4.11 Regulatory Bodies/Authorities/Commisions

Regulating bodies are considered as a separate type of institutions of a state different from legislative, executive and judiciary as they have a blend of all the three organs features. They can be considered as a line or agencies and they are expected to remain independent of the executive. It means regulating bodies are different from ministries,  department, companies, corporation and bureaucracy

EVOLUTION OF REGULATING BODY

With the emergence of Modern Society need for welfare also became significant and therefore to ensure welfare to people institutions like regulatory bodies emerged which are different from bureaucratic bodies.

Since bureaucracy is an instrument of the executive, it is not considered a suitable instrument for regulating authorities of the state in which multiple stakeholders are involved.

In Modern Times, the first regulating body emerged in the USA, which is known as Independent regulatory commision.First such regulatory commision created in 1857 known as Inter-state commision. Such Commision enjoy a distinctive status in US administration set-up that 

1. They are not under the control of executive rather they function under the oversight of the legislature.
2.Although their members are appointed by the president but removed by Congress.
3. They enjoy immense power like legislative, executive, judicial and polite.
4.Their membership based on the bipartisan system.
(5 year=3 Ruling+2 another party side)

Their functioning has reserved in the establishment of a legality which also influences other countries, although there has been a long debate on the continuity and discontinuity.

REGULATORY BODIES IN INDIA

The first regulatory body was established under 1935(RBI) is also central bank to GOI. After Independent sectorwise such bodies have been set up.such as education,health,sports,law,insurance,telecom,agriculture,GEAc,Press Council of India (regulation and Quasi-judicial),SEBI,UGC,AICTE,FSSAI(Food Safety and Standards Authority of India),remain in news.

LPG and Regulatory Bodies-

Due to LPG, the role of business factor increased and the role of Government has become -business friends, facilitating regulation;

Today state is characterised as corporate, competitive, welfare state and therefore regulating function has received immense significance not only in the field of the economy but also all the affairs of the state as they have a direct or indirect impact on the functioning of the market economy.

Business sector is also entering in all areas including defence. Therefore, regulating their affairs becomes very important.

Public sectors are also becoming privatised, disinvested which needs effective regulation.In fact the success of LPG, market economy, foreign investment depend on regulating the environment of a country.

World bank has given in its report following reasons for establishing an effective regulating mechanism.

Since most of the public activities are carried out by private sectors through 

i)privatisation

ii)PPP

iii)Contracting out

Therefore effective regulation is very essential for

i)promoting transparency and accountability

ii)competition

iii)Protecting the interest of different stakeholders

iv)Ensuring public group

NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

It has been found by world bank itself that du to LPG there has been mushrooming of regulating bodies across the world which has itself created a complex environment of regulating.therefore it is of the view that regulating bodies will be scrapped or reduced and ministry, the department should directly deal with stakeholders.In fact there are also studies of the impact of NPm of developed and developing countries and it was found that it was not very successful.

Infact subprime crisis in USA, Eurozone crisis in europe  are manifestaion of weak regulation environment in western countries.

STATUS IN INDIA

India has also been part of LPG.Many new regulatory bodies established in the last 2-3 decades. Although these are positive implication that
a)There has been tremendous interest in regulating environments -License Raj Permit era.

b)There have been transformative developments in the field of automobile, pharmaceuticals.

c)India has become the most attractive destination for foreign investment.

d)The Business sector has experience in the unprecedented expansion.

However,
This also has negative sides reported by
a)Ease of doing business report by World Bank 100 th spot in 2017 100 th spot in 2017. (http://www.makeinindia.com/article/-/v/india-jumps-30-places-in-world-bank-s-doing-business-report-2018)
b)Damodaran committee report which finds that regulatory bodies are nothing but the administrative expansion of ministry department.
c) Second ARC also finds many regulatory gaps in the country.
d)The head of FSLRC -BN Shrikrishna reported that regulatory bodies behave as Nawabs.
e)There is also the incidence of corporate failures and scams such as Satyam, Sahara, Sharda 3G.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/heres-all-you-need-to-know-about-saradha-scam-2628901.html----> Sharda Scam

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/rbi-sebi-come-together-to-prevent-saradha-like-scam-launch-website-to-prevent-scams/articleshow/53550036.cms->RBI and SEBI steps to deal with.

In Spot Exchange, You have to sell within 32 days, After that, it will fall into the category of future trading. People do future trading in name of Spot Exchange when they don't have the capital for what they purchase.

OTHER ISSUES WITH REGULATORY BODIES

1. Non-compliance of provisions of companies Act-especially one-half member should be independent.

2.lack of transparency in -appointment of members of regulatory bodies.

                                          Their terms

                                          Their condition of services.

3. According to ARC IInd -there is a lack of uniformity in such provisions.

4. A regukating bodies are established without adequate analysis and research ie..there is a reactive phenomenon.

5. The bureaucratisation of regulatory bodies-it has been found that its members or head are retired or running bureaucrats. Eg- SEBI has bureaucrats as the head.

6. There has not been concomitant(naturally accompanying or associated.) Changes in law /rules/procedure.

On the whole, according to Damodar committee remarks-India has too many regulating bodies but too little regulations.

(India has too many laws but no rule of law).

REMEDIES

They are based on the recommendation of ARC IInd, FSLRC, Damodaran Committee.

The second ARC gives the following recommendations

a)Regulating bodies should be created only after study and analysis.

b)There should be transparency in the appointment and the removal.

c)They should have a uniform qualification of service and tenure.

Damodaran Committee

a)First, there should be regulating impact assessment that evaluated the performance of regulatory bodies which will make them behave responsibly.

b)The Parliament should have oversight over these regulatory authorities and should submit their half yearly,yearly report to such committee.

c)They should be made independent of executive.

FSLRC (Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC))

a)It recommends improvements in the financial sector not only regulation but also establishing new financial architecture in the company.

b)It recommends to merge all five financial bodies and create unified regulating bodies.

c)It recommends RBI in long-run should remain banker not regulating body.

d)Financial Stability development council should be given statutory status.

Que 1. Critically Analyse the need for a unified regulatory body in the Financial sector (FSLRC recommendation)
Que2.Regulation is a very essential function for creating a globally competitive economy. In the light of this statement what are the lessons learnt from the recent corporate failures so that regulators environment can be improved.
Que3.Do you think that India should adopt the pattern of independent regulatory commissions of USA. To enhance the efficacy and independency of regulatory bodies.
Que.4.Regulating has remained and important role of public administartion.Discuss the implementation,
Que 5.Finacial stability develpomnet council is considered as super regulating body.Crtically Analyse.

1.All Organisational Theories-Sharma And Sadhna

4.10 Contingency theory suggests that the Human relations approach made the same mistake as had the classical authors in assuming that there is one best way of managing all organizations

4.9 All Contingency Theory Summary

4.8 Hersey-Blanchard Contingency Model

What is the 'Hersey-Blanchard Model'

The Hersey-Blanchard model is a situational leadership model which suggests that there is no single optimal leadership style, and successful leaders adjust their styles based on "follower maturity." Follower maturity is determined by the ability and confidence of the group they are attempting to lead. The model proposes that leaders deal with varying levels of follower maturity by adjusting their relative emphasis on task and relationship behaviors. According to the model, this gives rise to four leadership styles -

• Delegating Style is a low-task, low-relationship style wherein the leader allows the group to take responsibility for task decisions.
• Participating Style is a low-task, high-relationship style that emphasizes shared ideas and decisions.
• Selling Style refers to a high-task, high-relationship style, in which the leader attempts to "sell" his ideas to the group by explaining task directions in a persuasive manner.
• Telling Style refers a high-task, low-relationship style wherein the leader gives explicit directions and supervises work closely.

• BREAKING DOWN 'Hersey-Blanchard Model'

  Managers using the Hersey-Blanchard model must be able to select the leadership style that matches the maturity of followers. For example, if follower maturity is high, the model suggests a delegating style of leadership where the leader has to provide minimal guidance. By contrast, if follower maturity is low, due to inexperience or unfamiliarity on the part of the followers, a telling style could be more appropriate in order to ensure the group has clarity on their goals and how they are expected to achieve them.
  The model was developed in 1970s by professor and author Paul Hersey and leadership expert Ken Blanchard, author of The One Minute Manager.

  Applications and Limitations of the Hersey-Blanchard Model

  This leadership method lets executives, managers, and other positions of authority take charge of their followers based on the acumen, understanding, and context of the group. By taking into consideration how the strengths, weaknesses, and awareness of the followers can affect their performance and the outcomes of the project, leaders can apply an appropriate structure and degree of control to achieve the desired result.
  There are limitations to the model that may be beyond the leader’s control. The position and authority of the leader may be restricted by the operational chain-of-command or hierarchy for an organization, which could force them to adopt rigid styles rather than adapt to follower maturity. Furthermore, time constraints, a narrow field of options, and limits on available assets can also force managers to act based on the circumstances they face, eliminating the possibility of enacting strategies built around follower maturity.

4.7-Henry Mintzberg Contingency Model

The Canadian academic, Henry Mintzberg, synthesised organisational design literature into five ideal organisational forms or configurations that do not exist in the real world, but provide consultants and managers a framework to understand and design organisational structures.

Mintzberg defined organisational structure as "the sum total of the ways in which it divides its labour into distinct tasks and then achieves coordination among them". Each configuration contains six components:

1. operating core: the people directly related to the production of services or products;
2. strategic apex: serves the needs of those people who control the organisation;
3. middle line: the managers who connect the strategic apex with the operating core;
4. technostructure: the analysts who design, plan, change or train the operating core;
5. support staff: the specialists who provide support to the organisation outside of the operating core's activities;
6. ideology: the traditions and beliefs that make the organisation unique.

The components are linked by four flows:

1. authority;
2. work material;
3. information;
4. decision processes.

The organisation's structure depends on the organisation itself, its members, the distribution of power, the environment and the technical system. Design decisions can be grouped into the:

• design of positions;
• design of superstructure;
• design of lateral linkages;
• design of decision making system.

Work constellations are quasi-independent cliques of individuals who work on decisions appropriate to their level in the hierarchy. These groups range from the formal to the informal.

Mintzberg used the components, flows, work constellations and coordination mechanisms to define five configurations:

1. Simple Structure

Entrepreneurial setting: relies on direct supervision from the strategic apex, the CEO.

2. Machine Bureaucracy

Large organisations: relies on standardisation of work processes by the techno-structure.

3. Professional Bureaucracy

The professional services firm: relies on the professionals' standardisation of skills and knowledge in the operating core.

4. Divisionalised Form

Multi-divisional organisation: relies on standardisation of outputs; middle-line managers run independent divisions.

5. Adhocracy

Project organisations: highly organic structure with little formalization; relies on mutual adjustment as the key coordinating mechanism within and between these project teams. In later work Mintzberg added two more configurations:

6. Missionary Form

Coordination occurs based on commonly held ideologies or beliefs: standardisation of norms.

7. Political Form

No coordination form is dominant: control is based on forming alliances.

Each configuration represents a force that pulls organisations in different structural directions. For example, operators want to professionalize in their drive to control their work. Therefore, they favour a professional bureaucracy based on the standardisation of skills.

The structure an organisation chooses depends, to a great extent, on the power of each of Minzberg's six components.

pros:

The model provides a framework to analyse organisational structures in relation to the ideal types. It hands the consultant tools to design organisations, but the configurations should not be used as a blue print.

The model helps us understand how organisations change over time, how powers shift and how all this affects their structures.

Minzberg's classification is based on the assumption that formal and informal structures are intertwined and often indistinguishable from one other. Formal structures evolve over time and formalise changes in the informal structure.

The model provides an important synthesis of structural contingency literature.

cons:

The model does not provide operational guidance for organisational (re)design activities since it lacks a normative framework.

The model depends on contingency factors that influence structure. Contingency theory faces a variety of methodological problems: e.g. how possible it is to single out one factor from the complexities of reality and how these factors influence one another.

The model used an outside - inside process. The environment determines the organisation as if the organisation itself does not have the ability to make decisions.

Most organisations operate in dynamic and complex environments thus limiting the relevance of the model.

references:

4.6 Charles Perrow-Contingency Model

The American sociologist, Charles Perrow, developed a classification scheme based on the knowledge required to operate technology. Technology is an important factor in contingency theory. It assumed that the type of technology determines an organisation's most effective structure and success in the market. Perrow used two dimensions to create his typology. Task variability referred to the number of exceptions that a worker encounters in his workday. Task analyzability referred to the degree search activity is required to solve a problem. Users of the technology require less search effort to manage exceptions when able to use existing analytical methods rather than having to rely on their intuition and guesswork. The four technology categories are:

1. ROUTINE

characterised by the lack of exceptions and its depth of comprehension. Traditional manufacturing technologies such as assembly lines belong to this category.

2. CRAFT

characterised by its lack of exceptions and unpredictable outcomes that are difficult to analyse. Construction work that demands the drafting of new designs to resolve building problems is an example of applied craft technology.

3. ENGINEERING

characterised by many exceptions and its depth of comprehension. Standard and accepted methods are available to provide solutions to problems. Accountants, most engineers and laboratory technicians use engineering technologies.

4. NON-ROUTINE

characterised by many exceptions and poor comprehension. Problems appear frequently with no existing solutions. Commercial space engineering is an example of a non-routine technology.

Perrow stressed the importance of addressing the diversity of technologies at organisations. More than Thompson, he argued for analysing technologies at the level of the organisational unit. Most organisations have multiple technologies that operate interdependently. He saw technology as a determinant of uncertainty in organisations. A high level of uncertainty creates difficulty in predicting required activities and structuring them. Firms using 'uncertain' technologies favour an organic over a mechanic organisation structure.

In the early 1980's, Perrow investigated the roots of the near nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island. Building on his previous typology, he developed a framework for characterising the most appropriate form of organisation to control technology. He based his framework on the complexity of interactions in a system and the way units in a system are coupled. The components of a tightly coupled system aggressively impact one another. A system in which two or more events can interact in unexpected ways is regarded as interactively complex.

Systems that are complex and tightly coupled are the most difficult to control and thus the most likely to lead to disaster. Perrow noted the following paradox: a complex system requires thorough diagnosis to identity the root cause, but a tightly coupled system requires quick action to prevent the problem from disseminating through the system.

It is impossible to anticipate problems a priori with non-routine technologies and effective solutions have yet to be developed. Time is required to develop an understanding of the technology. Perrow concluded that large nuclear power reactors are examples of non-routine technologies and that future "catastrophic accidents" are to be expected. He pleaded in "Normal Accidents", that tightly coupled complex systems such as nuclear plants should be abandoned because of their high potential for catastrophe and the low cost of alternatives.

pros:

Charles Perrow built on the studies of both Thompson and Woodward that challenged classical management's belief in the existence of universal principles to structure effective organisations.

Perrow focused his research more on the non routine aspects of technology than Woodward and Thompson by investigating those problems that cannot be analysed a priori.

cons:

Although the contingency theory provided useful insights, the analysis lacked refinement. Most organisations now operate in what contingency theorists call a dynamic environment requiring an organic organisation.

Contingency theory adopted technological determinism as a key assumption that negated the possibility of using one technology in multiple ways.

Contingency theory assumed that one factor could change while the other variables remained constant. In practise, this objective proved impossible.

4.5 Strategic Contingencies Theory-Hickson

Strategic Contingencies Theory

Technical Details

Name: Strategic Contingencies Theory
Author: D.J. Hickson
Classification: Contingency Theories
Year: Theory was written by D. J. Hickson et al (1971)

Pro's

• Strategic Contingencies Theory focuses on tasks that need to be done in the form of problems to be solved, thus de-emphasizing personality. If a person does not have charisma but is able to solve problem, then s/he can be an effective leader.
• That problem solving assumes a central role in a leader's ability conforms to a common sense view of the world; there is little need to provide elaborate explanation as to why it can work.
• The theory helps to objectify leadership techniques, as opposed to relying on personalities.
• In situation where persons are rational agents, such as in scientific and formal academic settings, the Strategic Contingencies Theory would have more force and effect. That is, it identifies what is common to the group -- the orientation towards problem solving -- and addresses it directly.
• The theory is simple and uses only the variables affecting power in contingency control by an organizational subunit. As Hickson admits, in "A Strategic Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power" (Webpage link no longer valid) "Other possible explanations of power are not considered." [Hickson, p. 12] Further research would be needed to test whether such a need exists to include them. Hickson admits that other variables may affect power but are assumed to affect it "...in other ways than by control of contingencies." [Ibid.]

Con's

• Power is not defined within any context. In a generic sense, power is the ability to make others do your will, but there are many exhibitions and manners of it: psychological, mesmeric, physical, intellectual, charisma, etc.
• As a problem besetting all theories, the context of the situation needs to be discussed as well as the dynamics of the system. What is the structure of the system or group to be led?
• A uniform testing instrument does not exist to assess the predictability of the model.
• Cognitive Resource Theory contravenes Strategic Contingencies Theory. The issue is what effect stress has on a leader's ability to lead using intelligence and rationality.
• There is lacking set of parameters governing the introduction of variables in power used by organizational units.

Overview

With Strategic Contingencies Theory, a leader depends on his problem solving skills and a projective personality that is center stage. The leader his so because she or he is in demand and others cannot solve the problems the leader faces. This gives the leader bargainingpower. In that the leader cannot be replaced easily, he or she is not easily displaced, especially by popular will. Social processes depend upon the leader. Strike out the leader and the system is in danger of collapsing. The ability of one to maintain leadership in a system through problem solving relies on the interconnectedness of system units (department, divisions, etc.), social interaction, communications speed and system infrastructure integrity.

Hickson on Strategic Contingency Theory

Uncertainty is a driving force in Hickson's writing. It is defined as "...lack of information about future events so that alternatives and their outcomes are unpredictable" [Hickson, p. 5]. Power comes from the ability to cope with uncertainty. Such ability reduces the uncertainty and persons and organizational units become dependent upon it for survival. Here, at a subunit level of organization, the problem solving status (in this case, the processing of requisitions) is a function of power. With all this, an organization's units are reified as persons. Such units, if highly structuralized, mechanized and with well-defined procedures can cope better and are more resilient to uncertainty. Regularity and perforce allows for a greater prediction of events. A leader plies on this, using her or his problem solving ability to impose regularity on uncertainty.

Hickson argues that if an organizational unit cannot substitute "obtain alternative performance", then it becomes dependent upon the leader for the one solution she or he presents. This extends to specialization, where if workers are confined to knowing only one subset of operations, a leader having knowledge of all the operations has great control. The greater the scope of problem solving ability, the greater power a leader has. Subunit power is a function of how many other units need that subunit. If other departments of a factory depend on a daily basis for the Requisitions Department to act, the latter has more than if requisitions were done, let's say on a monthly basis. Unit dependencies can override uncertainties in assessing how much power exists. A greater dependency may be more important than the ability to problem-solve an uncertainty. Here is where the Strategic Contingency Theory may not promote efficiency, functionality, or rationality [Hickson, p. 11]. That is, there may be cases where it should not be used in developing leaders.

Discussion

Except for newly-arising groups, it may be asked what the residual effects of a previous leader are. This would affect how receptive the group is to a leader and of what type. A stark example of this is has been playing out in the Middle East, where a series of dictators have failed to solve problems and their method of rule has been discredited as a result. If problems had been solved, at least in a minimally acceptable way, the theory would suggest subsequent leadership styles of the same genre would be accepted. To its credit, this has been shown to be the case in some authoritarian settings, such as with various communist parties. Here, we must assess the degree of authoritarianism and what it ranges over. Too, there is a threshold over which a leader cannot pass without a reaction and again, the Middle East has been demonstrating this. To make a theory robust, quantifying these events would have enormous value. We also have been discussing the Strategic Contingency for large scale systems. How does it apply to small scale ones, such as a faculty senate?

Numerous factors bear close scrutiny of the Strategic Contingencies Theory. While Hickson discusses the extent of authority and the actual use of it, as well as ranges of issues influenced by exertion of authority, he doesn't settle on a definitive concept. Power is described within contexts. In a generic sense, power is the ability to make others do your will, but there are many exhibitions and manners of it: psychological, mesmeric, physical, intellectual, charisma, etc. Additionally, power and one's ability to exert it also depends upon the one conforming to a will. Certain forms of power effective in one situation may be quite effective an individual is susceptible; in others, it may make no difference. Power in one situation simply may not be power in another. There is a measurement issue, as well. To what degree is power being exerted and how effective is it? This would mean that a "before and after" situation would need description to assess a power. Hickson alludes to these problems, but one is left with uncertainty about what power really is.

Critique

As a problem besetting all theories, the context of the situation needs to be discussed, as well as system dynamics. What of the structure of the system or group to be led? Numerous structures exist and it can be asked whether a broad brushed theory, like the Strategic Contingencies theory can be applied universally. What are its dynamics? To what degree do the sub-units have independence and power? For the leader's part, when one says "problem solver", what does that mean? There are many types of problems, and it is simplistic to refer to one as a problem solver.

A uniform testing instrument does not exist to assess the predictability of the Strategic Contingencies Theory model. By subjective quantification of the vague terms, such as "power" and "problem", one almost may be able to bootstrap the desired outcome by applying convenient definitions before research begins.

Cognitive Resource Theory contravenes Strategic Contingencies Theory. The issue is what effect stress has on a leader's ability to lead using intelligence and rationality. Not only does stress affect problem solving ability, but some situations may not be amenable to problem solving strategies, such as when a group merely has to hold together. The Chilean mine disaster of 2010 comes to mind, when it wasn't so much of a question of solving problems as maintaining sanity and the will to survive. Problems always have to be solved, of course, but such is not always the dominant factor in a leader's tasking. Simply keeping a group together may be paramount.

Future of the Strategic Contingencies Theory

An extension of the theory might include the role of intra-organizational power and interactions and their effect on the ability to solve problems. For example, is there a democratic process that leans towards consensus that militates against universal agreement on solutions to problems? The more independent members and/or their units are, the more difficult it may be for a problem solving-oriented leader to be effective. That is, there may be a "kick back" from organizational units or groups of individuals. The more there is, the more authoritarian the leader may have to be and less reliant upon her/his skills as a problem solver. It is situation like this that takes one to contingency theory, in general, a theory saying that the circumstances of a group and its leader determine the type and extent of leadership that may be efficacious.

Research opportunities exist where the Strategic Contingencies Theory might be quantified and tested on specific situations requiring problem solving. There might be a compare and contrast vis a vis other leadership techniques that have failed in the situation. Balkin, for example, suggests that the theory works in getting workers to accept compensation plans. The same might be applied to other problems, such as manufacturing plant arrangements, organizational arrangements, and even at national levels, as in legislative impasses. However, it appears that the greater size of an organization militates against Strategic Contingency, as there is a multiplicity of problems and personalities.

Want to expand on the discussion?

We encourage you to expand on the discussion, add to the critique or even share your vision with regards to the future applications of the theory.

4.4 Contingency Theory

 About Contingency Theory

• contingent Factor
• Studies and Findings
• Relevance
• Comparison between System Theory and Contingency Theory
• Weakness
• Comparison between classical contingency theory and strategic contingency theory
• Conclusion.

About Contingency Theory

Question-Classical Theory subscribes to Newtonian Principles(constant/close). System Contingency Theory Subscribe to Darwinian Principles( Evolving System).Comment.

Q2-The relationship between systems and contingency theory is the same as that of the relation between a classical theory and Human relations theory. Critically Examine.

Q3.-Contingency theory is based on the philosophy that Taylor's one best way of doing things will not work in all situations. Critically Comment.

Q4.System's Contingency theory explain the fit in the relationship. Elucidate.

It is considered an extension of system theory as it overcomes its weaknesses of not explaining the specific relationship between the organization and environment ie..contingent theory explains fit in the relationship between organization and environment. This theory has empirical validity as it is based on many studies.

The most important aspect of contingency theory is that it considers management as entirely situational and it rejects Taylorism's one best way. It emphasizes Human beings are social beings motivated in all situations ie..managerial effectiveness depends upon contingent variables and management must have many contingency plans.

CONTINGENT FACTORS-

The factors which influence managerial effectiveness are considered as contingent factors.They are-

i)Technology(simple or complex)

ii)environment(stable/unstable, simple/complex)

iii)People in organisation

According to Fred Fielder following factors are the contingent factor-
a)task Structure
b)Leader's position and power
c)Leader-member relationship

There can also other such contingent factors such as Power, certainty, uncertainty in the environment, substantially according to strategic contingency theory.

 Studies and Findings

There are three important studies-

John Woodward-Technology and Span of control
Lawrence and Lorsch-Environment-Classical and Behavioural
Burns and Stalker-Mechanistic vs. Organic

Relevance of Findings

1. They show that management should adjust and adapt according to the situation. It is fit in the type of relationship, that if the environment is complex, it will have a different impact than a simple environment:

2. Classical And Behavioural thinker did not explain about the application of their in particular situation.rather they consider them applicable in all situation.

3.The organisation which face complex unstable environment and technology they cannot survive or be effective if they are structured on the classical pattern.

4. The fact due to ICT and Globalisation which has created complex environment organisation have become organic and fluid type rather than pyramid type.

Relevance between Systems Theory & Contingency theories

Similarities and Dissimilarities 

Classical Contingency theory and strategic contingency theory

Strategic Contingency Theory(Hickson)-Change is contingent upon

1.Power

2.Certainty/uncertainty

3.Substitutability

Ie..power means suppose organization wants to discontinue some position in the organization as they are not relevant as of now but people at those positions are powerful and if they are not willing to change the, there will not be any change.

For instance -

2.Certainly-what guarantee that change will be better than present situation.for ex-Big bang reform.

3.Substitutability- There may not always the suitable replacement for ex-changing B manager By NPM  which later we find it is not a suitable replacement. There are many others Faults, consistency, stability, overscaling, speicalisation, especially in B. Like the weather, we should move to performance linked.

Startegic contingency theory can said to have overcame the weakness of contingency theroy ie..organsiation should have a contingent plan. Plan A, B, C...

It is also relevant for scenario planning which being now appeared for planning and policy making in today's world that even 12th five year plan based on scenario planning.