Divisionalisation and Size: A Reply to Grinyer

Lex Donaldson
Additional contact information
Lex Donaldson: The Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales.

Australian Journal of Management, 1986, vol. 11, issue 2, 173-189

Abstract: Adoption of the divisional for M of organisation structure has been explained with reference to size. The present author (Donaldson 1982a) has argued against this view and asserted that strategy is a more compelling explanation theoretically and empirically. Grinyer (1982) has defended the argument from size. The present paper replies to Grinyer. It points to continuing theoretical weaknesses with size. Aspects of the defence by Grinyer are challenged. And his criticisms of the empirical research of Donaldson (1982a) are answered. Several causal models are explicated from Grinyer (1982). Fresh evidence is adduced against three out of four of them. The conclusion is that strategy is a more important cause of divisionalisation than size.

Keywords: DIVISIONALISATION; SIZE; DIVERSIFICATION; STRATEGY; ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE; GRINYER; SIZE THRESHOLD (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1986
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/031289628601100204 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ausman:v:11:y:1986:i:2:p:173-189

DOI: 10.1177/031289628601100204

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Australian Journal of Management from Australian School of Business
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().