For several years organization theorists have debated the magnitude of the impact of size and technology on dimensions of organization structure. Also, management theorists have shown the importance of structure on organization goal attainment. However, no consensus has been reached concerning the interrelationship among size, structure and technology. Apparently much of the disagreement among theorists is a result of mixing levels of analysis, inadequate specification of variables, use of inadequate or inappropriate research tools and lack of controls for potentially confounding variables. The purposes of this dissertation were: (a) to provide a better understanding of the complex interrelationships among size, technology and structure; (b) to use regression analysis in an effort to better depict the relationships among those variables; and (c) to attempt to bridge some of the findings of other researchers that disagree among themselves. The study used carefully selected variables that appear to be appropriate to the level of analysis (the organization) used, and careful selection of sample organizations in order to control for some potentially confounding variables. Other potentially confounding variables were measured and their effects on size, technology and structure controlled for. The central hypotheses of the study were: (a) that technology would cause structure to differ for small firms; and (b) that the difference in structure would disappear among large firms. The findings were mixed, with some of the structural dimensions being related to both size and technology and others to neither size nor technology. The structural dimensions of formalization, specialization and number of hierarchical levels appear to be functions of organizational size, with the effects of size moderated by technology. The structural dimensions of decentralization of authority and Chief Executive Officer's span of control do not appear to be related to either size or technology. Additionally, it appears that the differences in structure attributable to technology are greater for large firms than for small firms. This finding was contrary to the hypothesized relationship. An additional significant finding of this research was that it appears to be more appropriate to refer to the relationship among given dimensions of structure and other variables rather than structure as a monolithic concept. / Ph. D.