The Lives and Deaths of Jobs: Technical Interdependence and Survival in a Job Structure

Abstract

Prior work has considered the properties of individual jobs that make them more or less likely to survive in organizations. Yet little research examines how a job's position within a larger job structure affects its life chances and thus the evolution of the larger job structure over time. In this article, we explore the impact of technical interdependence on the dynamics of job structures. We argue that jobs that are more enmeshed in a job structure through these interdependencies are more likely to survive. We test our theory on a quarter-century of personnel and job-description data for the non-academic staff of one of Americas largest public universities. Our results provide support for our key hypotheses: jobs that are more enmeshed in clusters of technical interdependence are less likely to die. At the same time, being part of such a cluster means that a job is more vulnerable if its neighbors disappear. And the "protection" of technical interdependence is contingent: it does not hold in the face of strategic change or other organizational restructurings. We offer implications of our analyses for research in organizational performance, careers, and labor markets.

Occupational Survival Through Field-Level Task Integration: Systems Men, Production Planners, and the Computer, 1940s–1990s

“…Specifically, Wray (1949) we operationalized framing as the representative collection of words used to describe each task. We adopted the Hasan et al (2015) approach to measure similarity and differences in framing by comparing the collection of words used to define the task. Using the sample of collected task descriptions, we compared the words used to describe the tasks at different times.…”

“…We were also interested in how systems men and production planners framed their tasks in relation to other tasks. Following Hasan et al (2015), we looked for words in the task descriptions that signaled interdependence, such as "collaborate," "input," "communicate," Downloaded from informs.org by [165.124.167.248] on 29 November 2016, at 17:15 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.…”

“…The relational approach highlights that building relations with other groups can help extend influence over these groups without having to dominate them through monopoly control over knowledge or resources (Huising 2015). Much of this research has focused on short-term intraorganizational issues, whether it be job interdependencies and development (Cohen 2013) and survival (Hasan et al 2015) or microsettlements between groups (Bechky 2003, Huising 2015, Kellogg 2009).…”

“…Similar to Huising's (2015) professionals in Eastern University, our analysis shows that production planners interacted with other occupational groups to help mobilize their support and participation in developing their tasks around new computing technology. Similar to Hasan et al (2015), large university production planners framing of their tasks as interdependent with other groups helped them persevere despite competing claims about jurisdictional control over the computer. By establishing collaborative relations with adjacent groups, production planners were able to create interdependencies with other groups, making their occupational group more necessary to the functioning of other groups within the manufacturing industry.…”

“…Most relational studies do not address this issue. While Hasan et al (2015) provide strong evidence that interdependent tasks will persist, the quantitative nature of their study does not address how groups maintained their autonomy in the face of potential co-optation. This co-optation risk is not Downloaded from informs.org by [165.124.167.248] on 29 November 2016, at 17:15 .…”