Two organizational behavior students are debating the idea that many OB theories are contingency-oriented.One student believes that every OB theory should be contingency-oriented.The other student disagrees, saying that most theories should try to be universal.Discuss the merits of both positions and provide your opinion on this issue.

(Note: This is similar to end-of-chapter critical thinking question 4.) Both students have taken extreme views of the contingency anchor.Both are partly correct and partly incorrect.The first student is saying that every OB theory should abide by the contingency anchor.This means that the theory should incorporate factors that help us to determine the best action in a particular situation.The benefit of the contingency anchor is that it provides a more accurate understanding of organizational events and allows us to influence those events more precisely.
The problem, however, is that the contingency anchor can make some theories very complex with relatively little advantage over universal theories.In this respect, the second student is partly correct.We should try to see whether OB theories can be universal rather than contingency-oriented.This is consistent with the view that all theories should be parsimonious.If the theory can explain well without contingency factors, then it is best left as a universal theory.The difficulty is that most OB events are sufficiently complex that contingencies are required for the theories to effectively explain those events.
When answering this question, students should state their preference in terms of the degree of universality or contingency orientation.Some might argue that theories are already too complex for practical use, whereas others might say that we need more contingencies to gain more precision in understanding organizational behavior.