97. "Dynamic Congruency"

SUMMARY

It has been clear for decades that there are serious problems in defining organizational goals and in the assumption that organizational goals, do, indeed, cause organizational behavior. The concept of fit or congruence between major elements of an organization and its environments is a staple of organizational design and contingency theories of organizations. Congruency is replacing goal-oriented approaches for two simple reasons: (1) they do not work; and (2) they do not reflect organizational reality, as they are too simple to match the requisite variety of the complexity of a real organization. The subject of this article is a comprehensive model of organizational congruency, called dynamic congruency.

The article begins with a critique of goal-oriented approaches and argues for the need for a more robust replacement. This replacement is based on the concept of an organization as a commons with eight defining characteristics and the prime directive of ensuring the welfare of the commons. This is followed by a description of the real world phenomena that leads one to congruency thinking.

Dynamic congruency is based on the eight properties of a commons. There are two main types of dynamic congruency: (1) organizational level congruency, and (2) dynamic bonding congruency. Models are presented for defining the two main types of dynamic bonding. The first is the ABCE model for the congruency at the organizational-level. Organizational-level congruency examines the congruency conditions between the environments (E), the strategic direction (A), the implementing organizational technologies (B), and the organizational results (C). The second is the abce model for the individual associate. The a in the abce model refers to the associate's orientation to the organization; b refers to the position-level implementing means; c refers to the associate's results; and e refers to the associate's environment within the organization.

The organizational-level congruency has six strategic congruency conditions, seven implementing organizational technology congruency conditions, and four organizational results congruency conditions. These 17 congruency conditions are listed in a presumed order of cause-effect with the higher level congruency conditions affecting the lower ones.

Dynamic congruency consists of three main parts. There is the bonding congruency between the individual associate and the organization; the bonding congruency between the individual associate and the position held in the organization; and the bonding between the position and the organization. There are three Associate/Organization bonding congruency conditions, 14 Associate/Position bonding conditions, and four position/organizational bonding conditions. These 21 dynamic bonding congruency conditions are not presumed to be in any special cause-effect ordering.

The article examines how the organizational-level congruency and dynamic bonding congruency are interdependent. Drawing from conclusions published in the Organizational Hologram: The Effective Management of Organizational Change, the article lists eight propositions and seven principles involving dynamic congruency. These notions have proven valuable in designing organizations to become simultaneously more productive, adaptable, and even more efficiently adaptable. There is a brief discussion of how a new web-based system will improve opportunities to test and improve this model of dynamic congruency.