Staffing For Contemporary Organizations

MOVING BEYOND THE MECHANISTIC MODEL:
AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO STAFFING

FOR CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS
Greg L. Stewart
Vanderbilt University
Kenneth P. Carson
University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
The currently accepted model of employee staffing is grounded in traditional

principles of industrial psychology which stem from concepts associated
with a view of organizations as machines. This perspective is incompatible
with modern organizations that are frequently structured around networks
and teams rather than around individuals performing jobs. A new staffing
model based on the notion of organizing through emergent relationships is
developed to explain how modern organizations select new members and
develop agreements that define their roles. This model acknowledges the
fact that individual roles emerge around idiosyncratic characteristics of
individuals and can not be adequately defined through prehire job analysis.
Implications of this model for research are discussed.
Modern organizations are moving beyond traditional, hierarchical structures

and controls toward flexible, network-oriented, team-based designs (Daft &
Lewin 1993; Ketchum & Trist 1992; Miles & Creed 1995). These contemporary
organizational designs place increased emphasis on relationships and social
dynamics, and view human resources-or people-as more than simple com-
ponents of an objectified organizational machine (‘l’rist 1981). This approach to
organizing requires the rethinking of many traditional theories and practices
(Miles & Creed 1995). Daft and Lewin (1993) specifically suggest the need for
midrange theories that focus on particular aspects of the broad changes taking
place in modern organizations. We believe organizational staffing, the process
of defining the roles of organization members and determining who will fill
those roles, is one particular facet of contemporary organizations that is in
need of a new perspective.
Direct all correspondence to: Greg L. Stewart, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt Univer-
sity, 401 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37203.
Human Ftesource Management Review, Copyright 0 1997

Volume 7, Number 2, 1997, pages 157-184 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN:1053-4822
158 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2.1997
Commonly accepted ideas about staffing are grounded in traditional prac-

tices of industrial psychology and are often incompatible with an emphasis on
social relationships among organization members. Basic assumptions underly-
ing the staffing process follow Taylor’s (1911) principles of scientific manage-
ment and seek to rationally match people to technically defined jobs. Inherent
in this approach is the premise that organizations consist of positions (not
employees). Jobs can therefore be conceptualized, analyzed, defined, and dis-
cussed as meaningful entities separate from the people who either fulfill (in-
cumbents) or who may fulfill (applicants) the requirements of a particular
position (Harvey 1991).
However, modern organizations are less often structured around jobs (Carson
& Stewart 1996). Self-managing teams are replacing bureaucratic hierarchies
(Manz & Sims 1993). Rational planning is being supplanted with internal
markets (Halal, Geranmayeh, & Pourdehnad 19931, and work is “increasingly
done in small temporary outfits” (Weick 1993, p. 632). Within these organiza-
tions decisions like staffing increasingly “occur neither through discrete ex-
changes, nor by administrative fiat, but through networks of individuals en-
gaged in reciprocal, preferential, mutually supportive actions” (Powell 1990
p. 303).
Yet researchers and practitioners alike continue to treat staffing decisions
as discrete and rational. Our purpose is to show that this traditional perspec-
tive is inconsistent with our understanding of many contemporary organiza-
tions. More specifically, we show how the rational, mechanistic principles upon
which the field of industrial psychology is built not only influence answers to
current research questions, but more importantly, constrain the nature and
range of the research questions themselves (Burrell & Morgan 1979; Clark
1985; Knights 1992; Y. S. Lincoln 1985; Morgan 1986). To accomplish this we
first present a critique of the status-quo by explicating the traditional view of
organizations and the staffing perspective arising from it. We then present an
alternative perspective that is compatible with a contemporary understanding
of organizations. This alternative perspective allows insight into modern orga-
nizations by describing how the work activity of individuals is defined and
coordinated in the absence of traditional, hierarchical structure. Several prop-
ositions suggested by this new look at the staffing process are developed and
discussed.
In order to avoid confusion at the outset, we want to be clear about what we
are and are not suggesting. We are suggesting that the traditional approach to
staffing is inconsistent with structures and functions of many modern organi-
zations. This inconsistency limits our ability to accurately describe how staff-
ing takes place in this subset of organizations. It is this limitation which we
intend to expose. We are not, however, suggesting that the traditional approach
to staffing is inconsistent with all organizations. As we will describe, the tradi-
tional staffing approach is consistent with hierarchical and mechanistic orga-
nizations. We should also be clear that we do not attempt to extensively pre-
scribe the practices that might appropriately replace traditional staffing
MOVING BEYOND THE MECHANISTIC MODEL 159
methods. Such prescriptions await more conceptual work and empirical re-
search, which we hope this article will begin to generate. In addition, impor-
tant practical issues such as the legal status of new methods and procedures
will need to be addressed in the future.
THE TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF STAFFING
Mechanistic theories of organizations, popular (and effective) in the early part

of this century, established a foundation for modern practices in the field of
industrial psychology. In order to illustrate the lingering effect of the classical
ideas stemming from this conventional foundation, we provide a synopsis of
the mechanistic view of organizations. We then draw specific parallels between
this founding perspective and the currently accepted and prescribed model of
organizational staffing.
A Mechanistic View of Organizations
Beginning in the late 1800s managers applied principles of engineering to

design efficient organizations that resembled machines. A common belief
among influential thinkers of the period was that “industry’s problems could
be solved by developing more rational methods for managing the shopfloor”
(Barley & Kunda 1992 p. 369). Specification and manipulation of cause and
effect relationships was seen as the key to improved productivity (Barley &
Kunda 1992). These ideas evolved into the principles of scientific management.
The heart of scientific management was centrally coordinated specialization
(Miles & Snow 1992). Having been trained as mechanical engineers, Taylor
(1911) and others sought to create organizations that consisted of specialized
parts which were hierarchically coordinated to efficiently produce a limited
number of goods and services (Miles & Creed 1995). Work activity was divided
to the point were employees could continually perform a narrow set of tasks
(Taylor 1911). The theoretical justification behind this specialization was the
assumption that employees in organizations were analogous to parts within
machines. Just as the parts of a machine had limited functions, people within
an organization were given narrowly defined responsibilities.
Employees were instructed to focus on the specific duties they were as-
signed, rather than on overall processes through which outcomes were
achieved (Burns & Stalker 1961). Little room existed for task flexibility, and
deviation from standardized routines was discouraged (Taylor 1911). Workers
with similar technical qualifications were viewed as interchangeable compo-
nents (cf., Weber 1947), and organizational management was seen as a techni-
cal problem that could be solved through the application of rational principles
(Barley & Kunda 1992).
160 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 2, 1997
The Traditional Staffing Process

The genesis of industrial psychology (the practice of applying psychology to
the workplace) corresponded chronologically with the introduction of scientific
management. As Alliger (1992) explains, the American Psychological Associa-
tion was founded in 1892, the first textbook applying psychology to industrial
settings was published by Munsterberg in 1913, and the Journal ofApplied
Psychology made its debut in 1917. Thus, the theoretical paradigm driving
organizations toward specialization, hierarchy, and rational decision making
also influenced industrial psychologists. In fact, similar to the process of im-
printing in very young animals (Hess 19581, the field of industrial psychology
seems to continue being driven by a mechanistic view of organizations (Argyris
1976; Nord 1982; Stagner 1982), even though the metaphor of organizations as
machines fell into disfavor quite some time ago (e.g., Cyert & March 1963; Kast
& Rosenzweig 1972).
The continuing influence of scientific management on the field of industrial
psychology is particularly apparent in the area of staffing. Traditionally, staff-
ing is accomplished by developing concise definitions of necessary technical
requirements (job analysis), and then by determining which job applicants
possess the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to successfully
fulfill those requirements (Gatewood & Feild 1994). The role of each individual
is prescribed in relation to a goal of the organization, or as Schneider and
Schmitt (1986, p. 76) state, “company policy . . . actually dictates the entire
staffing process.n From this perspective, effective staffing is accomplished by
rationally choosing applicants who possess the technical qualifications best
suited for performing a narrow scope of clearly defined duties.
Thus, the mechanistic process of organizational staffing involves a two-step
process: (a) defining a performance criterion (based on job analysis) and (b)
selecting a person with a high probability of successfully fulfilling the duties
that comprise that criterion (Gatewood & Feild 1994; Heneman & Heneman
1994; Schneider & Schmitt 1986). Consistent with the assumption of ratio-
nality, this process is described as flowing temporally from step one (criterion
development) to step two (employee selection).
Developing the Criterion. The performance criterion is defined as the work-
related behavior and outcomes desired of an individual (Schneider & Schmitt
1986). Some theorists contend that the performance construct should be lim-
ited even further to consist only of observable behavior relevant to the organi-
zation’s goals (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager 1993). These behaviors or
outcomes are normally determined through job analysis, which assumes that
jobs (or positions) exist independently of the people in them (Dortch 1989;
Harvey 1991). This assumption is rooted clearly in the mechanistic perspective
of organizations.
An explicit link with the mechanistic view exists in Taylor’s first principle of
scientific management, which is essentially job analysis. This is illustrated by
Taylor’s (1911, p. 85) explanation of the process of scientific management for
bricklaying, wherein he summarizes the first step as “the development (by
management, not the workman) of the science of bricklaying, with rigid rules
for each motion of every man, and the perfection and standardization of all
implements and working conditions.” The importance of breaking jobs down
into narrow task statements is further emphasized by Taylor (1911, p. 39) as he
states that “the most prominent single element in modern scientific manage-
ment is the task idea. . . . This task specifies not only what is to be done but
how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it.”
The existence of an objective criterion for each job, and the need for job
analysis to determine that criterion, have become received doctrines (to use
Barrett’s 1972, phrase). This reification is further supported by legal prece-
dents and regulatory agencies that accentuate the importance of using task
statements to concisely define work responsibilities (Gutman 1993; Ledvinka
& Scarpello 1991; Thompson & Thompson 1982).
Selecting Individuals. Once the performance criterion is established by a list of

task or behavioral statements, individuals possessing the characteristics
needed to complete those duties are identified (Gatewood & Feild 1994). This
step parallels Taylor’s (1911) second principle of scientific management, which
advocates the careful selection of employees with the ability and motivation to
perform exactly as specified in the job description.
Ability and motivation are normally determined through assessment meth-
ods (e.g., psychological testing, physical ability measures, interviewing) de-
signed to measure job-relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). Scores
from these various assessments are combined to predict future performance,
and objectivity is encouraged (Gatewood & Feild 1994). The person predicted
by the total assessment process to have the highest performance is selected.
This process assumes consensus regarding the KSAs required for a specific
job. No allowance is made for differences in social perception. Unique percep-
tions of individual decision makers are seen as error (Brogden & Taylor 1950;
Wherry & Bartlett 1982), and a “best” decision outcome is assumed to exist,
even if it is not always accomplished.
Social relations that extend beyond the tasks identified via job analysis are
ignored. The key is simply to identify the type of part (person) that meets the
technical specifications outlined in the objective job description. Moreover, the
KSAs are normally based on specifications for a particular job rather than on
broad capabilities that might be required as employees adapt to changing
conditions (Carson & Stewart 1996). The mechanistic model thus sees the
position as more important than the person (cf., Weber 19471, and employees
with equivalent KSAs are thought to be interchangeable.
One area of staffing that has attempted to move away from these traditional
notions is research concerning “fit” (Judge & Ferris 1992; Rynes & Gerhart
1990; Spokane 1987). However even within this realm, employee fit, at least as
it has been operationalized, is normally between the individual and the organi-
zation as a collective entity (Rynes & Gerhart 1990). Thus, there is a “best” fit
(whether defined as values, personality, or some other dimension) that is de-
termined by comparing measures of an individual with an averaged score on
162 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2,1997
those same measures across the members of a work group or organization, or

the score of some significant person in the organization (owner, CEO). As we
will demonstrate in the next section, our view is that existing conceptualiza-
tions of fit are still grounded in the rational paradigm, and that fit perceptions
are actually idiosyncratic for each member of the hiring team or organization.
A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE OF STAFFING
Why a New Perspective is Needed

The necessity of an alternative view of the staffing process can be illustrated
by highlighting two fundamental issues: (a) that organizations are actually
socially constructed and increasingly difficult to describe as tangible entities
and (b) that organizations are increasingly better described as pluralistic rath-
er than as monocratic. After explaining how these two factors are at odds with
the traditional staffing process, we develop an alternative perspective of orga-
nizing and contracting that better explains the process of determining both the
tasks to be completed and the persons responsible for their completion.
One defining characteristic of the field of industrial psychology is its re-
liance on jobs as objective phenomena. The importance of jobs was summarized
over 50 years ago by Mooney (1937, p. 92) who stated that “The job as such is
therefore antecedent to the man on the job, and the sound coordination of these
jobs, considered simply as jobs, must be the first and necessary condition in the
effective coordination of the human factor.” Evidence that the emphasis on jobs
has not changed is found in the more recent writings of Ash (1988, p. 10) who
declares that “Job analysis may be viewed as the sine qua non for virtually all
human resources planning, development, and utilization activities carried out
by organizations. It is the major support activity necessary for successful ac-
complishment of the primary functional personnel management activities.”
Yet, the process of analyzing jobs as if they have tangible components is
often seen as “cumbersome, time-consuming, and devoid of current, relevant
information” (Mirabile 1990, p. 70). There are several potential reasons for
such a reaction. Employees in many contemporary organizations engage in
wide repertoires of behavior that cannot be concisely summarized in objective
terms (Emery & Trist 1969; Lawler 1986). Service work (now the dominant
form of work in the United States) is more difficult to describe objectively than
is manufacturing work (Schneider & Bowen 1995). Employees are frequently
expected to go beyond the mere fulfillment of formally stated obligations (Bor-
man & Motowidlo 1993; Miles & Creed 1995). Finally, rapid changes in technol-
ogy are reflected in equally rapid changes in work requirements (Lawler 1986).
The ubiquitous presence of personal computers in the workplace is just one of
the many illustrations of these rapid changes. There is no reason to believe
that technological advancement, or any of the other changes mentioned here,
are going to peak or reverse their course in the coming century. Thus, having a
written job analysis that objectively defines performance expectations is, in
many instances, an exercise in futility.
The second issue making rational approaches to staffing less useful is the
move toward pluralistic structures and ideals. The authors of scientific man-
agement saw workers as unmotivated and incapable of effective decision mak-
ing (Taylor 1911). They prescribed hierarchical coordination as the most effi-
cient means of control, and believed that rules of science dictated optimal
solutions to problems. The result was monocratic organizations where control
was centralized in a top-down structure that obtained legitimization through
the application of scientific principles.
In contrast, many contemporary organizations are moving away from mono-
cratic control toward structures with shared power. These new organizations
represent a shift away from hierarchical coordination toward reciprocal inter-
dependence (Thompson 1967). Team-based structures are one manifestation of
this new organizational form. Teams, rather than centralized management,
make significant decisions about how work is to be accomplished (Lawler 1992;
Manz & Sims 1993). In many cases, teams themselves function democratically
to determine both who will be included in the group and what tasks each
member will perform (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson 1991). Stalling decisions are
thus made by groups rather than by individuals.
Other organizations may not be formally structured around teams, but they
nonetheless appear to be moving away from monocratic control. Many accom-
plish this through employee empowerment (Ford & Fottler 1995), while others
do it through explicitly organizing around loose networks (Miles & Creed
1995). Even organizations with highly formalized structures often have an
informal structure that emerges to provide a mechanism where pluralistic
decision making actually defines working relationships (Barley 1990; Dow
1988; Myer & Rowan 1977).
Staffing in these pluralistic organizations is difficult to describe as rational
because research suggests that people rarely use rational information process-
ing to evaluate others (Denes-Baj dz Epstein 1994). Interpersonal evaluations
are rather intuitive, and therefore idiosyncratic (Epstein 1994; Park, DeKay, &
Kraus 1994). A staffing process that does not acknowledge differences in per-
ception is thus incomplete for explaining how roles are defined and filled in
many contemporary organizations.
A Foundation for a New Model

There are perhaps many concepts underlying recent trends away from objec-
tivity and hierarchical control. Some of these concepts are contained in the
nonpositivist research paradigm. This paradigm is somewhat controversial
when it comes to its application to practices associated with human resource
management. While we are not necessarily endorsing this perspective, we feel
that it can provide useful insight and thus briefly review its foundational
concepts.
The nonpositivist view sees roles and positions within an organization as
being determined via “patterns of interaction worked out by self-interested
participants through negotiation and tentative agreement on lines of behavior”
(Keeley 1980, p. 3431, rather than by means of rational analysis and planning.
Within this paradigm organizations are seen as consisting of people linked by
an array of agreements that allow them to pursue individual goals (Keeley
1980). Organizing occurs as people seek relationships that allow them to enlist
the help of others to accomplish their individual desires. This means that
relationship development is emergent rather than planned.
The concept of emergent organizing is particularly useful for describing
current trends. Individuals have multiple relationships that are constantly
changing and not clearly defined by traditional structures. Examples include
cross functional teams with their numerous network ties (Miles & Creed 19951,
as well as service providers who develop relationships with clients that can not
be accurately described in job descriptions (Schneider & Bowen 1995). The
actual form of the networks and relationships depends largely on the charac-
teristics of the people involved, which means that a structure does not exist in
the absence of the people. Staffing is thus the result of people organizing
themselves rather than the implementation of a formal plan.
Staffing as the Result of Emergent Organizing

A core difference between the view of stafling as emergent organizing and
the traditional view is the allowance for multiple perceptions. With the tradi-
tional view scientific principles were assumed to define the tasks that needed
to be accomplished, as well as who could best accomplish those tasks. Inherent
in the emergent organizing perspective is the acknowledgement that people
have some beliefs that are shared by others and some that are idiosyncratic.
Figure 1 provides a graphical illustration of these common and unique percep-
tions. This concept is critical for explaining how work responsibilities are
formed, and will be integrated throughout the ensuing discussion.
Similar to the traditional model, the process of staffing as emergent organiz-
ing can be illustrated by (a) describing how decisions are made about what
inputs are needed and (b) sketching the process through which certain individ-
uals become responsible for providing those inputs. Contrary to the assump-
tions of the traditional process, the process described here does not require
chronological separation, and determination of the inputs needed is not re-
quired before selection of individuals takes place.
In general, determinations of what needs to be done and who does it are
made as people evaluate themselves and others, and then enter into agree-
ments that bind them to act in a predictable manner (Weick 1979). The forma-
tion of these agreements is known as behavioral contracting (Rousseau 1995).
These contracts psychologically bind individuals to perform specific behaviors.
However, they exist only in the minds of individuals and, due to bounded
rationality, are always incomplete (Rousseau 1995). Behavioral contracts also
differ from transactional (formal, legal) contracts in that they are dynamic,
comprehensive, and subjective; rather than static, narrow, and objective (Rous-
seau & Parks 1992). The behavioral contracting process is thus very different
m Perceptions Shared m Perceptions Shared

0 Unique Perceptions
with Some Others with All Others
Figure 1. Illustration of Common and Unique Perceptions
from theories like agency theory and transaction cost economics that attempt
to overtly and explicitly describe contract terms. It is within these behavioral
contracts that the process of staffing in contemporary organizations can be
understood.
Determining What /nputs are Needed. Consistent with the infrastructure of
socio-technical systems theory (Cummings 1978; Emery & Trist 1969; Susman
19761, inputs can be grouped into two broad categories: technical and social.
Technical inputs consist of technology required to complete work (Trist 1981).
In the realm of human assets, this technology consists of knowledge, skill, and
ability required to produce goods and services (Davis & Wacker 1988; Landy
1988; Wernimont 1988). People need not agree about the knowledge, skills, or
abilities that constitute beneficial inputs. One person might perceive that her
automobile design team could benefit most by hiring a new member with
knowledge related to computer-assisted design, while another member of the
same team might perceive that hiring someone with knowledge of consumer
tastes would be most beneficial.
Social inputs are different in that they focus predominantly on interactions
and relationships between people, rather than on inputs of knowledge, skill,
and ability (Davis & Wacker 1988). People aspire to develop relationships with
individuals who will fulfill their social needs. One manager may prefer cowork-
ers who are friendly and sympathetic, while another may desire coworkers who
166 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 2,19!37
are aggressive and demanding. Such characteristics represent social inputs,

even if they are not directly related to task performance.
The specific nature of inputs desired depends on personal goals and wants
(Keeley 1980; Rousseau & Parks 1992). For instance, in the technical realm,
members of a university faculty might desire different expertise in a new
colleague, so that they can individually be relieved of undesirable teaching
obligations. One professor might desire a colleague with the skills needed to
teach a stat&g course that she dislikes, while another professor might desire a
labor economist to take over his least preferred course. Or, to give a less
egocentric example, the two faculty may place different value on graduate
versus undergraduate education and rate applicants accordingly. Social inputs
will also be seen as differentially beneficial depending on individual desires.
Consistent with common and unique perceptions, these divergent views need
not be reconciled to arrive at a solution concerning which input is most desir-
able (Keeley 1980).
Determining who will Provide the Inputs. The process of determining who will
provide which inputs can be understood by examining Rousseau and Parks’
(1992) criteria of promise and payment. As people interact with one another,
they are influenced to make technical and social promises that bind them to
certain courses of action. For instance, if one person perceives a need for tech-
nical expertise in a certain area (and feels that another person is able to
provide that expertise), then the first person will try to influence the second to
agree to contribute that expertise. A third person may not perceive the same
need for expertise, and may instead try to influence the second to provide a
different input. The second person may contract to provide both inputs, neither
input, or only one of the inputs. Of course, choices are made among more than
two alternative inputs, suggesting that any individual can promise to provide a
number of inputs that may or may not be perceived as valuable by others
(Keeley 1980).
The specific contracts an individual enters are largely dependent on pay-
ments offered by others. Payment is usually offered in the form of reciprocal
promises (Rousseau & Parks 1992). These promises may be agreements to
provide help and support for another person, or to engage in actions that
compliment the technical and social inputs being asked of the other. Because
people do not have equal power to control resources (Rousseau & Parks 19921,
they will contract with those whom they perceive as having the greatest ability
and willingness to make the most desirable promises (Pfeffer 1981). A network
of relationships is created as numerous individuals enter agreements to pro-
vide inputs. This complex network defines an area of responsibility, or role, for
each organization member.
The Emergent Network

Roles within the network are both technical and social. The technological
elements are defined by a “bundle of behaviors deemed by members of a cer-
tain culture to be characteristic of the role” (Barley 1990, p. 68). These behav-
iors can often be carried out independent of the roles of other organization
members. In contrast, the social elements cannot be carried out unless other
organization members fill complementary roles. However, the technical role of
an individual will be only partially independent of his or her social role. Tech-
nical and social roles of organization members are thus conceptually distinct
but pragmatically inseparable (Barley 19901, which is akin to the interdepen-
dence of technical and social systems of organizations (Trist 1981).
The concept of contractually defined roles can, however, serve as a basis for
illustrating how relationships among organization members evolve. This illus-
tration centers around the concepts of homophily (likelihood of links between
similar persons) and heterophily (likelihood of links between dissimilar persons),
which are basic notions within network theory (J. R. Lincoln 1982). Technical
networks within organizations are based on both heterophily and homophily,
while most social networks develop predominantly around homophily.
Networks of technical contracts develop around the principle of heterophily
to take advantage of diversity in knowledge, skill, and ability (Durkheim 1933).
The process of contract formation implies that organization members enter
agreements to provide inputs congruent with their capabilities. The contract
process also suggests that existing organization members can desire technical
contracts that focus new organization members on providing inputs that oth-
ers are either unable or unwilling to provide. Contracts thus emerge between
dyads with only one of the two individuals being willing and able to provide a
specific technical input. Differentiation of tasks thus binds together organiza-
tion members who are dissimilar (Blau 1977; J. R. Lincoln 19821, creating a
network characterized by heterophily.
Technical networks can, however, also develop around homophily. Tasks
that require similar inputs from more than one person require cooperation
among individuals possessing similar knowledge, skill, and ability. This pool-
ing of parallel inputs (Thompson 1967) creates a network of ties between indi-
viduals with high technical resemblance-homophily.
Social networks are different than technical networks in that they are “per-
haps the most segmented of all the nets, existing as localized linkages among
clusters of individuals who find each other’s company rewarding” (Guetzkow
1965, p. 546). Consistent with the social interaction literature discussed above,
these networks of interpersonal relationship link together individuals with
similar attributes and perceptions (J. R. Lincoln 1982). Social ties within orga-
nizations will therefore normally develop around homophily.
The formation of an emergent network of roles and relationships both to
define desirable inputs and to determine who will provide what is the product
of organizing, and the form of the network is dependent on the individuals who
are included. This process is very different than the process assumed by the
traditional model. Key differences are highlighted in Table 1. These contrasts
suggest that a number of staffing issues must be revisited, and that new
streams of research should be pursued.
168 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW WLUME 7, NUMBER 2,1997
Table 1
Comparison of Mechanistic and Emergent Contract Models of Staffing
Traditional Model Emergent Organizing Model

Desired Are Based on the Outcome of Ob- Are based on the Preferences of
Inputs jective Analyses Individual Organization Members
Are Unitary and Specified by an Are Plural and Specified by Individ-
Organization uals
Focus Predominantly on Technical Focus on Both Technical and So-
Inputs cial Inputs
Are Seen as Stable Are Seen as Dynamic
Are Known Before Someone Joins Are the Result of Social Interac-
the Organization tions that Occur after Someone
Joins
Who Is Based on the Assessment of In- Is Based on the Assessment of In-
Provides dividual Characteristics dividual Characteristics and So-
Inputs cial Interactions
Is Completed by a Transactional Is Completed by Informal Con-
Contract tracts
Comprises an Agreement between Comprises Agreements between
an Individual and an Organiza- Dyads of Individuals
tion
Is Fixed and Overt Is Indefinite and Covert
The Is Planned Is Emergent
Network of Depends on Positions Develops Around Individuals
Work Roles Recognizes Only Technical Ties Recognizes Both Technical and
Social Ties
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Research implications can once again be grouped into the broad areas of issues
related to determining what inputs are needed and issues surrounding choices
of who will provide which inputs. Because space limitations prevent a thorough
discussion of all issues, we focus only on those areas that we feel are most
critical.
Determining What inputs are Needed

Job Analysis. As discussed above, a foundational assumption of the traditional
model is that organizations consist of jobs, and that objective analysis of those
jobs results in a performance criterion that defines desirable inputs. In con-
trast, the contemporary organizing perspective assumes that work activities
are structured around people, and that a person’s role is largely dependent on
the particular contracts he or she enters. This alternative view implies a need
to re-evaluate job analysis research.
Current job analysis research focuses predominantly on identifying types of
instruments and subject matter experts (SMEs) that most accurately describe
work tasks or behaviors (Butler & Harvey 1988; DeNisi, Cornelius, & Blencoe
1987; Harvey, Hakel, Friedman, & Cornelius 1988; Landy, & Vasey 1991; Mul-
lins & Kimbrough 1988; Sanchez & Fraser 1992). One exception is the work of
Schneider and Konz (1989) that adopted a futuristic perspective and asked
SMEs to predict how jobs would change. This approach acknowledges the dy-
namic nature of work and illustrates how perceptions of current and future
jobs may differ, but it still assumes that jobs can be analyzed independent of
people. Such research is misdirected from an emergent organizing perspective
that sees jobs as subjective and structures as pluralistic. Multiple perceptions
are not indicative of poor SME choice or faulty instrument design, but rather of
unique beliefs. These divergent beliefs are expected to increase as work be-
comes more difficult to scientifically describe and as pluralistic structures
provide legitimation for alternative views.
The trend toward relational organizing should thus be accompanied by re-
duced reliance on the results of objective job analysis. While the legal environ-
ment currently impels businesses to conduct some type of job analysis (Led-
vinka 8z Scarpello 1991), the degree to which participants agree about and
actually follow job analysis results is expected to depend on the extent to which
the structure is based on evolved relationships rather than hierarchical con-
ceptions. This assertion leads to the following proposition.
Proposition 1. Employeesorganizing around evolving relationshipswill

perform tasks that are more divergentfrom formal job descriptionsthan
will employeesorganizedunder hierarchicalprinciples.
Testing this proposition requires a redirection of job analysis research. Past

studies (Aamodt, Kimbrough, Keller, & Crawford 1982; Conley & Sackett 1987;
Mullins & Kimbrough 1988) have examined whether different SMEs provide
equivalent job analysis results. Although the results have been inconclusive,
researchers have viewed disagreement as error and prescribed procedures
such as stratified sampling to assure that all parameters are represented (e.g.,
Mullins & Kimbrough 1988). While this makes sense from the perspective of
jobs as objective phenomena, the notion that roles evolve through contracting
suggests that the SMEs may actually be performing different tasks, and that
there is not an objective answer to the question of which tasks comprise the
“job”. A first step toward more effective staffing research in contemporary
organizations might thus be an exploration of conditions where the process of
rational planning and job analysis does not adequately describe work roles.
Emergent Roles. The emergent relationships model implies that work roles
will often be idiosyncratic. In fact, Miner (1987) found 7 to 12 percent of jobs to
be idiosyncratic in a highly formalized system. While this provides empirical
support for its occurrence, idiosyncratic role formation is expected to be much
more widespread in less formalized structures that emerge through relation-
ships.
One example of widespread idiosyncratic roles is W. L. Gore & Associates.
170 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 2,1997
Bill Gore, the company’s founder, suggests that “It’s the new associate’s respon-
sibility to find out what he or she can do for the good of the operation” (Shipper
& Manz 1992, p. 56). All employees at Gore are given the title of associate, and
tasks and functions are organized through “commitments” rather than
through “fixed” responsibilities (Shipper & Manz 1992). The result is a dynam-
ic network structure that is constantly shifting to take advantage of oppor-
tunities arising from the strengths of individuals.
At Gore and other places with relational structures, the question of what
tasks should be pursued can only be answered after relationships are estab-
lished and contracts are formed. This means that business strategies will
follow staffing decisions (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall 1988; Snow & Snell
19931,which is in direct opposition to the traditional assumption that company
policy should dictate the staffing process. Rather than view staffing as mere
position filling, this perspective attempts to solidify relationships and hire
individuals capable of contributing in unique ways (Snow & Snel11993). Such
an acknowledgement represents considerable divergence from the rational
view of staffing as strategy implementation, which leads to the second proposi-
tion.
Proposition 2. Comparedto hierarchicalorganizations,businessesorga-

nizing around emergingrelationshipswill have competitivestrategiesthat
follow the strengthsof their employees.
This notion of emerging competitive strategies is not new and has been
advanced by others (e.g., Mintzberg and McHugh 19851, but the extent to
which these strategies follow employee characteristics has not been formally
examined. Most current research focuses on strategic human resource man-
agement which has been defined as “the pattern of planned human resource
deployment and activities intended to enable an organization to achieve its
goals” (Wright & McMahan 1992, p. 298). Although this view acknowledges
that there may be times when a firm changes its strategic goals because it
“cannot obtain or develop employees with the skills needed to implement a
strategy” (Wright, Smart, & McMahan 1995, p. 1056), the notion of strategy
actually emerging through informal contracts among employees has not been
investigated.
However, the recent study by Wright et al. did show that actual abilities
explain more performance variance than does the match between abilities and
strategy. This means that the practice of hiring workers with the highest
overall ability may indeed be more beneficial than hiring workers who fill
predetermined, narrowly specified needs. The extent to which this actually
occurs, as well as the harms and benefits of hiring-to use a sports term-
“best available athletes”, are thus other fruitful avenues of research suggested
by the emerging relationships model.
Broad Abilities and Characteristics. If the emerging relationship perspective
does indeed lead to a focus on overall abilities, then a logical question concerns
the types of abilities that are most valuable. Although several specific abilities
have been delineated (e.g., Fleishman & Mumford 1988 list 501, most inputs
from employees can be grouped into the following three broad categories:
physical, mental, and personality. The vast majority of businesses organizing
around emergent relationships are service oriented (Barley & Kunda 1992).
Because these service-oriented organizations rely much more on mental and
personality inputs than on physical inputs (Schneider & Bowen 19951, we will
not spend time discussing physical inputs.
In the realm of mental inputs, an ongoing debate concerns the relative value
of broad and specific abilities (Gottfredson 1986; Prediger 1989; Ree, Earles, &
Teachout 1994). Hierarchical structures, with clearly defined roles that are
known before someone is hired, require much narrower predictions than do
emerging networks where contributions evolve. Narrowly defined abilities
should thus be more closely related to performance in traditional organizations
than in contemporary, network-like structures. This means that broad abilities
are increasingly important in contemporary organizations. Pluralistic struc-
tures require employees to enter and fulfill a variety of sometimes unrelated
contracts that a high degree of specialization might preclude. Successful em-
ployees must also have the flexibility to adapt to contract changes (Rousseau
1995), and adaptation to change is a fundamental component of general mental
ability (Hunter 1986). As people organize to make sense of a dynamic environ-
ment, expectations for input will shift, and employees with the ability to learn
and contribute in multiple areas will become more valuable. This leads to the
third proposition.
Proposition 3. Successful organizing around emergent relationshipsre-

quires that employeespossess general mental ability to a greater extent
than does organizingaround hierarchicalstructures.
In the realm of personality inputs, research has recently converged on a five-

factor structure of traits (Barrick & Mount 1991; Digman 1990; Goldberg 1993).
The structure consists of agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,
extraversion, and openness to experience. Among these five, conscientiousness
appears to be the most robust predictor of individual performance (Barrick &
Mount 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Strauss 1993; Stewart & Carson 1995). The
notion of organizing through emerging relationships can provide insight into
the question of why conscientiousness leads to high performance, as well as
suggest settings where conscientiousness is most valuable.
In contrast to rationally planned structures, the contract view acknowledges
voluntariness in making agreements (Rousseau & Parks 1992). Hierarchical
lines of authority and influence fade and self-motivation becomes accentuated.
Because conscientious people are self-disciplined and achievement striving
(Costa & McCrae 1992), they tend to voluntarily set goals and then work to
accomplish them (Barrick et al. 1993). One reason why conscientious employ-
ees excel in the workplace thus appears to be their willingness to voluntarily
enter agreements. Another reason why conscientiousness is important is its
relationship to trust. Contracting only works when the parties trust each other
to fulfill their promises (Rousseau 1995). At its root conscientiousness relates

to being governed by conscience, and conscientious people thus tend to fulfill
their obligations (Costa & McCrae 1992). The broad trait of conscientiousness
should therefore relate to performance specifically because it reflects voluntary
acceptance and fulfillment of agreements. This suggests that conscientious-
ness will be at a premium when organizing follows emergent relationships,
which leads to the fourth proposition.
Proposition 4. Successfulorganizing around emergent relationshipsre-

quiresemployeeconscientiousnessto a greaterextentthan does organizing
around hierarchical structures.
These two propositions related to broad individual characteristics suggest a

shift away from research attempting to predict narrow performance criteria.
The emphasis in many contemporary organizations should rather be on gain-
ing an understanding of how broad characteristics influence the contract for-
mation process. From the emerging relationships perspective, the importance
of these individual differences in the formation of business strategy certainly
seems worthy of research.
Determining Who Will Provide What

Making New Hire Decisions. Within the contract model perceptions of ability
and willingness to enter agreements drive the hiring process. This differs from
the traditional staffing model in that it does not assume rational decision
making. Because “jobs” are seen as subjective, a scientific solution concerning
the tasks to be completed is impossible, suggesting that people may frequently
disagree about the tasks a new hire should perform. In a similar way, pluralis-
tic structures imply that decision makers need not agree about assessments of
individuals, meaning that the people involved in a hiring decision can actually
possess unique beliefs about the ability and willingness of each applicant to
develop and execute contracts. Figure 2 illustrates these two potential areas of
disagreement.
Looking at Figure 2 it is apparent that a group-level rational decision is only
possible in quadrant 4, where decision makers have common perceptions along
both dimensions. The legitimization of hierarchical authority and control will
tend to establish shared perceptions, making group-level rationality possible
in many traditionally structured organizations. However, the process of orga-
nizing through emerging relationships accedes differences in perception. This
means that the process of deciding whom to hire will often appear nonrational,
as it fails to optimally maximize the benefits for most individual decision
makers.
Because the people involved in a hiring decisions need not agree, the indi-
vidual reasons for supporting a certain applicant can be diverse. These diverse
reasons will be combined into an overall decision through interaction and
negotiation (a type of contract formation in and of itself). This process will
Extent of Shared Perceptions of

Desirable Contract Terms
Extent of
Shared LOW 1 2
Perceptions of
Ability and
Willingness of
an Applicant to
High 3 4
Fulfill
Contract Terms r
Figure 2. Sources of Disagreement Among Existing Organization Members
seldom appear scientifically rational. Moreover, people will retain their indi-
vidual perceptions after hiring is complete. This leads to the next proposition.
Proposition 5. Under conditions of organizing through emerging relation-

ships, people involved in hiring decisions will often support applicants for
different reasons.
From this perspective research should move away from its focus on develop-
ing objective methods of combining assessments. While objective tests will still
be useful indicators of ability and willingness to enter agreements, the scores
and ratings from these tests may be interpreted differently by individual deci-
sion makers-depending on their perceptions. This is consistent with research
by Kleinmutz (1990) which has shown that decision makers prefer subjective
integration of data over statistical combination. Kleinmutz (1990) also found
that statistical combination improves the prediction of clearly defined criteria;
yet, the emerging relationships perspective explicitly acknowledges incomplete
information and unique perceptions. In cases where information is incomplete
and the criterion is ill-defined, focusing more on gestalt perceptions of individ-
uals and less on objectively combining single measures is another research
direction suggested by the new staffmg model.
Figure 2 also illustrates that a hiring decision will often satisfice rather
than maximize the inputs desired by any individual decision maker (Simon
1960). This satisficing results from successful applicants being those who are
seen by the majority of decision makers as capable of developing a contract
they desire. Each decision maker will naturally perceive that the highest con-
tribution will result from hiring the person who would contract to provide the
specific input he or she thinks will be most beneficial. However, because this
perception of greatest need is not likely to be universally shared, the person
who is actually hired may have the ability and willingness to provide that
input, but perhaps to a lesser degree than someone else who did not possess
the capacity to provide additional inputs seen as more valuable by other deci-
sion makers. The overall outcome will therefore often be the hiring of someone
who meets the minimum requirements of many organization members, but
who is not the first choice of any. For instance, faculty decisions about graduate
and undergraduate teaching will likely be resolved by hiring someone who can
adequately do both rather than someone who specializes in either. Research
should thus begin to assess staffmg decisions from the perspective of satisfying
diverse constituencies rather than from the view of maximizing objective
utility.
Redefining Fit. The emerging relationship perspective also provides a new
framework for examining the issue of employee-organization fit. Fit between
employees and organizations has recently received a great deal of attention
(Chatman 1991; Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman 1987; Judge & Ferris 1992; Moos
1987; Rynes & Gerhart 1990; Schneider 1987); however, defining fit as a mea-
surable construct has been rather difficult (Bretz, Rynes, 8z Gerhart 1993;
Rynes & Gerhart 1990). Behavioral contracts provide a mechanism for both
conceptually defining and empirically measuring fit.
From the contracting perspective, fit is idiosyncratic for each organization
member. Fit is therefore between dyads of individuals, rather than between an
individual and an organization. This dyadic view is not limited by the assump-
tion of commonality among organization members, but rather acknowledges
the existence of shared and idiosyncratic perceptions. Fit for one organization
member can thus be based on different criteria and assessments than fit for
another member.
The emerging relationships model also differs from the traditional view of fit
in that it explicitly recognizes the importance of social relationships. Relation-
ships result from social interactions, and are often independent of individual
characteristics (Kenny 1994). In fact, Kenny’s (1994) social relations model
posits that relationships can only be understood once individual-level effects
have been removed. In essence, this suggests that a relational view of fit
necessitates the examination of social interactions, rather than the traditional
assessment of individual characteristics. The sixth proposition follows this
logic.
Proposition 6. Underconditionsof organizingthroughemergingrelation-

ships, fit between employeeswill be based on interactionsbetween dyads
rather than on similarityof individualcharacteristics.
Focusing on social interactions requires a different approach to fit. The focal

point of fit research shifts from characteristics of individuals to the examina-
tion of relationship variance. As Kenny (1994) states, “this relationship vari-
ance may indicate a statistical interaction between dispositional variables of
the two participants, or it may indicate truly interactional aspects” (p. 116).
Either way, fit from a relational perspective is seen as the outcome of a social
interaction between two individuals.
Empirical methods for examining relationship variance are outlined by
Kenny (1981,1990,1994). The basic premise of these methods is the partition-
ing of variance so that individual-level effects are removed and unique variance
associated with an interaction between a pair of individuals can be examined.
This method provides a mechanism for investigating relational effects,
which-in comparison to commonality of individual characteristics-seems
highly representative of the fit construct.
Conducting Employment Interviews

Another important aspect of the emergent relationships view is its explicit
acceptance of contracts for social inputs. Since these social contracts are often
affective in nature (Kenny 1994), the new model explicitly recognizes that
affective reactions may be valid cues of willingness and ability to provide desir-
able social inputs. Indeed, the very process of assessing social dimensions
differs from that of assessing technical dimensions.
The process of determining ability and willingness to provide social inputs is
illustrated in a study by Chapdelaine, Kenny, and LaFontana (1994) which
found that people base predictions of future interaction directly on the outcome
of a previous interaction (even when that interaction is only for a short dura-
tion). Kenny (1994) has also found that positive social interactions result in
liking. Given these findings, it is plausible that existing organization members
do not base their perceptions of ability and willingness to fulfill social contracts
on inferences of personal characteristics.
Organization members can rather base their predictions of future social
relationships directly on past interactions. If a social interaction (such as an
interview) results in a positive affective reaction (liking), then an organization
member can perceive that future social interactions will also fulfill his or her
social needs. This is consistent with selection interview research that has
found liking to be an important determinant of interview assessments (Raza &
Carpenter 1987). It also suggests that liking is a valid cue of a broad criterion
that includes positive group-level interactions, because interviewers are basing
their perceptions directly on the outcome of a social interaction (Kenny 1994).
Accepting affective response as a means for validly predicting social perfor-
mance has the potential of radically changing the way aspects of the selection
interview are regarded. This leads to the next proposition.
Proposition 7. Under conditionsof organizingthroughemergingrelation-

ships, less structuredaspects of the employmentintervieware useful pre-
dictors of ability and willingnessto enter and fulfill social contracts.
Research investigating this proposition will need to adopt alternative mea-

sures of performance. Most notably the notion of organizing through emerging
relationships suggests that the contracts of individuals are intricately linked.
High individual performance may therefore not coincide with helping increase
the performance of others, and in some instances may actually impede cowork-
ers. The emerging relationship perspective thus suggests that researchers
should seek more expansive measures of performance and thereby explicitly
assess how social contracts among individuals afFectthe composite of inputs.
This necessitates assessing performance at the group level of analysis rather

than at the individual level.
Adjusting to the hputs of Others. The emerging relationships perspective as-
serts that work roles are the result of interactions rather than formalized
plans. The contracts associated with this perspective are thus relational rather
than transactional. The difference is that transactional contracts-which are
assumed by the traditional staffing model-are extrinsic, easily observed, nar-
row in scope, and usually for a specific duration (MacNeil 1985; Rousseau &
Parks 1992). Relational contracts, however, are dynamic, open-ended, and in-
definite in duration (MacNeill985; Rousseau & Parks 1992). This implies that
individual roles can change and that employees will always have incomplete
agreements.
One source of changing roles is the dynamic composition of those involved in
the network of agreements. As individuals enter and leave the network (are
hired and fired), existing and continuing members will need to adjust their
individual inputs to accommodate the new mix of inputs. An illustration of this
process occurs each year as professional athletic teams determine the players
they will draft. Team executives often explain their choices as “taking the best
available athlete.” Roles of athletes who are already members of the team often
change when the new member joins the team. In a similar way, adjustment to
the changing inputs of others is expected to be the norm for employees in
modern work organizations. This illustration leads to the eighth hypothesis.
Proposition 8. Under conditions of organizing through emerging relation-

ships, individual roles of existing and continuing members will change as
others enter and leave the network of agreements.
The formation and alteration of contracts is not, however, dependent on

overt communication. People may perceive contracts without verbal discussion
or oral negotiation (Rousseau & Anton 1988,1991). The perceptual nature of
behavioral contracts allows them to be developed through interactions that are
nonverbal (Rousseau 1990; Weick 1979). An individual may believe that a con-
tract exists because she perceives that the friendship of another person is
contingent on his promise to provide a specific input. Because relational con-
tracts are “in the eye of the beholder” (Rousseau & Parks 1992, p. 31,the other
person does not need to share this perception. Moreover, the social nature of
these agreements suggests that many of them can be learned vicariously (Ban-
dura 1986). An individual might perceive a contract between two individuals,
and believe that he can develop a similar contract with the first party by
providing the same promises and payments as the second party. In this case,
the perception of a contract has resulted from vicarious observation. This
covert process often results in normative contracts, which are a contract that is
perceived as being shared by a group of people (Rousseau 1995).
Because the process of contract formation is not overt, existing research that
concentrates on formal agreements (transactional contracts) will remain un-
able to actually determine how individuals shift their inputs to effectively
accommodate the inputs of others. In order to understand this process of ac-

commodation, the current emphasis on formal job descriptions must be re-
placed with longitudinal analysis of the forces that alter the day-to-day activ-
ities of workers. This will also help determine the relative tradeoffs between
having workers perform specific tasks and allowing them to enact dynamic
roles.
CONCLUSION
This article has outlined a new perspective on the process of staffing for con-
temporary organizations. The new model is based on organizing through emer-
gent relationships and differs greatly from the traditional model based on
rational principles stemming from a view of organizations as machines. The
new model is descriptive of what happens in many contemporary firms, but is
not intended to be prescriptive. We are not saying that this approach to staffing
is always desirable. In fact, we suspect that there are numerous negative
consequences associated with this process of staffing through emerging rela-
tionships.
In fact, we see a corollary with some recent research done in the area of
performance appraisal. The traditional view is that employee appraisals
should provide objective measures of performance. However, a study by Long-
necker, Sims, and Gioia (1987) found that many managers use the appraisal
system to pursue their own individual goals rather than simply to measure
performance. Reports indicated that high performing employees might be giv-
en low ratings when their actions are seen as insubordination, and that low
performing employees were given high ratings in order to accelerate their
promotion out of the Workgroup. Longnecker et al. called this phenomena the
politics of appraisal.
It seems likely that similar problems arise as staffing follows emerging
relationships. Generally speaking, staffing decisions might be considered polit-
ical to the extent that decision makers base their decisions on criteria other
than collective well-being. For instance, staffing decisions might be made to
solidify a manager’s position in a company (Arvey & Sackett 1993), or in order
to illegally discriminate against someone because of race, sex, or age.
People already in the organization may also be harmed when they do not
agree to enter the agreements others desire. In the absence of hierarchical
authority, people tend to adopt informal influence tactics (Schilit & Locke
1982). These tactics often result in greater pressure to conform than does
hierarchical influence (Barber 1993). The threat of ostracism and peer sanc-
tions can create the possibility of intense pressure to conform that may be
aversive to some individuals. The emerging relationships perspective thus
calls for research into the influence tactics that people use to informally con-
vince others to enter agreements, as well as research into the consequences of
such tactics on individual and organizational well-being.
The extent to which political activities affect staffing decisions must be
examined. Once the actual process of staffing is better understood, prescriptive

research is in order to find ways to ameliorate the negative effects. However,
the first step is to understand differences between the hierarchical approach
and the approach that follows emergent relationships.
We should also note that we have focused specifically on staffing without
addressing related functions like training and compensation. We have concen-
trated solely on staffing in order to present a focused argument. However,
rational approaches to compensation and training should not be expected to
have congruence with an emerging relationships approach to staffing. When
organizing occurs through emerging relationships, updated views of compen-
sation, training, and appraisal will be most appropriate.
Finally, we should note once again that this approach to staffing is not
descriptive of all organizations. The heart of the emerging relationships per-
spective is subjectivity and pluralistic structures. When these factors allow for
acceptance and acknowledgement of idiosyncratic perceptions, work roles
evolve through a complex network or technical and social ties. This process is
very different than staffing in hierarchical organizations, and fresh avenues of
research must be pursued to truly understand how work activities are deter-
mined and completed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Greg Stewart’s work on this article was supported by a grant from the Owen
Graduate School of Management Dean’s Fund for Faculty Research. The au-
thors wish to thank Thomas A. Mahoney, Raymond A. Friedman, and George
M. Alliger for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
REFERENCES
Aamodt, M. G., W. W. Kimbrough, R. J. Keller, and K. J. Crawford. 1982. “Relationships

Between Sex, Race, and Job Performance Level and the Generation of Critical
Incidents.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Research 2: 227-234.
Alliger, G. M. 1992. “The Theory and Structure of Industrial Psychology.” In Issues,
Theory, and Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, edited by K. Kel-
ley. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Argyris, C. 1976. “Problems and New Directions for Industrial Psychology.” In Hand-
book of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette.
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Arvey, R. D. and P. R. Sackett. 1993. “Fairness in Selection: Current Developments and
Perspectives.” In Personnel Selection in Organizations, edited by N. Schmitt and
W. C. Borman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ash, R. A. 1988. “Job Analysis in the World of Work.” Pp. 3-13 in The Job Analysis
Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 11,edited by S. Gael. New
York: Wiley.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theo-
ry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barber, J. R. 1993. “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing
Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 408-437.
Barley, S. R. 1990. “The Alignment of Technology and Structure Through Roles and
Networks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 61-103.
Barley, S. R. and G. Kunda. 1992. “Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Norma-
tive Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 37: 363-399.
Barrett, G. V 1972. “Symposium: Research Models of the Future for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.” Personnel Psychology 25: 1-17.
Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount. 1991. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job
Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Personnel Psychology 44: l-26.
Barrick, M. R., M. K. Mount, and J. P. Strauss. 1993. “Conscientiousness and Perfor-
mance of Sales Representatives: Test of the Mediating Effects of Goal Setting.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 715-722.
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure.
New York: Free Press.
Borman, W. C. and S. J. Motowidlo. 1993. “Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include
Elements of Contextual Performance.” In Personnel Selection in Organizations,
edited by N. Schmitt and W. C. Borman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bretz, R. D., S. Rynes, and B. Gerhart. 1993. Recruiter Perceptions of Applicant Fit:
Mapping the Construct or Constructing the Map?” Journal of Vocational Behau-
ior 43: 310-327.
Brogden, H. E. and E. K. Taylor. 1950. “The Theory and Classification of Criterion
Bias.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 10: 159-186.
Burns, T. and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Znnouation. London: Tavistock.
Burrell, G. and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
London: Heinemann.
Butler, S. K. and H. J. Harvey. 1988. “A Comparison of Holistic Versus Decomposed
Rating of Position Analysis Questionnaire Work Dimensions.” Personnel Psychol-
ogy 41: 761-772.
Campbell, J. P., R. A. McCloy, S. H. Oppler, and C. E. Sager, 1993. “A Theory of Perfor-
mance.” Pp. 35-70 in Personnel Selection in Organizations, edited by N. Schmitt
and W. C. Borman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carson, K. P. and G. L. Stewart. 1996. “Job Analysis and the Sociotechnical Approach to
Quality: A Critical Examination.” Journal of Quality Management 1: 49-65.
Chapdelaine, A., D. A. Kenny, and K. M. LaFontana. 1994. “Matchmaker, Matchmaker,
Can You Make Me a Match? Predicting Liking between Two Unacquainted Per-
sons.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 83-91.
Chatman, J. A. 1991. “Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization
in Public Accounting Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 459-484.
Clark, D. L. 1985. “Emerging Paradigms in Organizational Theory and Research. Pp.
43-78 in Organizational Theory and Inquiry: The Paradigm Revolution, edited
by Y. S. Lincoln. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Conley, P. R. and P. R. Sackett. 1987. “Effects of Using High- Versus Low-Performing Job
Incumbents as Sources of Job-Analysis Information.” Journal ofApplied Psychol-
ogy 72: 434-437.
Costa, P. T., Jr. and R. R. McCrae. 1992. Revised NE0 Personality Inventory (NE0 PI-R)
and NE0 Five-Factor Inventory (NE0 FFZ) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
180 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW WLUME 7. NUMBER 2,1997
Cummings, T. 1978. “Self-Regulated Work Groups: A Socio-Technical Synthesis.“Aca&-

my of Management Review 3: 625-634.
Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R. L. and A. Y. Lewin. 1993. “Where Are the Theories for the “New” Organizational
Forms? An Editorial Essay.” Organizational Science 4: i-viii.
Davis, L. E. and G. J. Wacker. 1988. “Job Design.” Pp. 157-172 in The Job Analysis
Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 11,edited by S. Gael. New
York: Wiley.
Denes-Raj, V. and S. Epstein. 1994. “Conflict between Intuitive and Rational Process-
ing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment.” Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 66: 819-829.
DeNisi, A. S., E. T. Cornelius, and A. G. Blencoe. 1987. “Further Investigation of Com-
mon Knowledge Effects on Job Analysis Ratings.” Journal of Applied Psychology
72: 262-268.
Digman, J. M. 1990. “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model.”
Annual Review of Psychology 41: 417-440.
Dortch, C. T. 1989. “Job-Person Match.” Personnel Journal 68(6): 49-57.
Dow, G. K. 1988. “Configurational and Coactivational Views of Organizational Struc-
ture.“Academy of Management Review 13: 53-64.
Durkheim, E. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Macmillan.
Emery, F. E. and E. L. Trist. 1969. “Socio-Technical Systems.” Pp. 281-296 in Systems
Thinking, edited by F. E. Emery. London: Penguin Books.
Epstein, S. 1994. “Integration of Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious.“Amer-
ican Psychologist 49: 709-724.
Fleishman, E. A. and M. D. Mumford. 1988. “Ability Requirement Scales.” in The Job
Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 2), edited by S.
Gael, New York: Wiley.
Ford, R. C. and M. D. Fottler. 1995. “Empowerment: A Matter of Degree.” Academy of
Management Executive 9: 21-28.
Gatewood, R. D. and H. S. Feild. 1994. Human Resource Selection, (3rd ed.). New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Goldberg, L. R. 1993. “The structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits.” American Psy-
chologist 48: 26-34.
Gottfredson, L. S. 1986. “Societal Consequences of the g Factor in Employment.” Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior 29: 379-410.
Guetzkow, H. 1965. “Communication in Organizations.” In Handbook of Organizations,
edited by J. G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Gutman, A. 1993. EEO Law and Personnel Practices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Halal, W. E., A. Geranmayeh, and J. Pourdehnad. 1993. Internal Markets. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Harvey, R. 1991. “Job Analysis.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, edited by M. S. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press.
Harvey, J. R., D. Hakel, L. Friedman, and T. E. Cornelius. 1988. “Dimensionality of the
Job Element Inventory, a Simplified Worker-Oriented Job Analysis Question-
naire.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 639-646.
Heneman, H. G. and R. L. Heneman. 1994. Staffing Organizations. Middleton, WI:
Mendota House.
Hess, E. H. 1958. “‘Imprinting’ in Animals.” Scientific American 198: 81-90.
Hunter, J. E. 1986. “Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job
Performance.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 29: 340-362.
Judge, T. A. and G. R. Ferris. 1992. “The Elusive Criterion of Fit in Human Resources
Staffing Decisions.” Human Resource Planning 15(4): 47-66.
Kast, D. and J. Rosenzweig. 1972. “General Systems Theory: Applications for Organiza-
tion and Management.” Academy of Management Journal 15: 447-465.
Keeley, M. 1980. “Organization Analogy: A Comparison of Organismic and Social Con-
tract Models.” Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 337-362.
Kenny, D. A. 1981. “Interpersonal Perception: A Multivariate Round Robin Analysis.”
Pp. 288-309 in Scientifw Inquiry and the Social Sciences: A Volume in Honor of
Donald T Campbell, edited by M. B. Brewer and B. Collins. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
-. 1990. “Design and Analysis Issues in Dyadic Research.” Pp. 164-184 in Review
of Personality and Social Aychology (Vol. ll), edited by C. Hendrick and M. S.
Clark. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
_. 1994. “Using the Social Relations Model to Understand Relationships.” Pp. lll-
127 in Theoretical Frameworks for Personal Relationships, edited by R. Erber
and R. Gilmour. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ketchum, L. D. and E. Trist. 1992. All Teams Are Not Created Equal: How Employee
Empowerment Really Works. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kleinmutz, B. 1990. Why We Still Use Our Heads Instead of Formulas: Toward an
Integrative Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 107: 296-310.
Knights, D. 1992. “Changing Spaces: The Disruptive Impact of a New Epistemological
LocationfortheStudyofManagement.”AcademyofManagementReview17:514-536.
Kulik, C. T., G. R. Oldham, and J. R. Hackman. 1987. “Work Design as an Approach to
Person-Environment Fit.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 3: 278-296.
Landy, F. J. 1988. “Selection Procedure Development and Usage.” Pp. 271-287 in The
Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 11,edited by
S. Gael. New York: Wiley.
Landy, F. J. and J. Vasey. 1991. “Job Analysis: The Composition of SME Samples.”
Personnel Psychology 44: 27-50.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High Involvement Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
-. 1992. The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-Involvement Organization.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ledvinka, J. and V. G. Scarpello. 1991. Federal Regulation of Personnel and Human
Resource Management, (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. and M. L. Lengnick-Hall. 1988. “Strategic Human Resources Man-
agement: A Review of the Literature and a Proposed Typology.” Academy of
Management Review 13: 454-470.
Lincoln, J. R. 1982. “Intra- (and Inter-) Organizational Networks.” Research in the
Sociology of Organizations 1: l-38.
Lincoln, Y. S. 1985. “The Substance of the Emergent Paradigm: Implications of Re-
searchers.” Pp. 137-160 in Organizational Theory and Inquiry: The Paradigm
Revolution, edited by Y. S. Lincoln. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Longnecker, C. O., H. P. Sims, and D. A. Gioia. 1987. “Behind the Mask: The Politics of
Employee Appraisal.” Academy of Management Review 1: 183-193.
MacNeil, I. R. 1985. “Relational Contract: What We Do and Do Not Know.” Wisconsin
Law Review 3: 483-525.
Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims, Jr. 1993. Business Without Bosses: How Self-Managing
Teams are Building High Performing Companies. New York: Wiley.
Miles, R. E. and W. E. D. Creed. 1995. “Organization Forms and Managerial Philoso-

phies: A Descriptive and Analytical Review.” Research in Organizational Behav-
ior 17: 333-372.
Miles, R. E. and C. C. Snow. 1992. “Causes of Failure in Network Organizations.”
California Management Review 28(3): 62-73.
Miner, A. S. 1987. “Idiosyncratic Jobs in Formalized Organizations.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 32: 327-351.
Mintzberg, H. and A. McHugh. 1985. “Strategy Formation and Adhocracy.“Administra-
tive Science Quarterly 30.
Mirabile, R. J. 1990. “The Power of Job Analysis.” Training 27(4): 70-74.
Mooney, J. D. 1937. “The Principles of Organization.” Pp. 89-98 in Papers on the Science
of Administration, edited by L. Gulik and L. Urwick. New York: Institute of
Public Administration, Columbia University.
Moos, R. H. 1987. “Person-Environment Congruence in Work, School, and Health Care
Settings.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 31: 231-247.
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mullins, C. W. and W. W. Kimbrough. 1988. “Group Composition as a Determinant of
Job Analysis Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 657-664.
Myer, J. W. and B. Rowan. 1977. “Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83: 341-363.
Nord, W. R. 1982. “Continuity and Change in Industrial/Organizational Psychology:
Learning from Previous Mistakes.” Professional Psychology 13: 942-952.
Park, B., M. L. DeKay, and S. Kraus. 1994. “Aggregating Social Behavior into Person
Models: Perceiver-Induced Consistency.” Journal of Personality and Social Eky-
chology 66: 437-459.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Powell, W. W. 1990. “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.”
Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295-336.
Prediger, D. J. 1989. “Ability Differences across Occupations: More Than g.” Journal of
Vocational Behavior 34: l-27.
Raza, S. M. and B. N. Carpenter. 1987. “A Model of Hiring Decisions in Real Employ-
ment Interviews.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 596-603.
Ree, M. J., J. A. Earles, and M. S. Teachout. 1994. “Predicting Job Performance: Not
Much More Than g.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 518-524.
Rousseau, D. M. 1990. “New Hire Perceptions of Their Own and Their Employer’s
Obligations: A Study of Psychological Contracts.” Journal of Organizational Be-
havior 11: 389-400.
-. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. and R. Anton. 1988. “Fairness and Implied Contract Obligations in Job
Termination: A Policy Capturing Study.” Human Performance 1: 273-289.
-. 1991. “Fairness and Implied Contract Obligations in Job Terminations: The Role
of Contributions, Promises, and Performance.” Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior 12: 287-299.
Rousseau, D. R. and J. M. Parks. 1992. “The Contracts of Individuals and Organiza-
tions.” Pp. l-43 in Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 15), edited by L. L.
Cummings and B. M. Staw.
Rynes, S. and B. Gerhart. 1990. “Interviewer Assessments of Applicant ‘Fit’: An Explor-
atory Investigation.” Personnel Psychology 43: 13-22.
Sanchez, J. I. and S. L. Fraser. 1992. “On the Choice of Scales for Task Analysis.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 545-553.
Schilit, W. K. and E. A. Locke. 1982. “A Study of Upward Influence in Organizations.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 304-316.
Schneider, B. 1987. “The People Make the Place.” Personnel Psychology 40: 437-453.
Schneider, B. and D. E. Bowen. 1995. Winning the Service Game. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schneider, B. and A. M. Konz. 1989. “Strategic Job Analysis.” Human Resource Manage-
ment 28(l): 51-63.
Schneider, B. and N. Schmitt. 1986. Staffing Organizations, (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.
Shipper, F. and C. C. Manz. 1992. “Employee Self-Management Without Formally Des-
ignated Teams: An Alternative Road to Empowerment.” Organizational Dynam-
ics 20(3): 48-61.
Simon, H. A. 1960. Administrative Behavior, (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Snow, C. C. and S. A. Snell. 1993. “Staffing as Strategy.” In Personnel Selection in
Organizations, edited by N. Schmitt and W. C. Borman. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Spokane, A. R. 1987. “Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Person-Environment
Fit Research.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 31: 231-247.
Stagner, R. 1992. “Past and Future of Industrial Psychology.” Professional Psychology
13: 892-902.
Stewart, G. L. and K. P. Carson. 1995. “Personality Dimensions and Domains of Service
Performance: A Field Investigation.” Journal of Business and Psychology 9: 365-
378.
Susman, J. I. 1976. Autonomy at Work: A So&-Technical Analysis of Participative
Management.” New York, Praeger.
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, D. E. and T. A. Thompson. 1982. “Court Standards for Job Analysis in Test
Validation.” Personnel Psychology 35: 865-874.
Trist, E. 1981. “The Sociotechnical Perspective.” Pp. 19-75 in Perspectives on Organiza-
tion Design and Behavior, edited by A. H. Van de Ven and W. F. Joyce. New York:
Wiley.
Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, IL: The
Free Press.
Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing, (2nd ed.). New York: Random
House.
-. 1993. “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disas-
ter.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 628-652.
Wellins, R. S., W. C. Byham, and J. M. Wilson. 1991. Empowered Teams: Creating Self-
Directed Work Groups That Improve Quality, Productivity and Participation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wernimont, P. F. 1988. “Recruitment, Selection, and Placement.” Pp. 193-204 in The
Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. l), edited by
S. Gael. New York: Wiley.
Wherry, R. J. and C. J. Bartlett. 1982. “The Control of Rating Bias in Ratings: A Theory
of Rating.” Personnel Aychology 35: 521-551.
Wright, P. and G. McMahan. 1992. “Theoretical Perspectives of Strategic Human Re-

source Management.” Journal of Management 18: 295-320.
Wright, P M., D. L. Smart, and G. C. McMahan. 1995. “Matches between Human
Resources and Strategy among NCAA Basketball Teams.” Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 38: 1052-1074.

Staffing For Contemporary Organizations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Staffing For Contemporary Organizations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MOVING BEYOND THE MECHANISTIC MODEL:

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO STAFFING

The currently accepted model of employee staffing is grounded in traditional

Modern organizations are moving beyond traditional, hierarchical structures

Human Ftesource Management Review, Copyright 0 1997

Commonly accepted ideas about staffing are grounded in traditional prac-

THE TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF STAFFING

Mechanistic theories of organizations, popular (and effective) in the early part

A Mechanistic View of Organizations

Beginning in the late 1800s managers applied principles of engineering to

The Traditional Staffing Process

Selecting Individuals. Once the performance criterion is established by a list of

those same measures across the members of a work group or organization, or

A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE OF STAFFING

Why a New Perspective is Needed

A Foundation for a New Model

Staffing as the Result of Emergent Organizing

m Perceptions Shared m Perceptions Shared

Figure 1. Illustration of Common and Unique Perceptions

are aggressive and demanding. Such characteristics represent social inputs,

The Emergent Network

Traditional Model Emergent Organizing Model

Determining What inputs are Needed

Proposition 1. Employeesorganizing around evolving relationshipswill

Testing this proposition requires a redirection of job analysis research. Past

Proposition 2. Comparedto hierarchicalorganizations,businessesorga-

Proposition 3. Successful organizing around emergent relationshipsre-

In the realm of personality inputs, research has recently converged on a five-

to fulfill their promises (Rousseau 1995). At its root conscientiousness relates

Proposition 4. Successfulorganizing around emergent relationshipsre-

These two propositions related to broad individual characteristics suggest a

Determining Who Will Provide What

Extent of Shared Perceptions of

Figure 2. Sources of Disagreement Among Existing Organization Members

Proposition 5. Under conditions of organizing through emerging relation-

Proposition 6. Underconditionsof organizingthroughemergingrelation-

Focusing on social interactions requires a different approach to fit. The focal

Conducting Employment Interviews

Proposition 7. Under conditionsof organizingthroughemergingrelation-

Research investigating this proposition will need to adopt alternative mea-

This necessitates assessing performance at the group level of analysis rather

Proposition 8. Under conditions of organizing through emerging relation-

The formation and alteration of contracts is not, however, dependent on

accommodate the inputs of others. In order to understand this process of ac-

examined. Once the actual process of staffing is better understood, prescriptive

Aamodt, M. G., W. W. Kimbrough, R. J. Keller, and K. J. Crawford. 1982. “Relationships

Cummings, T. 1978. “Self-Regulated Work Groups: A Socio-Technical Synthesis.“Aca&-

Miles, R. E. and W. E. D. Creed. 1995. “Organization Forms and Managerial Philoso-

Wright, P. and G. McMahan. 1992. “Theoretical Perspectives of Strategic Human Re-

Вам также может понравиться