetitive
Very simple
Ill structured
Non stressful
Technology (focus of procedural and computerization schools)
Sophisticated methods involved
Based on formal knowledge & procedures
Uses highly complex machinery
vs
vs
vs
Simple methods involved
Based on nonquantifiable experience
Uses non or simple machinery
External Organizational Contingencies
Sociocultural forces and institutions
Sympathetic public (disabilities)
Voluntary client (client is ready for services)
vs
vs
Client has a choice or input into services
vs
Unsympathetic public (drug users)
Involuntary client (client is not ready for
services)
Client has no choice or input into services
vs
vs
Contracting resources
Not influenced by a good or bad economy
Economic forces and institutions
Expanding resources
Heavily influenced by a good or bad economy
UTA School of Social Work, Community and Administrative Practice, Dr. Schoech 22-Jan-06 Page 2
Resources from another agency or government
vs
Resources from general public (fund raiser)
vs
vs
Low regulations
Not influenced by local, state, or national
elections
vs
Rarely impacted by new developments in
intervention
Isolated from the global society
Political forces and institutions
High regulations
Heavily influenced by local, state, or national
elections
Technological forces and institutions
Heavily influenced by new developments in
interventions
Tightly linked to the global society
vs
The use of the contingency model above might be similar to the following.
Given that purpose of the organization is service to clients,
and that the people (workers) employed are young with BSWs or MSWs,
and that the people (managers) employed are young, inexperienced, and influenced by
altruism not by money
and that the task is to provide case management
and that the technology is sophisticated, relatively new, and hard to quantify
and that the public is mixed regarding your mission and procedures [external
sociocultural force]
and that the clients are involuntary [external sociocultural force]
and that the resources are contracting [external economic force]
and that all resources are from many sources, but mostly governmental [external
economic forces]
and that the agency has few regulations to follow [external political influences]
then it makes sense to (or then research shows that) bureaucratic structures provide
greater worker/manager feelings of security than organic structures.
Application of Contingency Theory to Community Practice
The table below presents the contingencies on which community practice might depend. These
contingencies or conditions should be considered in assessing whether a community approach should be
used and what community approach should be used.
Structure of the client experiencing the problem (target community)
Integrated with larger community 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Isolated from larger community (vertical
integration-Warren)
Both highly integrated and highly isolated communities are easier targets for practice. .
Highly developed infrastructure 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Little infrastructure (horizontal
(physical & human)
integration--Warren)
Influential leadership, many strong organizations such as churches, industries, schools, etc., The higher the self-identity, the less
at risk.*
Highly centralized 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Highly disperse
Power varies by source (law, money/property, people, information) and location (personal vs. institutional)
Centralized in terms of geography, power, etc. Highly centralized and highly dispersed communities are greater at risk.*
Geographic based 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Interest based
The more a community is both geographically based as well as interest based, the less at risk.*
Large number of strengths, low 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Small number of strengths, large number
number of needs
of needs
Diverse 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Homogeneous
Diversity in age, gender, ethnicity, disabilities, income, education, occupation. Moderately diverse communities are less at
risk.* Low diversity is rigid and closed. Highly diverse are easy fractured into disagreeing factions.
UTA School of Social Work, Community and Administrative Practice, Dr. Schoech 22-Jan-06 Page 3
Strong identity as a community 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Weak identity as a community
Identity=shared goals, shared values, e.g., “help your neighbor”, low turnover, commitment to the community. The higher the
self-identity, the less at risk.*
Open flow of communication 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Restricted flow of communication (open
systems theory)
Concerns where multiple channels of communication exist, how open they are, etc. The more channels and the more information
flow, the less at risk.*
Structure of the larger environment in which the client resides (similar variables as target
community)
Mechanical organization employing 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Organic organization employing change
the change agent
agent (Boehm/Howard)
Experience, understand, & concerned 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Do not experience, understand, or have
about problem
concern
The change agent
Prefers rational decision making. 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Prefers political decision making (Boehm &
Howard, 1997)
Citizen participation desired 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Citizen participation openly opposed
Many resources available (e.g., staff 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Few resources available (e.g., staff time and
time and $s)
$s)
High in influence with target 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Low in influence with target community and
community and others
others
Strong sanction exists for intervention 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Weak sanction exists for intervention
Strong control can be exercised over 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Weak control over intervention
intervention
Strong relationship with the 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Weak relationship with the community
community
Nature of the problem and its solution
High awareness of condition by
target/large community
Large % of target community has
problem
Rooted in values (prejudices,
discrimination, etc)
Of great importance to the target
community
High agreement on problem,
measures, and solutions
•
•
1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Low awareness of condition by target &
larger community
1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Small % of target community has problem
1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Rooted in money, power, and neglect
(oppression)
1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Of low great importance to the target
community
1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Low agreement problem, its measures, and
solutions
Less at risk=better chance of constructively handling conflict, surviving, meeting Warren’s functions of community, etc.
Thus, fewer social problems & more opportunities exist.
References: Boehm, A & L. Howard (1997). The influence of organizational and personal characteristics on community
planning activity, Administration in Social Work 21(1), 31-48.
UTA School of Social Work, Community and Administrative Practice, Dr. Schoech 22-Jan-06 Page 4