Week 2 Post by Leslie

(Note: In my post this week, I evaluate an academic publication and discuss how it relates to our readings. This is my first of three posts that will take this form.)

The article I selected this week is an older one, but I like the way it simultaneously references and challenges the limits of Lorsch's contingency theory while intersecting several of the week's other assigned readings.

In his article, "The selection interview: Contingency theory and beyond," Jablin (1975) embraces Lorsch's contingency theory as an academic exercise but raises a number of questions related to its application in a real-world environment. Specifically, Jablin (1975) attempts to apply Lorsch's "concept of fit" (1987, p. 3) to the business interview process.

Jablin begins by telling us what we already know from our reading: that Lorsch's contingency theory relies upon assumptions from open systems approach (1975). This approach "builds on the principle that organizations, like organisms, are 'open' to their environment" (Morgan, 1998, p. 40). Jablin (1975) goes on to say that the environments in which an organization exists are numerous rather than singular; he further argues that organizations are not only influenced by their environments but dependent upon them for survival. In connecting open systems theory with Lorsch's emphasis on the importance of "a three-way fit" between employees, tasks, and organizational design (1987, p. 3), Jablin reasonably concludes that "if an organization is to survive, it must strive to fit the character of the individual with the environmental system surrounding the task" (1975, p. 2).
The remainder of the article addresses two practical questions related to this conclusion:

1. "How does one measure the ability of prospective and present employees to fit into the organizational environment?"
2. "What can the manager of an organization do today to prepare for the eventual implementation of Contingency Theory in his/her organization?" (Jablin, 1975, p. 3)

The first question is of particular relevance to human resources practitioners who wish to apply the principles of contingency theory in recruiting and hiring processes. And the second question, I would argue, is especially relevant for us as students of communication management theory. It might as well be rephrased to read, "how can we apply our academic knowledge of contingency theory in the workplace?"

Though Jablin's article goes on discuss these questions in great detail, he recommends that interviewers begin by educating themselves on the skills required "for the applicant to successfully fit both the job and organization" (1975, p. 3). These ideas are echoed in Worley and Lawler's article about creating agile organizations. The authors recommend that "built-to-change companies... specifically look for people with initiative and the right attitude, including the desire for professional growth" (2006, p. 19).  This seems straightforward enough -- but then again, when is the last time you saw a job posting that gave "social abilities" equal billing with "task abilities"(Jablin, 1975, p.3)? At most, we see a surface treatment of attitudinal requirements described in such watered-down terms as "must enjoy taking on new challenges" or "requires careful attention to detail."

Like Jablin, I find Lorsch's blunt appraisal of the differences in employee "psychological makeup" refreshing (1987, p. 3). There should be nothing wrong with acknowledging that some employees are comfortable -- or even prefer -- the mundane and predictable, while others enjoy a lack of structure and thrive with a minimum of feedback or direction. To pretend otherwise may saddle organizations with a workforce that lacks diversification and is less than optimally effective.

While I've Got Your Attention...
I've got a question about the reading. Did anyone else think that Lorsch's figure for reciprocal "patterns of required integration" (1987, p. 6) could benefit from some additional arrows? While I understood that the  sequential pattern describes organizations with a linear task flow through departments (e.g., factories), it seems to me that the reciprocal pattern is meant to apply to a broader range of departmental structures, including non-linear ones (Lorsch, 1987). Indeed, without the extra lines I've superimposed over Lorsch's original graphic [below], one could hardly call this pattern "the most complex" (1987, p. 5):

(Lorsch, 1987, p. 6)

References

Morgan, G. (1998) Nature intervenes: Organizations as organisms. In Images of organizations: Executive edition (pp. 35-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jablin, F. (1975). The selection interview: Contingency theory and beyond. Human Resource Management, 14(1), 2-9.

Lorsch, J. W. (1987, January 30). Note on organization design [Case no. 9-476-094]. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Worley, C. G., & Lawler, E. E. (2006). Designing organizations that are built to change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 18-23.