Appendix 1 : Contingency Theory Contingency theory questions the relation between internal organisation and environment (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Woodward, 1965; Galbraith, 1973; Mintzberg, 1980). The contingency theory claims that the effectiveness of an organisational structure depends on the context attributes such as environment, technology, dimension and age of the organisation. This means that according contingency theory there is not one single universal usable effectiveness model. The contingency theory is interesting for school leaders, because it facilitates the design of the organisational structure from the perspective of the actor, i.e. the school leader. The core concept of contingency theory is the ‘goodness of fit’. This goodness of fit in three ways: effectiveness (doing the right things), efficiency (doing things right), and efficacy (does the means actually work in producing the output). But the (orthodox) contingency approach is static and deterministic. Namely, conditions in the environment function as a direct source for variation. And, organisational flexibility is limited to a reactive capacity of organisations to handle turbulent environments. Furthermore, The approach goes beyond the question how to create and sustain flexible forms, and it neglects the possibility to influence the environment. Because of this previous mentioned criticism the neo‐contingency approach has been developed. Mintzberg, the most famous representative of this new approach, unfolds in his important work The nature of managerial work (1973) a theory which concerns what managers do. First, Mintzberg (1973) introduces, the myth or what do managers believe:  that they sit in solitude contemplating the great strategic issues of the day  that they make time to reach the best decisions  that their meetings are high‐powered, concentrating on the meta‐narrative rather than the hard facts or essence. Second, the reality or what managers do:  they did not spend time contemplating the long term.  they were slaves to the moment, moving from task to task with every move dogged by another diversion, another call.  the median time spent by a manager on any one issue was a mere nine minutes.  performs a great quantity of work at an unrelenting pace  undertakes activities marked by variety, brevity, and fragmentation  has a preference for issues that are current, specific, and non‐routine  prefers verbal rather than written means of communication  acts within a web of internal and external contacts  is subject to heavy constraints but can exert some control over the work Mintzberg develops a contingency‐theory of the work of managers in the same way as he constructs later contingency‐theories concerning organization structures (The Structuring of Organizations, 1979) and power (Power in around organizations, 1983). With regard to the work of managers Mintzberg identifies three clusters of roles, a role being an organized collection of behaviours that belong to an identifiable function or position: 1. Interpersonal roles  Figurehead: representing the organisation/unit to outsiders.  Leader: motivating subordinates, unifying effort.  Liaiser: maintaining lateral contacts. 2.
Informational roles  Monitor: overseeing information flows.  Disseminator: providing information to subordinates.  Spokesman: transmitting information to outsiders. 3. Decisional roles  Entrepreneur: initiating and designing change.  Disturbance handler: handling non‐routine events.  Resource allocator: deciding who gets what and who will do what.  Negotiator: negotiating. Martinenko & Gardner (1985) criticise the way this typology is constructed. They find it too mechanical, and according to them too little attention is given to cognitive processes, and not enough attention to contextual and management variability. Also with respect to his organisational contingency approach, Mintzberg is criticised. He hardly explains dynamics in an organisation as a function of environment, and elaborates the concept of dynamics too deterministic. Instead he emphasizes internal developments. A shift of power would cause a new configuration: a new basic part and a new coordination mechanism . External e.g. market dynamics plays a minor role. Given his own ideas about the importance of the environment for an organisation, this point of view is remarkably.