Ali Soylu

The population-ecology approach (the natural-selection model) used to be a major orientation in consideration of organizational change and transformation. It is presented by its proponents as a theory distinct from structural contingency theory. This theory begins by rejecting the claim of contingency theory that organizations are adaptive. Contingency theory understands that the social and business environment is subject to change. Any misfit between the contingency variables and the structure leads to lower performance. The move from misfit to fit is adaptive change which is the essence of contingency theory. This study reviews and compares these two theories in detail. POPULATION-ECOLOGY THEORY According to Aldrich and Pfeffer (1976), the population-ecology model does not deal with single organization units but is concerned with forms or populations of organizations. Donaldson (1995) identifies three different elements in this literature: the root biological metaphor, historical population ecology, and population arithmetic. Hannan and Freeman (1977) say that population ecology emphasizes the broader perspective of populations, holding that adaptation of a population of organizations comes about by the environment selecting for survival those organizations which are well adapted and rejecting those organizations which are maladapted. Population ecology is different from and rivals structural contingency theory. This theory is highly novel and it is a dramatic challenge to conventional organization theory of structural contingency type. The structural contingency theory could be used to specify which structures fit with which environmentally produced contingencies and thus produce a fit between organization and environment. For instance, a diversified firm needs a divisional structure to be in fit; if a diversified retains a functional structure it is in misfit. Population ecology could hold theoretically that the misfit of an organization to its environment leads to lower performance and hence reduced probability of survival. There are some problems with population-ecology model. Van de Ven (1979) provides some criticism of this model. He suggests that the notion of “fit” between the environment and organizations is unclear. Hannan and Freeman‟s article (1977) on population theory borrows from the biological theory of survival of the fittest. Essentially, they find that the environment is very important in determining the structure of firms. What manages to work with the environment (and fulfill its needs) will survive, and that which cannot will disappear. Hence, the environment eliminates the bad organizations and supports the good/beneficial organization. Population-ecology is challenged and promoted in conjunction with a critical attack on adoption theory (i.e., structural contingency theory), not offered as a correspondent approach. Since the two schools of organizational thought are “sub-types of structural-functionalism,” there appears to be many possible complementarities.