Literature review 11

styles and mental processes.” They explore the differences caused by specialization with four
dimensions (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967c):

• orientation toward particular goals,

• time orientation,
• interpersonal orientation, and
• formality of structure.

With increasing specialization, more integration of the different substructures is required

to achieve the overall activity or goal (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967a). Lawrence and Lorsch
(1967c, p. 11) define integration as “(…) the quality of the state of collaboration that exists
among departments that are required to achieve unity of effort by the demands of the
environment.” They consider integrator roles as one of the key integrative devices among
other devices like rules and hierarchy (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967c). As my review of the
empirical literature outlines, integrator roles are one of the key concepts to understand the role
of trade marketing, category management, and shopper marketing. According to (Lawrence
and Lorsch 1967b, p. 142), the “(…) integrator's role involves handling the nonroutine,
unprogrammed problems that arise among the traditional functions as each strives to do its
own job. It involves resolving interdepartmental conflicts and facilitating decisions, including
not only such major decisions as large capital investment but also the thousands of smaller
ones regarding product features, quality standards, output, cost targets, schedules, and so on.”
Comparable to integrator roles, Galbraith (1973, p. 50) defines liaison roles that are “(…)
designed to facilitate communication between two interdependent departments and to bypass
the long lines of communication involved in upward referral.” To be effective, these roles
need to have approval rights, they need to be a key part of the planning process, and they need
to be equipped with budget control (Galbraith 1973). In summary, the contingency theory
approach to organizational design aims to balance the benefits of specialization with the costs
of integration in their search of fit between the organizational structure and the external
determinants (Sinha and van de Ven 2005).

Several scholars of the classic school of contingency started to research which

organizational design is effective in a certain situation (Drazin and van de Ven 1985;
Schoonhoven 1981). The study by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967c) is one of the first
investigations. Most of the early studies empirically test the influence of one determinant on
the organization (Child 1970). The Aston-Group (Pugh et al. 1969) are the first researchers
who test a combination of different determinants. The results of these studies are mixed (Tosi
and Slocum 1984). Some of the findings are confirmed by several authors and have emerged
into “rules” of organizational design (Kieser 2006). Commonly accepted is that larger
organizations are more specialized, formalized, and decentralized and use integrative devices
(Blau and Schoenherr 1971; Child 1972; Pugh et al. 1969).