Dr. Steven F. Cronshaw

---------------------

materials from conferences
and other presentations

----------------------

The Measurement of Workplace Adaptation

Functional-perspectivism (FP) makes use of the concatenated ecological concept (CEC). FP does not employ constructs as conventionally understood in organizational inquiry. The use of CECs requires that workplace adaptation be understood from two complementary perspectives: (1) That of the worker who must adapt to workplace circumstances; and (2) That of the work organization that provides the ways and means for worker adaptation and functioning. The FP principle of reversibility requires that these two perspectives be conceptualized and measured as two aspects of one and the same holistic phenomenon. To accomplish this, the worker perspective is operationalized within the effectivity gradient; the perspective of the work organization surrounding the worker is operationized within the enablement gradient.

The effectivity gradient ranges from constructive assertion (highly adapted) to disintegrative disengagement (poorly adapted). This gradient can be measured by means of skills modeling. The methodology for skills modeling is described in Cronshaw (2005) and Cronshaw, Ong, and Chappell (2007). The enablement gradient ranges from facilitating (resource intensive) to blocking (resource deficient) affordances. It can be measured by means of affordances modeling. No published work on affordances modeling is available yet, although an empirical study is underway as of Fall, 2007.

As the effectivity and enablement gradients are interchanged as alternating perspectives on the CEC, a homotrophic patterning in person-context transaction becomes apparent as diagrammed below.

Placement on Effectivity Gradient		Placement on Enablement Gradient
		Facilitating affordances	Constraining affordances	Blocking affordances
	Constructive assertion	PurGS	DirGS	DirGS
	Reactive Engagement	DirGS	DirGS	DisGS
	Disintegrative Disengagement	DisGS	DisGS	DisGS

PurGS = Purposive Goal Structure; DirGS = Directive Goal structure; DisGS = Dissipative Goal Structure.

This table shows that the possible transactions of person and context result in varying quality of goal structure. The purposive goal state, typified by high worker motivation under optimal organizational conditions, is restricted to the single region of the CEC where constructive assertion co-occurs with facilitating affordances. Purposive goal structures rarely emerge within the workspace and workspan of everyday organizational activity. Important implications for the design, management, and change of modern organizations follow from this understanding of workplace adaptability..

Links for above web page:

Cronshaw, S.F. (2005). Developmental dynamics of workplace adaptive skill.
Cronshaw 2005 http://www.fdpsa.com/summary1xbrief/PR-June-2005-Part-2_0028_s.pdf

Cronshaw, Ong, and Chappell (2007) http://volumeindex.ammonsscientific.com/PR-Contents-of-Vol-100-Feb-Jun.pdf (note that the abstract is not on their website yet but will be soon)