levesque opportunistic hiring

When firms fill vacated positions or addredundant jobs, traditional routines may betriggered to help clarify the positions (e.g.,job analysis, writing or updating job descrip-tions, determining selection criteria). Thebest entry conditions for new workers arebelieved to be when job expectations are wellarticulated, since this clarity is associatedwith successful assimilation, strong organi-zational commitment, and lowered intent toquit (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992).

The organizational fit of the newemployee is another aspect of the entryexperience linked to these positive out-comes. New employee fit can be conceptu-alized in multiple ways, including fit withorganizational values or with the demandsand offerings of the job (Edwards, 1991). Fit

can be improved post-hire if either theemployee or the job is altered to enhancecongruence. Workers with flexible jobs mayadapt them to better match their personalinterests or abilities (Bell & Staw, 1989;Jones, 1986), particularly if they learnedduring socialization that it is acceptable todo so (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Black & Ash-ford, 1995). Conversely, workers may decideto change themselves or their personal val-ues to enhance alignment with the new jobor employer (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

Most research on person-organization fitdeals with documented vacancies, or exist-ing positions where expectations, tasks, andthe culture of the firm are known and meas-urable. This research instead examines thehiring process in situations where the jobs

OPPORTUNISTIC HIRING AND EMPLOYEE FIT

Human Resource Management, Fall 2005, Vol. 44, No. 3, Pp. 301–317© 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20072

Laurie L. Levesque

Most research on selection processes and organizational fit deals with existing, unfilled positionswhere expectations and tasks are known and measurable. This article instead evaluates the rea-sons, processes, and implications of opportunistic hiring—hiring employees before their jobsexist. Examples from an exploratory study show how “fit” factors into selection decisions. A typol-ogy is offered along the dimensions of whether opportunistic hiring is used to meet immediateor anticipated needs and the extent to which these needs are articulated prior to selection. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Laurie L. Levesque, Suffolk University, Frank Sawyer School of Management, Manage-ment Department, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 573-8389, [email protected]

302 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2005

have not yet been created. Few studies haveexplored the reasons, processes, and implica-tions of this practice, especially extremecases where only the barest sketch of a job isoutlined in advance. The goal is to begin tounderstand how “fit” factors into selectiondecisions and job creation for employeeshired in an opportunistic manner, and to fos-ter academic interest in this understudiedhuman resource practice.

Opportunistic Hiring

Opportunistic hiring (OH) is the creation of ajob or the amalgamation of previously distrib-uted tasks into one position for an employeewho is new to the firm (Granovetter, 1974;Miner, 1985). The result is an idiosyncraticjob, rather than the filling of a vacancy orreplication of an existing position (Miner,1987). A survey of 272 professional, techni-cal, and managerial workers found that 35%reported being brought into newly createdpositions (Granovetter, 1974, 1995). How-ever, this staffing strategy goes unmentionedin traditional personnel texts and in mostresearch on human resource practices, whichinstead describe hiring for well-defined jobs.Idiosyncratic hiring decisions are actually dis-couraged by some academics for fear thesedecisions may jeopardize organizational effec-tiveness (Graves & Karren, 1996).

It is plausible that contrarian staffingstrategies lead to opportunistic hiring. Dur-ing economic downturns, larger firms usecontrarian staffing techniques to seek outadditional employees, depending on theirforecasted HR needs and goals, such as man-aging their workforce age distribution or fos-tering career and employee development(Greer & Ireland, 1992). This counter-cycli-cal hiring of key managerial and professionalemployees focuses on firm strategy (Greer,1984; Greer & Ireland, 1992), with aspira-tions of improving future firm performancevia increased workforce diversity and avoid-ance of personnel shortages (Greer, Ireland,& Wingender, 2001). Counter-cyclical hiringalso is associated with the underutilization ofemployees, but existing work in this areadoes not clarify if new hires begin workbefore jobs exist for them. It is therefore

unclear if opportunistic hiring is the causefor their theorized underutilization, or if theemployees have defined jobs but a temporaryshortage of tasks or work. Greer and col-leagues do not report data that could helpdiscern whether employees hired counter-cyclically took on newly created jobs or wereinstead replacements for jobs vacated duringan economic decline.

Despite its presence being noted decadesago in large, bureaucratic organizations(Miner, 1987) and in smaller, younger firms(Granovetter, 1974), OH rarely is discussedin the human resource literature. Scholarshave yet to devote significant attention to theformation of new jobs and associated out-comes at the individual, group, or organiza-tional levels (Aldrich, 1999). Few field stud-ies have been conducted in new ventureswhere jobs routinely are created during firmevolution (Aldrich, 1999) and wherefounders grow their firms by hiring talentedpeople whom they happen to meet (Aldrich& Baker, 1994; Granovetter, 1974). With fewexceptions (Cogswell, 1972; Rollag, 2004),organizational newcomers are conceptual-ized as filling established vacancies; thus, weknow little about jobs formed specifically for,with, or by them. This omission is significant,since opportunistically hired employees areunlikely to have the same selection, assimila-tion, and early on-the-job experiences ascoworkers who fill vacated but establishedpositions. One area of organization studythat could benefit from the investigation ofOH and simultaneously help inform it is thatof newcomer fit. Current conceptualizationsand methods to assess fit and entry experi-ences do not account for undefined or evolv-ing jobs, yet the latter are heavily influencedby fit.

Fit and Opportunistic Hiring

Prior research on idiosyncratic jobs focuseson firm-level predictors such as how jobs areshaped around individuals or how these jobsaffect workgroups. Yet, the emergence of newjobs for opportunistically hired employeesmust take into account how they and theirjobs are part of the larger organization.Extant research approaches employee fit

Despite itspresence beingnoted decadesago in large,bureaucraticorganizationsand in smaller,younger firmsOH rarely isdiscussed in thehumanresourceliterature.

Opportunistic Hiring and Employee Fit • 303

In the studyreported here,CEOs,founders, andhumanresourceprofessionalswere askedabout OHunder theauspices of alarger projectlooking atinfluences onrole creation insmall andmedium-sizedhigh-tech firms.

from multiple angles, such as a person’s fitwith his or her job (P-J fit), workgroup (P-Gfit), and organization (P-O fit). In the sec-tions that follow, these types of fit are dis-cussed in conjunction with OH.

Person-job fit. Maximizing the fit betweenperson and job is the primary goal of the tra-ditional hiring process (Bowen, Ledford, &Nathan, 1991). Person-job fit is defined aseither the match between employee desiresand what the job actually supplies, or as thematch between employee abilities and jobdemands (Edwards, 1991). P-J fit is used toimprove selection decisions because it is cor-related with higher job satisfaction and lowerintentions to quit (Cable & DeRue, 2002;Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Current methodsfor conceptualizing P-J fit include comparingperceptions of skills and abilities to per-ceived requirements of the job (Cable &Judge, 1996; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001)or comparing the worker’s preferences towhat the job actually offers (Edwards, 1991).Person-job fit has rarely compared the docu-mented requirements of a job to a worker’smeasured competencies (Edwards, 1991).Although a newcomer’s skills and prefer-ences can be measured, it is unclear how thejob’s requirements or offerings would beassessed for P-J fit if hiring was done prior tothe creation or full specification of that job.

Person-group fit. P-G fit is the compatibilitybetween employees and their workgroup(Kristof, 1996). Selecting applicants on thebasis of P-G fit is believed to increase teamcohesiveness and effectiveness when new-comers are chosen for complementary skillsor qualities that increase the heterogeneityof the team’s repertoire of skills (Werbel &Johnson, 2001). Alternatively, selection canmaximize supplementary fit with the work-group (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987) byseeking similar values, goals, personality, orskills (Kristof, 1996). Thus, in the case ofOH, firms might identify complementaryskills that would be useful to the existingworkgroup and later create a job around thatnew worker. OH could be useful in firms hir-ing for jobs partially modeled after currentpositions, but where the workers selected

must have personalities and skills that arecompatible with the work team.

Person-organization fit. Employees who per-ceive a greater fit with their employer are lesslikely to leave the firm (Cable & Parsons,1999; Chatman, 1991), are more committedto it (Saks & Ashforth, 2002), and havehigher work satisfaction (Kristof-Brown,Jansen, & Colbert, 2002). Employees aredrawn to firms with which they believe them-selves to be compatible (Schneider, 1987).For example, job candidates who want deci-sion-making responsibilities, creative envi-ronments, and control over their jobs willself-select into start-ups (Brookler, 1992).Conversely, founders hire based on skills,long-term potential, and fit with the organi-zation (Baron, Hannan, & Burton, 1999). Ashiring decisions associated with P-O fit focuson global assessments rather than on taskrequirements of the job, this theory shouldprovide useful selection criteria for staffingjobs yet to be created.

There is a paucity of information aboutopportunistic hiring, given its documentedexistence (Aldrich, 1999; Granovetter, 1974;Miner, 1987). This article aims to renewserious interest in opportunistic hiring bycontextually and theoretically exploring thepractice and its relationship to employee fit,using exploratory data to do so. In the studyreported here, CEOs, founders, and humanresource professionals were asked about OHunder the auspices of a larger project lookingat influences on role creation in small andmedium-sized high-tech firms. This explor-atory evidence was analyzed to determinehow P-J fit, P-G fit, and P-O fit relate toopportunistic hiring and to the subsequentjob that gets created. These findings will beused to direct further research on the impli-cations of opportunistic hiring and its link toperson-job, person-group, and person-organ-ization fit.

Methods

Sample

A convenience sample of 48 software devel-opment firms, Web development firms, and


e-commerce solution providers from onemedium-sized and two small northern U.S.cities were used. Eight firms were used totest interview questions. The remaining 40firms were the primary data sources: 19start-up companies and 21 established com-panies. All companies were involved in alarger study in 2000–2001. Theoretical strat-ified sampling was used to distribute firmsacross age (new/established) and staff-sizecategories. Firms less than three years oldwere considered start-ups; older firms werelabeled as established. Seventeen firms had24 or fewer employees (eight start-ups),twelve firms had 25–49 employees (six start-ups), and 11 firms had 50 or more employees(five start-ups).

Data Collection and Coding

Face-to-face interviews of approximately45–60 minutes were conducted withfounders and CEOs, with a few exceptions.One CEO invited the HR director to joinhim, four others requested that the HRdirector be the primary interviewee, and twoCEOs asked that the HR director and thedirector of operations be interviewedtogether instead. Although all intervieweeswho stated their firms had not used oppor-tunistic hiring were CEOs, no other differ-ences were found in the responses of CEOsand HR directors on this topic.1

Interviewees were questioned aboutopportunistic hiring using an amalgamateddefinition based on Granovetter’s (1974) useof the term and lay descriptions collectedduring a pilot project. They were told itreferred to bringing on a new employee whohad desired skills even though the job wasnot yet created. If their firms had engaged insuch a practice, they were prompted aboutthe types of jobs these employees held, andthe successes and difficulties associated withhiring in this manner. Information aboutopportunistic hiring also was obtained indi-rectly from responses to prior questionsasked during the interviews, such as queriesabout employees who were the first to per-form their jobs in that firm.

Interviews were tape-recorded with per-mission and fully transcribed. To explore the

domain of opportunistic hiring and identifywhy and how it was used in these firms, anopen-ended, iterative coding process wasused (Strauss, 1987). All references to or dis-cussions of opportunistic hiring in the tran-scripts were identified. Then, two codersmarked text segments as pertaining to per-son-job fit, person-group fit, or person-organization fit. The coders had a 68% initialagreement, low for some studies butexpected due to the difficulty of double-cod-ing some text segments (i.e., segments of textthat dealt with more than one type of fit).Each discrepancy was discussed and resolvedfor complete agreement. Next, OH issueswere identified for each fit category, beingallocated to subcategories as necessary.

Findings

The interviewees in this study spoke of arange of needs, expectations, and successesassociated with hiring new employees beforetheir jobs were created. The findings providean overview of the reasons and issues thatarose with the use of OH, along with a dis-cussion of how fit was relevant to the selec-tion of employees and creation of jobs forand by them.

When asked about OH, intervieweeswere neither surprised by nor unfamiliarwith the concept. Though 35% of respon-dents said their firms had not used oppor-tunistic hiring, a third of those said theywould if finances allowed. The majority ofsampled firms (62.5%) hired opportunisti-cally for both technical and nontechnicalpositions: engineer, lead engineer, technicalor customer support, quality assurance, net-work engineer, competency manager, sales-person, VP of corporate development, mar-keting, executive-level presentations, andoffice assistant.

Managers and founders reported thatusing OH as a staffing strategy had benefitsas well as potential negative outcomes, asforces within and external to firms bothencouraged and discouraged this hiring tech-nique and its repeated use. Firms usedopportunistic hiring strategically, to achievediverse goals, including growth, new productdevelopment, start-up launch, and unbur-

The majority ofsampled firms(62.5%) hiredopportunisticallyfor bothtechnical andnontechnicalpositions.


Some oppor-tunistic hiringwas done to fillimmediate orexigent needs.

dening current workers. OH also allowedfirms to exploit technologies and markets,avoid production and service delays by hav-ing the right persons on staff at the time theywere needed, optimize the mix of employeeskills, and expand by bringing in people withbroadly useful skills.

The interviewees noted that OH wasused to meet current and anticipated needs.Sometimes those needs were well articu-lated, other times interviewees describedopportunistic hires as actually assisting inthe identification and definition of the firm’sneeds and, thus, their own jobs. Alsoreported were individual-level and manage-ment issues that discouraged the repeateduse of OH, or acted to prevent it in the firstplace. Examples included employees whohad been unable to successfully create jobsin line with firm expectations or needs, whodid not fit the firm, or who were unable tohandle the ambiguity associated with initiallyundefined jobs. Founders and CEOs indi-cated their reluctance to use this hiring prac-tice a second time if an opportunisticallyhired employee later seemed deficient insome aspect of his or her new job. Addition-ally, the financial burden incurred by OHwas assessed in terms of how quickly thoseemployees were expected or able to con-tribute to the firm’s bottom line.

The findings are organized around twokey themes that emerged across interviewees’comments: (a) current versus future needsand (b) the extent to which these jobs weredefined in advance. Though related, eachwas an important factor and often discussedin terms of fit. And although the definition ofOH that was offered during the researchinterviews was narrow and focused on bring-ing in people for their skills before the jobswere created, interviewees additionallydescribed OH through the lens of person-organization fit and person-group fit.

Current vs. Future Need

Some opportunistic hiring was done to fillimmediate or exigent needs. That is, firmsidentified particular skills or work experi-ences that were needed on staff to accom-plish short- or near-term goals. Comments

centered around hiring for skill sets that cur-rent employees lacked, since firms werelooking to compensate for weaknesses andfill existing gaps or voids. In the formercases, when it was identified that employeeswere unable to perform certain tasks or didthem poorly, OH meant bringing someone inwhose job would be built around that need.Firms of various ages addressed this need ina relatively similar manner, and their com-ments centered on complementary fit. Theygave examples where the need was identifiedfirst and a candidate with the necessary abil-ities was then sought. Other examples werecited where the idea for the job developedonly after meeting individuals who haddesired abilities.

To fulfill identified future needs meantanticipatory hiring: planning for a specificjob that was not immediately necessary andbringing someone in early. Temporary tasksor projects were typically provided if thework was to be unavailable for an extendedperiod or if the new hire needed an interimproject to become familiar with the industryor the firm’s particular application of techni-cal knowledge. For small firms in particular,the decision to hire early came down tofinances. Hiring to fill a future need meantweighing the financial ramifications ofimmediately paying a salary to a workerwhose permanent job was to be created laterand whose full capacity to generate revenueswould be subsequently delayed.

Not all interviewees hired opportunisti-cally fill future needs. As one CEOexplained, small firms generally do not havethe luxury of hiring someone solely becausethey like the person’s skills, experience, andwhat he or she might do for the firm. Con-versely, several founders thought it to be lessof a financial risk to outlay a few months ofsalary earlier than budgeted if doing soensured that a highly skilled employeedeemed necessary for the core work wouldbe on staff and up to speed by the time he orshe was needed. This readiness was seen ashelping expedite products or services to con-sumers quickly enough to capture a prof-itable market share. The cost of not hiringthat person prior to needing his or her skillset and knowledge could engender negative


repercussions such as a backlog of work orthe firm being unable to meet developmentand sales schedules. These problems ulti-mately could affect the stability and growthpotential of a new and fragile firm (Magnus,2002). Therefore, once aware of the avail-ability of a highly qualified job seeker, firmspaid attention and attempted to hire quickly.Firms with venture capital backing had afinancial buffer that allowed greater flexibil-ity to ensure that the right talent was on thepayroll. In larger firms, or those with moreformalized budgeting, spontaneous hiringwas described as being restricted by cycles offinancial allocation and expenditure, wheredeviations from staffing plans necessitatedthe approval of investors or a board of direc-tors. One strategy to circumvent these finan-cial or procedural limitations was to keeppotential hires in mind until funding wasavailable and the positions or needs wereoutlined, and then entice them away fromtheir current employers.

Indicative of both the fast-growth natureof some of these firms and of the technologyboom of 2000–2001 during which timethese data were collected was how growingfirms indicated their desire to “fill thisplace.” They described seeking talented peo-ple who could adapt and figure out how toidentify and accomplish the firm’s basicfunctional needs and also pick up slack bothwithin and outside broad areas of responsi-bility. In the firm’s early years, these employ-ees “wore many hats” to cover multiple jobsthat required skills spanning multiple func-tional areas. Though some firms expressedan expectation that opportunistically hiredemployees would find ways to be useful priorto settling into permanent positions, a coupleof established firms said they had not staffedthis way because there were no “loose ends.”That is, all the work that needed to be donewas already assigned to current employees.

The quotes in Table I exemplify how fitissues figured into interviewees’ discussion ofthe timing of opportunistic hires.2 Interview-ees considered P-J fit, P-G fit, and P-O fit inaddressing current needs through oppor-tunistic hiring. An example related to P-O fitwas provided by the HR director of a three-year-old tech firm with about 300 employees.

He suggested that the uncertainty andunplanned nature of his firm’s internal envi-ronment meant that opportunistic hiresneeded to “act and react and immediately addvalue no matter what the situation is, giventhe forecast changed almost weekly here as astart-up . . . [We needed people] who couldactually embrace that type of environment.”

Interviewees also framed future oppor-tunistic hiring with these same categories offit, as seen in the representative quotes dis-played in the last column of Table I. Firmsindicated that anticipatory OH was donewith the various types of fit in mind. The linkbetween current and future staffing needswas that fit would evolve as the jobs them-selves emerged. Staffing in this manner wasat times described using the sports metaphorof hiring “the best athlete,” suggesting thatgeneral skills were useful and could later befocused in one particular area. If theemployee knew the business fundamentals,poor person-job fit could later be compen-sated for by training to improve specific skillsor by altering the job itself. The founder ofan older, small firm described OH and P-J fitby saying, “[That employee] was the last onehired and we are still evaluating what he’sgoing to excel at or be good at. When thetime comes and we can point him towardadvanced stuff, that’s what we’re going todo.” Some start-ups and self-identified fast-growth firms described the cognitive equiva-lent by saying they were guided by the“smart-person principle”—hiring bright,hard-working, and motivated people withouta specific job in mind for them. In theseinstances, the immediate concerns about fitwere global, with specific P-J fit left for laterconsideration as the job took shape.

Range of Job Definition

In addition to the issue of future or currentneed, opportunistically created jobs varied inthe extent to which they were outlined forthe new hires a priori. Intervieweesdescribed these employees as taking on jobsthat ranged from being more or less specified(but new) positions to those not outlined atall. While discussing the delineation of thesejobs, they referenced various fit issues.

The linkbetweencurrent andfuture staffingneeds was thatfit would evolveas the jobsthemselvesemerged.


Person-job fit. In describing the extent thatopportunistically created jobs were articu-lated, interviewees referenced both theneeds/supplies and abilities/demands formsof person-job fit. When making an oppor-tunistic hiring decision with needs/suppliesP-J fit, firms compared the desires of thepotential employee to what the job couldoffer. Prehire discussions focused on the

tasks or responsibilities job prospects wereseeking and other preferences they mighthave. The purpose of these discussions wasto explore how the job might be tailored topotential employees. For example, thefounder of a small, new firm said, “What weintend is to let people define what their com-fort level is, and the focus.” In other cases,employers recognized these preferences

Sample Interviewee Statements Categorized by Type of Fit and Timing of Need

Current Need Future Need

P-J Fit We took this person and basically had the discussion When you start a company, basically you have no Needs/ of, “This is what we need. Does that work with you?” structure. So you put some structure in it. So it is an Supplies We had discussed it briefly or vaguely in the past. evolutionary process really because things evolve

And so, if there was input from him, as well as my based on the person that we hire. So it would be very own input, that was used to really craft his role. flexible in terms of the job description, in terms of all (young firm; < 25 empl)* sorts of responsibilities, and just maximize and let

people define what areas they are comfortable.(young firm; < 25 empl)

P-J Fit The company is at a growth point . . . there is a We have hired people who had a great skill set, Abilities/ need for certain individuals. We will continue the whom we really liked and thought they would fit in, Demands interview process hoping that we bump into the even though we did not have a current job open for

person on the street, no matter for what position and them. We knew we would need them down the road, whether it is already filled. . . . If we see the person so we brought them on . . . We will slot an individual that is very qualified, an expert, we will get them in for a certain set of responsibilities knowing that three and then find a spot for them. years from now they will be doing something vastly (young firm; 25–49 empl) different. They fill other holes—in doing so they also

learn the business, rather than having them assume atemporary assignment. (older firm; 50+ empl)

P-G Fit We are discovering weaknesses that we have, which From a staffing point of view, you wouldn’t hire the Complementary means we need to bring someone on to fill the void. guy, because we are full, but we anticipate some

All of these positions I have described . . . are new things coming and a target of opportunity. He came positions per se, but they grow out of weaknesses along and came to our attention, and we said, “We that we perceive inside. (older firm; < 25 empl) ought to [hire him],” so we did. (older firm; 25–49

empl)

P-G Fit We . . . needed somebody at a basic level to do some It hasn’t happened but it will happen. We are actively Supplementary of the grunt work, which freed [the programmers] up recruiting that individual. . . . What we feel is that

to handle the higher-level stuff. (older firm; that person has some strengths. So what is being 25–49 empl) done by one individual might basically separate it out

and say that one person has been burdened with toomuch of the work. (young firm; < 25 empl)

P-O Fit We were hiring an executive, and we found somebody Even if we were in something approximating a steady who was a tremendous cultural fit, [had] terrific state, we would still try to hire those people that leadership capabilities, but on the technical or really fit with the company and with the other experiential side wasn’t quite where we wanted people. (young; < 25 empl)somebody to be. We hired him and we are putting a development plan in place to get him there. (young firm; 100+ empl)

* Indicates category of firm based on number of employees and whether the firm was founded more than (older) or less than (young) three yearsprior.

TABLE I


could not be known completely in advance.Thus, they focused on how the job couldevolve as the incumbent’s preferences sur-faced, concurrent with the evolution andidentification of the firm’s needs. As notedearlier, several newer firms reported seekingemployees with wide-ranging skills whocould perform a variety of tasks and/or covermultiple functional areas. Eventually, thosebroad jobs were carved into several positions,some of which came about opportunisticallyif the employer happened to meet and hiresomeone capable of taking an offloaded seg-ment of that work. This type of hiring wasconsidered easier than creating and articu-lating jobs completely from scratch, sinceincumbents who gave away some of theirwork had personal knowledge of the skills orabilities needed and could therefore providedirection for the development of these newand narrower jobs. Similarly, in a few youngfirms, current employees were given the flex-ibility to craft new or altered jobs that bettermet their interests, but not until new hireswere brought in to help fill the voids about tobe created by these vacancies.

Person-job fit based on abilities/demandswas mentioned when specific tasks andresponsibilities were already slated for a job. Asan example, one founder desired to replicatehimself. That is, he hoped to hire someonewho could, like himself, work alongside a salesrepresentative to present their technology topotential clients and then be able to “close thedeal.” The job was to be created around thatskill and the founder’s need to reduce thenumber of sales calls he made. Generally,when existing employees were unable to man-age their current workload or if they lacked theskills to handle new tasks, managers kept aneye out for people they could hire to help meetthose needs. OH made this carving-up possi-ble, since portions of work were shed for peo-ple recently met and hired. Additionally, whena firm needed to fill the voids mentioned ear-lier (i.e., tasks not being done by other employ-ees), new hires had to help define their ownjobs, particularly if the tasks were unfamiliar toexisting employees or not enough work hadbeen slated for their positions.

An abbreviated opportunistic hiringprocess meant offering jobs to candidates, at

times due to the combination of a candidate’simmediate availability and a firm’s desire toremain competitive by adapting quickly.Though it seems counterintuitive to use P-J fitas the main hiring criterion for a job not yetcreated, these firms simply focused onexpected demands. At best, that meant detail-ing what the job might entail, and other timesit meant only having a hunch as to which par-ticular expertise or skill set would become thecore of the job and using that as the selectionguideline. Minimal articulation was enough tospur hiring; with incomplete information, thejobs were created after or around the newemployees. As outlined above, OH with an eyeto abilities/demands P-J fit was done to “grabthe particular skill set” that a firm believedmight be needed, regardless of whether theskills targeted were managerial, technical,marketing, strategy, or a combination.

Though mentioned less often than P-Jfit, both types of person-group fit wereimportant in the opportunistic hiringprocess. On average, interviewees made twotimes as many statements about complemen-tary P-G fit than supplementary P-G fit. Forthe former, interviewees described how OHallowed them to strategically employ peoplewhose skills were not represented in thefirm, but would be of use in the future. Indescribing OH and complementary fit, thefounder of an established small firm stated,“Perhaps dotting i’s and crossing t’s is not hisstrong point, so we felt the need to bring insomeone to compensate for that . . . moredetail-oriented. They work very well together,marching in step.” The CEO of an older firmwith more than 100 employees indicatedthat opportunistic hires were those peoplewho “have already done the job and canteach us how to do it or what is needed.” Insuch a case, a sense exists that the newcomeris importing knowledge to replicate a posi-tion held in a previous firm and will adapt itto current circumstances and needs.

When using supplementary fit as a selec-tion criterion, older firms focused on redis-tributing workloads by carving portions offexisting jobs to create new ones or by repli-cating current skills, as in the sales examplegiven earlier. There were a few commentsdirected toward providing training, when the

Though it seemscounterintuitiveto use P-J fit asthe main hiringcriterion for ajob not yetcreated, thesefirms simplyfocused onexpecteddemands. Atbest, that meantdetailing whatthe job mightentail, andother times itmeant onlyhaving a hunchas to whichparticularexpertise or skillset wouldbecome the coreof the job andusing that as theselectionguideline.


A few firmsthat hiredopportu-nistically solelybased on P-Ofit said theylater observedperson-jobmismatches fargreater thanthat whichcould beovercome bytinkering withthe jobs tobetter tailorthem to theemployees.

firms had a strong sense of what tasks new-comers would be doing and how they shouldbe completed. Newer firms also reportedneeding to take broad jobs and divide theminto several discrete positions, though thelatter were more ambiguous. The founder ofa small, new firm put it this way: “[The newhires’] attitudes were really positive, and theywere sponges. They wanted to absorb every-thing and they were willing to work the extrahours . . . and that’s the kind of personalityI’ve been looking for, especially when you doan opportunistic hire.” His firm was identify-ing potential employees who were similar toexisting employees (supplementary P-G fit)and who would fit into the culture (P-O fit).

P-O fit was also the basis for creatingopportunistic jobs. The founder of an estab-lished small firm said he tried to screen outpeople looking for a career track or a spe-cific job, but if “they just want to work andlearn some things and have a good time . . .that’s more in tune with what I do.” Themost extreme was using P-O fit as the solehiring criterion, banking on their future useor simply to increase staff size and signalthe firm’s growth (i.e., success). A few firmsthat hired opportunistically solely based onP-O fit said they later observed person-jobmismatches far greater than that whichcould be overcome by tinkering with thejobs to better tailor them to the employees.A COO of an Internet access and Web-sitedevelopment firm gave another reason fornot hiring opportunistically based solely onP-O fit. He stated that aside from workingwithin the budget, bringing someone onwithout a clear job only because he or shereally fit well with the firm’s culture wouldbe unproductive. A related problem blamedon the Internet boom was the P-O misfit ofexecutives who vacated corporate positions,excited by the prospect of finding their for-tunes in start-ups, assuming they would beable to fit right in. They arrived at start-upsexpecting to have a personal staff, definedoperating procedures, and frequent deci-sion-making meetings. The founder of anestablished firm with fewer than 50 employ-ees noted that there was not always a goodmatch between an executive and the small-firm environment:

If you come out of a corporate industry,[small firms] will chew you up and spit youout very quickly. You can’t expect that yourrole will be defined in this small way andthat you will have to have this many peopleworking for you. Instead, you have to stayuntil 10 tonight because this has to be pho-tocopied so that it can go out tomorrow.

P-O fit also was used in combination withthe other types of fit. An example of a com-bined P-J and P-O fit problem came from anestablished firm with a staff of 15 employees.They hired a programmer who showed initia-tive during the recruitment and interviewingprocess. The founder said, “But it didn’t workout. I don’t think it was personality—she gotalong with everybody. It was skill set. Somepeople actually prove incredibly fast that theyhave the backing or education. She didn’tquite have the education that she needed tohave.” He elaborated that, once on board, shecould not adapt fast enough to the changingtechnological environment and was unable tolearn at the pace needed by his company.Since there was no way the job could bealtered to allow her to keep up, she left thefirm. Other examples were given where hiringfor cultural fit with the firm was expected towork out, since the development of that per-son’s job was seen as a process evolving overtime. The founder of a new firm with fewerthan 100 employees said:

If somebody would come in, and they doseem like they have a good skill set, thereare things they have done in their back-ground that would fit. We are looking at aperson right now—I can’t say how success-ful she will be because she is not here yet,but we are thinking we will make a place forher, whether it is in marketing or whatever.

Discussion

The findings from this exploratory study raiseinteresting and important human resourceissues for opportunistic hiring and for per-son-job fit, person-group fit, and person-organization fit. All three types of fit wereused as criteria for opportunistic hiring,though the type and the degree to which any


one was emphasized over another varied.These criteria were applied to jobs that werewell articulated as well as to those that werenonexistent or vaguely described, whetherthe jobs were to be created immediately orwere slated for future development. Thetypology of opportunistic hires presented inFigure 1 depicts one perspective on oppor-tunistic hiring. The vertical axis representsthe extent to which tasks, work processes,and responsibilities are delineated prior to ajob’s creation. The horizontal axis representsthe timing of the need for that position.These subsequent four categories of oppor-tunistically created jobs (Implementer,Builder, Expediter, and Explorer) aredescribed in the next few sections, followedby a more general discussion of measures offit as they relate to the two axes.

Implementer

Implementers are opportunistic hires who arebrought into a firm to take on relatively well-defined, but new, positions that satisfy a

firm’s current needs. Since much of whatthey will do is laid out for them in advance,firms may rely most heavily onabilities/demands P-J fit as a selection crite-rion. Examples of Implementers are thosepeople specifically hired to take a segment ofwork off of a current employee’s shoulders orto perform a job that managers were able tooutline in some detail based on the firm’sneeds. OH was encouraged by currentemployees who wished either to move intowholly new positions or to alter their existingjobs by shedding tasks to a newcomer. Such aredistribution of tasks with a newly hiredImplementer would require coordination,including horizontal and informal communi-cation (Argote, 1982; Van de Ven, Delbecq, &Koenig, 1976), as incumbents or their man-agers outline specific tasks and responsibili-ties. Job development in these cases wouldseem strongly influenced by the needs of theworkgroup. As such, hiring decisions could beoptimized via P-G fit if commonly agreed-upon expectations are noted prior to selectinga new employee (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999).

Figure 1. Four Categories of Opportunistic Hires.


The motivationfor hiring earlyis heightened infirms that haverapidlychanging andcompetitiveenvironments,such that delaysin acquiringspecific talentor getting thoseindividuals upto speed cancreate misseddeadlines—forinstance, bydelaying aproduct launch.

By using P-G fit as an additional hiring crite-rion for this well-defined position, the firm isbetter able to determine how the tasks forthat single job integrate with other employ-ees’ jobs. Implementers are likely to experi-ence the least role ambiguity compared to theother OH categories, because their jobs arebetter defined and urgently needed—the lat-ter being relevant because they are able tofocus and contribute quickly.

Builder

Firms that delineate jobs needed for thefuture will seek Builders. These individualsare hired into fairly well-defined positions,although the jobs will not be needed forsome time. The motivation for hiring early isheightened in firms that have rapidly chang-ing and competitive environments, such thatdelays in acquiring specific talent or gettingthose individuals up to speed can createmissed deadlines—for instance, by delayinga product launch. Builders can be selectedbased on P-J fit by considering their skillsgiven the known demands of the job, as wellas their preferences and needs. The situationallows some flexibility, and it is expected thatbuilders may experience low to moderate roleambiguity depending on whether or not theyare given specific tasks as interim work (orhave to do prework to get their jobs off theground). These new hires may face signifi-cant downtime until they are called on toperform the specific tasks for which theywere hired. Like any newcomer, a desire tobe productive combined with a naïve under-standing of the firm may cause Builders tounintentionally interfere with others’ work.

Expediter

The examples of Expediters given earlierwere for jobs not known a priori. Even ifsome tasks are outlined in advance, thesejobs are defined as needs are identified.When managers or founders lack the expert-ise to create certain positions or are unableto anticipate the firm’s needs in a particulararea, they hire people who can do so. TheseExpediters are hired at that moment becausethere is a sense that they can help the firm

meet the existing crush of work, somethingcommon for start-ups that are expanding. Insome instances, it may be outlined exactlyhow they will do that; in others, a job titlemay be used as a place marker for what isbelieved to be needed although the specificsmay not be known (the latter being easier todo with venture capital backing). Expeditersare very much involved in creating and exe-cuting their own jobs and making themselvesimmediately useful. New firms in particulardescribed having many needs and notenough bodies to cover the work. These indi-viduals are therefore brought in to meetimmediate needs, with an assumption thattheir jobs will naturally form as they assistothers and identify the best ways in whichthey can help the firm reach its goals.

Explorer

Firms that hire individuals simply because theyseem to fit into the culture, but with no spe-cific jobs in mind or pressing needs for them toassist with, are bringing in Explorers. Firmsmay hire Explorers if there is a professed needto “fill this place” with bodies to spur, or atleast signal, growth. These opportunistic hiresare characterized as having strong P-O fit andsupplementary P-G fit. The earlier examples ofhiring the “best athletes” may fall in this cate-gory as all-around skilled people who can fig-ure out how to be useful. They will likely needto have a high tolerance for ambiguity if no jobis outlined for them or if they must find theirown place in the organization.

Although all opportunistic hires arebrought in before their jobs are created, thelast two categories are those jobs that arelargely defined or identified only after thenewcomer is hired. Further, the differencebetween Expediter and Explorer is simply theurgency of the need for that individual. If thereason for an undefined job is that no one inthe firm has expertise to create particularjobs, candidates may be sought who are per-ceived as being capable of taking that lead.For that reason, P-J fit was less useful whenincumbents themselves were expected totake the lead in developing the jobs (e.g.,Expediters and Explorers). More reliancewas placed on P-O fit than P-J fit if the job


requirements were not, or could not, bedetailed prior to hiring. Allowing this degreeof discretion requires coworkers and supervi-sors to make adjustments and develop coor-dination mechanisms with the newly evolv-ing job. New hires were chosen becausefirms believed they would be “good addi-tions,” and once a place was found for or byeach of them, they could contribute. Thisuse of P-O fit as the selection criterionfocused on generally desirable abilities ortraits, referencing the need for employees tofit into the firm’s culture and pace of work.

Additional Implications for Managers

An interesting nonfinding in this study wasthat no interviewee cited concerns about thelegal implications of OH. This fact can beaccounted for in several ways. First, duringthe data collection period, there was a boomin technology and Internet firms, and thebusiness press hyped the labor shortage andthe need to hire quickly. Magazine articlesfeatured techniques to outsmart and outhirecompetitors, not legal guidelines. Second,founders in smaller firms typically sharedbasic HR duties and were responsible formuch of the hiring. Third, many governmentregulations prohibiting employment discrimi-nation apply only to firms with 15 or moreemployees (Clardy, 2003), although we notethat even larger firms can find ways to hirepreferred candidates through internal waiversthat describe new positions and provide justi-fication for specific new hires (Miner, 1987).

In our litigious society, a related HRissue of importance to managers is the con-sistent and fair use of performanceappraisals—a process inherently difficult toapply to opportunistic hires. Whereas man-agers are able to train and socialize new hiresfor jobs they themselves may once have heldor created, managers know less about oppor-tunistic positions, particularly Expeditersand Explorers. Assessing performance isharder when the means and the outcomes ofthe job are ambiguous, and more so whenusing a standardized form developed for eval-uating fully specified jobs. Further, for thosejobs that emerge over a period of months, thetiming of the first performance appraisal is

an issue—how soon after hiring should theindividual be assessed? Although reasonableto time an appraisal to coincide with the endof a new employee’s probationary period, onecould argue that until the job has takenshape, standardized assessments will notcapture the nature of the work that wasdone, needs that were met, and the ambigu-ity inherent in creating a job. Interviewees inthis study talked about ramp-up times andsettling-in periods while Expediters andExplorers learned about the firm and createdjobs based on their own preferences and firmneeds. The situation may require eitherdelaying the appraisal if the job does not takeshape for several months or having an inter-mediate performance appraisal that focuseson efforts and plans rather than outcomes.For instance, a Builder may have temporarytasks for several months and be relativelynew to the planned job at the time of the firstscheduled appraisal. Similarly, an Explorermay need time to diagnose firm needs andpersonal skills in order to forge a job. Con-cerns then turn to the fairness of separate-but-equal assessment plans, and possiblebias if opportunistic hires are perceived to beproducing less than colleagues during the jobdevelopment phase.

A job tailored to the employee is likely toevolve into a close match for his or her pref-erences and skills. It follows that neithersupervisors nor coworkers will ever have heldthat specific job because it is both newly cre-ated and suited to the individual. With a par-tial or superficial understanding of theseidiosyncratic jobs, supervisor assessments offit may be susceptible to biases. They mayfocus too heavily on visible outcomes andknown successes, or they may improperlyattribute the reasons for the new hire’s initialunderutilization, any unintentional interfer-ence with coworkers’ jobs, or delays andproblems arising from struggles to create anew job. Awareness and acknowledgment ofpotential problems that Implementers,Builders, Expediters, and Explorersencounter can help managers understandthe job creation process and encourage two-way communication to improve it. The man-ager can do this too by carefully signaling theextent to which opportunistic hires will

Assessingperformance isharder whenthe means andthe outcomes ofthe job areambiguous…


The findingsfrom this studyprovidespeculativeevidence as tohow firmsconceptualize apotentialemployee’s fitwith anopportunisticallycreated job.

receive assistance in creating their jobs, thetiming of any transitions from temporarywork to more specific jobs, the trajectory orgoals of the job, if known, and the perform-ance appraisal process and realistic expecta-tions for an evolving and new job.

Limitations and Future Research

This exploratory study has demonstrated thatopportunistic hiring exists and firms use it asa flexible selection criterion to meet variousneeds. The data report on the actions ofsmall to medium high-tech firms during2001, a period known for economic munifi-cence and a short supply of labor caused bythe technology boom. Although generaliz-ability of these findings may be limited tosimilar economic conditions, the findingsalso may be correlated with a firm’s growthand a proactive staffing agenda.

A related limitation of this exploratorystudy is the size of the sampled firms. It ispossible that firm growth played a significantrole in the use of OH, such as the heavierfocus on complementary P-G fit compared tosupplementary P-G fit. Most of the firmssampled had fewer than 100 employees, anddiscussion of their firms’ growth centered onadding skill sets, rather than duplicatingexisting positions. These methodological lim-itations translate into boundary conditionsfor generalizability across industry, firm size,and economic conditions. However, previouswork by Miner (1985) and Granovetter(1974) already has established that OH isused in large firms and in other industries.Future research is needed to establish theprevalence of this technique, which willrequire the collection of base-rate dataacross industries, economic conditions, andtypes of jobs. Although OH could be justifiedmore for nonstandardized jobs than forhighly prescribed ones, these data showedthat a variety of positions were created for orby new employees, such as management,staff, functional heads, and programmers.Larger studies of OH are needed to ascertainwhich jobs are most commonly and success-fully created this way and why. Economicconditions may affect the ease of collectingthese data, since it may be less common to

hire for future needs when skilled labor iseasy to attract. Such information could beused to enhance the design of future studiesof contrarian staffing strategies to explorethe purpose and impact of those jobs withinthe firm.

The findings from this study providespeculative evidence as to how firms concep-tualize a potential employee’s fit with anopportunistically created job. A methodolog-ical limitation of the study was that inter-viewees were asked to recall instances ofopportunistic hiring. Their recollections andsense making may be less accurate in retro-spect than if the data had been collectedthrough direct observation, journaling, orsome other technique that can capture deci-sion-making details and contextual nuancesthroughout the process of job creation. Inter-viewees were not asked to objectively assessany one individual’s fit, because the focus ofthe data collection was on whether OHoccurred within the firm and how it playedout. Interviewee responses to open-endedquestions and their intuitive and retrospec-tive assessments highlighted fit. The rela-tionship between OH and fit needs clarifica-tion—in particular, how P-J fit and P-G fitevolve over time for newly created positions.While future research might utilize empiricalmeasures of P-G or P-O fit, it may be prob-lematic to apply objective P-J fit measures ifthe latter were developed solely for use withjobs that are outlined a priori.

This issue raises the critical question:How does one measure the characteristics orneeds of a nonexistent or evolving job? Thesedata suggest that managers and foundersassessed P-J fit broadly, and with ambiguousterms, in some instances focusing onskills/needs and other times onsupplies/demands. One solution may be tocontrol for the extent to which the job hasbeen articulated prior to the new hire comingon board by examining the depth and breadthof a job description, if it exists, and thenbenchmarking against the job descriptions ofestablished jobs within the same firm.

Are different types of fit used as the basisfor hiring decisions regarding the four cate-gories of OH? The optimal types and weightsof fit assessments for these categories would


need to be determined. Anecdotally at least,the type of fit most relied on during selectionappears related to the extent a firm articu-lated the tasks that needed to be done. Theextent of job definition for opportunistichires covered the gamut from clearly identi-fied tasks and goals having been specified inadvance to those jobs that were barely a ker-nel of an idea. For instance, a reliance on P-J fit appeared to be less a function of hiringimmediacy and more about the firm’s abilityto define the jobs’ core tasks in advance, rec-ognizing that the boundaries, coordinationmechanisms, and other aspects needed to beworked out. The expectation was that the jobwould develop as firm needs emerged in thatgeneral functional area. At the same time,the employee’s own preferences may alter inresponse to new challenges or opportunities.Metzler and Hamilton (2002) proposed thatselection relies more on P-O fit than P-J fitwhen the tasks and job behaviors cannot beclearly specified and performance standardsare ambiguous. Studying their assertionswithin the framework of the four OH cate-gories would provide a more robust picture.

Whereas past research has focused onthe strong correlation between role ambigu-ity and negative outcomes (Jackson &Schuler, 1985; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman,1970), the research here supports the claimthat there may be situations where ambiguityis desirable because it leans toward adaptiveresponses that enhance organizational effec-tiveness (Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981),and where employees willingly enter intoambiguous jobs. The interviewees describedvarious levels of ambiguity for opportunisti-cally created jobs, with Implementers andBuilders having less amorphous jobs andExpediters and Explorers having jobs thatwere initially less defined or articulated.

Since selecting employees congruentwith an organization’s desired culture isbelieved to increase its success (Bowen et al.,1991), the high levels of job and organiza-tional ambiguity some opportunistic hiresencounter (e.g., in rapid-growth firms) meanthey must not only be tolerant of it, but capa-ble of being effective in that milieu (Kotter &Sathe, 1978). The employers in this studyparroted this belief, and some went further to

say they sought employees who would thrivein this atmosphere. For them, P-O fit wasmore important than P-J fit, because a newemployee paralyzed by high levels of uncer-tainty and ambiguity would be unable to cre-ate a job that helped the firm meet its needs.

The interviewees in this study identifiedsome problems they encountered with OH.We know that behavior in ambiguous situa-tions in general is driven by individual differ-ences (Mischel, 1977). Organizational scien-tists and managers alike would find value inunderstanding the challenges faced by employ-ees who are hired opportunistically, how thosemay differ across the four types of OH jobs,and whether difficulties can be predictedbased on how the job emerges and evolves.

An exciting area needing further investi-gation is the analysis of the fit of opportunis-tic hires in conjunction with job evolution.The two axes from Figure 1 provide directionto examine both the timing of the need forthat job (immediate, future) and the extentto which it was delineated in advance for thenew hire (tasks detailed prior to hire versustasks not at all determined). A longitudinalassessment could better expose how fit deci-sions are made for the four categories of OHover time, and how those correlate with thedirect and indirect outcomes of these jobs.

As one example, when examining estab-lished jobs, it is fairly common to have newhires assess their own fit (Edwards, 1991) soas to make predictions about turnover andperformance. Although data were not col-lected from new hires, the founders andmanagers interviewed in this study did notemphasize concerns about initial P-J misfit,likely because these jobs were expected toform around individuals. This finding chal-lenges common wisdom around P-J fit. Priorstudies have examined it in the context ofpre-existing jobs in relatively establishedfirms where a poor initial P-J fit has beenlinked to low postentry P-J fit, which itself iscorrelated with intent to quit and low job sat-isfaction (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Theunderlying assumption has been that jobknowledge is codified and shared, such thatnew hires are presented with seeminglyobjective and complete job descriptions.Inaccurate prefit perceptions are thus

P-O fit wasmore importantthan P-J fit,because a newemployeeparalyzed byhigh levels ofuncertainty andambiguitywould beunable to createa job thathelped the firmmeet its needs.


believed to come from insufficient knowl-edge of a firm or its jobs (Cable & Judge,1996; Kristof, 1996), resulting in decreasedperceptions of postentry P-J and P-O fit(Saks & Ashforth, 2002). If perceptionsabout P-J fit for existing jobs decrease overtime, we might conversely theorize thatposthire P-J fit will continue to increase fornewly created jobs due to the incumbents’involvement in establishing the job itself. P-Jfit may be enhanced as the job becomesincreasingly idiosyncratic and is defined byand around the incumbent. Exploration oflongitudinal fit as it relates to opportunistichiring would thus expose the nuances of howit is used for selection, as well as how it isconceptualized by managers and by incum-bents at different stages of job creation.

Conclusions

This article has attempted to spark interestin the practice of opportunistic hiring anddemonstrate its common use, at least duringa period of low unemployment. Opportunis-tic hiring stands in contrast to hiringprocesses that focus on filling vacancies byfirst identifying the job requirements,responsibilities, and goals to be accom-plished, and only then evaluating suitable jobcandidates. In the latter case, managers areable to enhance positive outcomes throughactions such as training, concrete job expec-tations, and standardized performance evalu-ations. Opportunistic hiring, however, ismore like putting the cart before themetaphorical horse or, stated otherwise, put-ting the new employee before the job. New-comers hired into these emerging jobs are

valued for their expertise and assumed abilityto create these positions on their own.Opportunistically created jobs are influencedby new employees’ preferences, past experi-ences, and personalities, as well as by adjust-ments to evolving firm or workgroup needs,changing job demands, and the discovery oftheir own interests and developing skills.These employees tailor the job to their ownpreferences while trying to meet the organi-zation’s needs—whether the latter have beendefined by or for them.

The evidence described previously sug-gests variety in the reasons firms use OH, thesuccess of said employees, and the informalassessments of person-job, person-group, andperson-organization fit used to make the ini-tial selection decisions. It was proposed thatfour types of opportunistic jobs exist, asdetermined by the immediate or future needand by the extent to which the job tasks mightbe articulated in advance. Overall, this under-studied area of organizational behavior hasthe potential to provide insight into job cre-ation, maturing rather than static measuresof fit, and the evolution of employee relation-ships with job, workgroup, and employer.

This article benefited from feedbackgiven by Jeanne Wilson, Regina O’Neill,anonymous reviewers, and, in particular,Editor Motohiro Morishima. Financial sup-port from the Donald H. Jones Center forEntrepreneurship and the Kauffman Centerfor Entrepreneurial Leadership made thisresearch possible. An earlier version of thisstudy was presented at the 38th AnnualMeeting of the Eastern Academy of Manage-ment, New York City, 2001.

Laurie L. Levesque is an assistant professor of management at the Frank SawyerSchool of Management at Suffolk University and assistant chair of the ManagementDepartment. She holds a PhD and an MS from Carnegie Mellon University, anMSOB from the University of Hartford, and a BS in business administration from theUniversity of New Hampshire. Her articles have appeared in the Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, the Journal of Action Research, the Journal of Management, the Jour-nal of Management Education, and Sex Roles. Her research interests include role cre-ation, organizational processes and employee experiences in new or evolving firms,and seasonal businesses.


NOTES

1. The one exception was an HR director who par-ticipated in a pilot interview and whose priorwork experience was at a large corporation. Hewas shocked by the idea of OH and predictedemployees would go in their own directions,though he conceded he had created his ownposition at the current firm.

2. Pseudonyms and limited firm descriptions areused in the interview quotes to maintainanonymity.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Aldrich, H. E., & Baker, T. (1994). Friends andstrangers: Early hiring practices and idiosyn-cratic jobs. In W. Bygrave et al., Frontiers ofentrepreneurship research (pp. 75–87). Welles-ley, MA: Center for Entrepreneurial Studies,Babson College.

Argote, L. (1982). Input uncertainty and organiza-tional coordination in hospital emergency units.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 420–434.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socializationtactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomeradjustment. Academy of Management Journal,39(1), 149–178.

Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D.(1999). Building the iron cage: Determinants ofmanagerial intensity in the early years of organ-izations. American Sociological Review, 64(4),527–547.

Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculp-tors versus sculpture: The roles of personalityand personal control in organizations. In M. B.Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.),Handbook of career theory (pp. 232–251).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Black, S. J. and Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in ormaking jobs fit: Factors affecting mode ofadjustment for new hires. Human Relations,48(4), 421–437.

Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B .R.(1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job.Academy of Management Executive, 5, 35–51.

Brookler, R. (1992). HR in growing companies. Per-sonnel Journal, 71, 80b–80o.

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The conver-

gent and discriminant validity of subjective fitperceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,875–884.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organi-zation fit, job choice decisions, and organiza-tional entry. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311.

Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1999). Establishingperson-organization fit during organizationalentry. Paper presented at the annual conferenceof the Academy of Management, Chicago.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Improving interactional orga-nizational research: A model of person-organi-zation fit. Academy of Management Review,14(3), 333–349.

Clardy, A. (2003). The legal framework of humanresource development: Overview, mandates,strictures, and financial implications. HumanResource Development Review, 2(1), 26–53.

Cogswell, B. E. (1972). Some structural propertiesof socialization. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 13, 417–440.

Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptualintegration, literature review and methodologi-cal critique. International Review of Indus-trial/Organizational Psychology, 6, 283–357.

Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job: A study ofcontacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study ofcontacts and careers (2nd ed.). Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Graves, L. M., & Karren, R. J. (1996). TheEmployee selection interview: A fresh look at anold problem. Human Resource ManagementJournal, 35(2), 163–180.

Greer, C. R. (1984). Countercyclical hiring as astaffing strategy for managerial and professionalpersonnel. Academy of Management Review, 9,324–330.

Greer, C. R., & Ireland, T. C. (1992). Organizationaland financial correlates of a “contrarian”human resource investment strategy. Academyof Management Journal, 35, 956–984.

Greer, C. R., Ireland, T. C., & Wingender, J. R.(2001). Contrarian human resource invest-ments and financial performance after eco-nomic downturns. Journal of BusinessResearch, 52, 249–261.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on


role-ambiguity and role conflict in work set-tings. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 36, 16–78.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-effi-cacy and newcomer’s adjustments to organiza-tions. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2),262–279.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: Anintegrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement, and implications. Personnel Psy-chology, 49, 1–49.

Kristof-Brown, A., Jansen, K., & Colbert, A. (2002). Apolicy-capturing study of the simultaneouseffects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 985–993.

Kotter, J., & Sathe, V. (1978). Problems of humanresource management in rapidly growing com-panies. California Management Review, 21(2),29–36.

Lauver, K. J,. & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distin-guishing between employees’ perceptions ofperson-job and person-organization fit, Journalof Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454–470.

Magnus, M. (2002). Recruiting and staffing:Trends and implications for 2002. WorkforceOnline. Retrieved August 1, 2003, from http://www.workforce.com/section/06/article/23/15/19.html

Metzler, V. F., & Hamilton, R. D. (2002). Humanresource management control: A contingencyapproach. Paper presented at the annual con-ference of the Western Academy of Manage-ment, St. Louis, MO.

Miner, A. S. (1985). The strategy of serendipity:Ambiguity, uncertainty and idiosyncratic jobs.Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University,1985. Dissertation Abstract International.

Miner, A. S. (1987). Idiosyncratic jobs in formalizedorganizations. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 32, 327–351.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of personalityand situation. In D. Magnuson & N. S. Endler(Eds.), Personality at the crossroads (pp.333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What

is person-environment congruence? Supple-mentary versus complementary models of fit.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organiza-tional socialization as a learning process: Therole of information acquisition. Personnel Psy-chology, 45(4), 849–874.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970).Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organi-zations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15,150–163.

Rollag, K. (2004). The impact of relative tenure onnewcomer socialization dynamics. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 25 (7), 853–872.

Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B .E. (2002). Is job searchrelated to employment quality? It all dependson fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,646–654.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place.Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for socialscientists. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A., & Koenig, R. (1976).Determinants of coordination modes withinorganizations. American Sociological Review,41, 322–328.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward atheory of organizational socialization. In B. M.Staw (Ed.). Research in organizational behav-ior, vol. 1 (pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981).Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration ofthe literature and directions for future research.Human Relations, 34(1), 43–71.

Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person-environment fit in the selection process. InG.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management (Vol. 17, pp.209–243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Werbel, J. D., & Johnson, D. J. (2001). The use ofperson-group fit for employment selection: Amissing link in person-environment fit, HumanResource Management, 40(3), 227–240.

levesque opportunistic hiring

Documents