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.

Political Environment Technological

forces and forces and
institutions Institutions
Technology

Inputs of Outputs of
resources, policy, Tasks Purpose/ People/ services provided,
theories, values, goals manager behaviors
etc. changed, goals
met, rules/ethics

Sociocultural Structure Economic

forces and forces and
Institutions 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 vs Social/change
Well defined vs Ill defined
Few coordinated vs Multiple conflicting
Accountability focused vs Efficiency or effectiveness focused
People (managers/staff/clients/stakeholders) (human relations schools, Theory Y & successors [Maslow,
McGregor, Schein]
Very organized or unionized vs Not organized or unionized
Identity to a profession vs Identity to the organization
Youthful and inexperienced vs Older and experienced
High skills (dexterity, interpersonal, reasoning) vs Low skills (dexterity, interpersonal, reasoning,
etc.)
High needs for affiliation, power, achievement- vs Low needs for affiliation/power/achievement
McClelland
High level of training/education vs Low level of training/education
Coherent values/culture, little diversity vs Divergent values/culture, diversity consistent
(compared to clients) with clients
High payment for work vs Volunteer
Structure (classical [Fayol, Weber]& structuralists cybernetics, systems, TQM)
Large vs Small
Single administrative hierarchy vs Dual hierarchy: professional/administrative
One central location vs Many physical locations
Much interaction between workers vs No interaction between workers
Centralized authority & power vs Decentralized authority/power
Participatory management vs No involvement of workers in management
Individual work problem solving vs Team approach to work & problem solving
Well defined rules and procedures vs Informal rules and procedures
Many communication channels vs No communication channels
Tasks (Focus of scientific management (Taylor) and its successors, TQM)
Work with people vs Work with things
New each time vs Repetitive
Very complex vs Very simple
Highly structured vs Ill structured
Highly stressful Vs Non stressful
Technology (focus of procedural and computerization schools)
Sophisticated methods involved vs Simple methods involved
Based on formal knowledge & procedures vs Based on nonquantifiable experience
Uses highly complex machinery vs Uses non or simple machinery
External Organizational Contingencies
Sociocultural forces and institutions
Sympathetic public (disabilities) vs Unsympathetic public (drug users)
Voluntary client (client is ready for services) vs Involuntary client (client is not ready for
services)
Client has a choice or input into services vs Client has no choice or input into services
Economic forces and institutions
Expanding resources vs Contracting resources
Heavily influenced by a good or bad economy vs Not 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)
Political forces and institutions
High regulations vs Low regulations
Heavily influenced by local, state, or national vs Not influenced by local, state, or national
elections elections
Technological forces and institutions
Heavily influenced by new developments in vs Rarely impacted by new developments in
interventions intervention
Tightly linked to the global society vs Isolated from the global society

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 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Low awareness of condition by target &
target/large community larger community
Large % of target community has 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Small % of target community has problem
problem
Rooted in values (prejudices, 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Rooted in money, power, and neglect
discrimination, etc) (oppression)
Of great importance to the target 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Of low great importance to the target
community community
High agreement on problem, 1 2 ⇔ 4 5 Low agreement problem, its measures, and
measures, and solutions 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