Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language of Contingency "Theory"
指出权变理论存在五个问题，从理论表述缺乏清晰性到隐含对称性和非单调假设。通过医院手术室数据检验传统假设和更精确的假设，发现传统假设未获支持，而更精确的假设得到更强实证支持，表明技术、结构与组织有效性的关系比权变理论假设的更复杂。
This paper suggests that there are five problems with contingency theory, ranging from a simple lack of clarity in its theoretical statements to more subtle issues such as the embedding of symmetrical and nonmonotonic assumptions in the theoretical arguments. Starting from Galbraith's (1973) contingency theory about organizing for effectiveness, several traditional contingency hypothesis were tested along with more precise hypotheses developed from knowledge of the five problems with contingency theory. Data were drawn from a study of organizational effectiveness in acute care hospital operating room suites. Although traditional contingency notions were not supported by the data, the more precise hypotheses received stronger empirical support. The study data suggest that relationships between technology, structure, and organizational effectiveness are more complicated than contingency theory now assumes. The paper concludes by suggesting formulation of a contingency theory of organizational effectiveness that includes interactive, nonmonotonic, and symmetrical arguments.