SO WHAT IS FLEXIBILITY? TOWARD A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF ... · coaching, and post coaching. Findings...
Transcript of SO WHAT IS FLEXIBILITY? TOWARD A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF ... · coaching, and post coaching. Findings...
SO WHAT IS FLEXIBILITY? TOWARD A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF ORGANISATIONAL,
GROUP, AND INDIVIDUAL FLEXIBILITY
Renae A. Jones
Bachelor of Business, Human Resource Management
Honours I
Being a Thesis submitted to the
School of Management Faculty of Business
Queensland University of Technology
In partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
August, 2005
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made. Signature: ________________________________ Date : ________________________________
2
ABSTRACT
Flexibility is a term that is presumed to be meaningful across different levels of
analysis in an organisation. It has been suggested that flexibility is required by organisations,
groups, and individuals to deal with an increasingly complex and dynamic organisation and
global environment. Authors have proposed that organisational flexibility enables a firm to
achieve a better ‘fit’ with their environment and create a sustainable competitive advantage.
The group level literature promotes flexibility at this level of analysis as important for group
effectiveness and successful project completion. The individual flexibility literature suggests
that people who are flexible are more likely to be satisfied and effective than individuals who
are inflexible. Despite the importance placed on the construct of flexibility, it is a relatively
under explored construct, both theoretically and empirically. This is due in part to the lack of
definitional precision and inconsistency in the operationalisation of flexibility at each level of
analysis. Consequently, little is known about the meaning of flexibility and the relationship of
this construct with contextual and performance variables. This research addresses the
limitations of the current literature on flexibility by developing a testable multi-level
framework of flexibility. Flexibility is defined in this research as an organisation’s, group’s,
and individual’s ability to be proactive, adaptable, and resilient.
Three primary research questions were addressed in this thesis. The first question
addressed what are the characteristics of flexibility at the organisation, group, and individual
level of analysis. The second overarching research question of interest in this thesis examines
how flexibility at each level of analysis is related to performance. The third overarching
research question examined what factors impact flexibility at each level of analysis. To address
these three research questions at each level of analysis, a theoretical review and an empirical
study were conducted.
3
The first empirical study, focused on flexibility at the organisational level of analysis.
This study involved the exploration of seven specific research questions that were developed
from the theoretical review. This study used cross-sectional secondary data of private sector
Australian organisations. Flexibility was defined as proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
This research examined the relationships between each of the flexibility components and
improvements in several organisational level outcomes. Also, the impact of the contextual
variables level of organisational control, degree of structure, and competition changes on the
flexibility-performance relationship was investigated. Analysis techniques included moderated
regression analysis. Results showed support for the positive association between flexibility and
performance. Flexibility interacted with competition and structure to influence performance,
but control was found to have no moderating effect on the flexibility-performance relationship.
The second empirical study investigated group flexibility. This study took a sequential,
mixed method research approach, using qualitative data to explore group flexibility and
quantitative analysis to explore the broad relationships found among variables from the
qualitative research. Using this approach, this study addressed five specific research questions
that were developed from a theoretical review, including defining group flexibility, the nature
of group flexibility conceptualisation, the relationship between flexibility and group
performance, factors that may enhance group flexibility, and factors that may reduce group
flexibility. Findings showed group flexibility was described consistently between participants
and the existing literature, proposing group flexibility is a group’s ability to search and
consider alternatives, be adaptable, and resilient. Results also suggested a positive relationship
between group flexibility and several outcomes, including stakeholder satisfaction, personal
development and satisfaction, group morale, and group confidence.
The final study examined individual level flexibility. Based on the theoretical
exploration of individual flexibility, in this study, individual flexibility was defined as the
ability to be proactive, adaptable, and resilient. This empirical research focused specifically on
4
managerial level flexibility. Due to the similarities in descriptions of individual flexibility and
managerial flexibility in the literature, the definition of individual flexibility was applied to the
managerial level. The study investigated changes in flexibility levels over time using executive
coaching as the literature promotes executive coaching as an individual flexibility
developmental tool. This study examined eleven leaders undertaking executive coaching with
individual flexibility being measured at three points in time, pre coaching, the middle of
coaching, and post coaching. Findings were consistent with the proposition of the positive
impact of executive coaching on flexibility as the data showed leaders’ individual flexibility
levels increased from pre coaching to post coaching, with a significant linear trend over time.
The results of these three studies are integrated to inform the multi-level framework of
flexibility which was developed in this thesis. This framework provides a systematic,
comprehensive, and tangible definition of flexibility at each level of analysis, providing a rich
description of the characteristics of each flexibility component. This research advances our
understanding of flexibility, which I hope will encourage further research on the construct. For
managers and practitioners, this research provides a clear description of flexibility at each level
of analysis and offers indicators of flexibility at each level to encourage the measurement and
development of organisational, group, and individual flexibility. Also, this research provides
empirical evidence of the benefits of flexibility, helping to provide legitimacy for the inclusion
of flexibility into the organisation, in areas including strategic planning, organisational design,
group design, recruitment and selection, and training and development. Furthermore, this
multi-level model allows practitioners to be more focused in developmental efforts for
organisation, group, and individual flexibility. This research provides several interesting areas
for future research.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“We don't accomplish anything in this world alone”
(Sandra O’Connor)
Well isn’t this the truth. Over the last three years, I have not once been alone. For those of you
who have endured this journey with me, I would like to thank-you and dedicate this thesis to
you all. It is hard to know where to start to express my appreciation to those that have been
there in support and friendship, but here goes………
To my supervisors
Where would I be now without you? Your guidance and wisdom during the PhD process has
been incredible. Mark, you should be congratulated for your patience with my understated
timelines, over excited ideas, and curious nature. You persevered at times when I thought I
couldn’t. Your encouragement definitely got me over the line. Sandra it was great to have you
on my supervisory team. You offered me the chance to look outside the square and examine
topics from different perspectives. This has helped both me and my thesis become more well-
rounded and open minded. Alannah, although you only officially joined my supervisory team
in the last few months of my PhD, you were there every step of the way in the last three years.
Your advice, expertise, and support were invaluable. Also, to Stephen Cox, a special mention
of thanks for your assistance and knowledge, and patience with my constant questions.
To WERP
I am thankful for the opportunity to collaborate and exchange ideas with members of the Work
Effectiveness Research Project. I thank you all for your enthusiasm and openness in sharing
your knowledge and expertise over the last three years.
To Jan, Kylie, Catrina, Craig, & Pauline
I would like to put myself in the low maintenance post graduate student category, but I think
some of you may contest that statement! I would like to express my appreciation for your
administrative and emotional support, couldn’t have done it without you!
6
To my Family
Mum, Dad, Regs, and Matty, you rock. Mum and Dad, where do I start? Heaps and heaps of
thanks to you both for your support and perseverance over the last three years. Thanks for the
endless amount of dinners, late night pickup and early morning drop-offs to Margaret Street,
stressful coffee chats, emotional support, and just generally for being there every step of the
way. Mum I can’t thank-you enough for your hard work in editing and proofing page upon
page. Truly a champion effort! Regs, Thanks for listening to my whinging and endless
dilemmas. I bet you are glad you weren’t here for the first year of the process! Matty, my avid
supporter, lucky you were there to pep me up in my times of doubt. Thanks in masses for
lending a sometimes, less than keen ear, to hear about my endless research dramas.
To my cubies
Jen, Matt, Adelle, and Jack. We started this process together, not knowing what we were
getting ourselves into. Look how far we have come. To Jen and Matt, thanks for being the best
cubie mates ever and putting up with my messy, chaotic way of life. For the record, I do not
have a twin, its all me! Adelle thanks for our chats about holidays, shoes, and jewellery that
helped to keep me sane. Jack, your jokes kept me entertained and on my toes! Thanks heaps, I
couldn’t have done it without you!! Good Luck to you all!
To my friends
You are my source of entertainment, encouragement, and sanity. I thank you all for your
patience and support and generally for sticking by me when, at times, it seemed I had gone
missing in action. Michael, thank-you for our frequent visits to the coffee shop and listening to
my endless stories. A special mention for Dea, where would I be now without my PhD survival
kit, cards of encouragement, and your words of wisdom. Mel, your tolerance of my whinging is
to be congratulated. Megs & Carls, thanks to you also for our chats, laughter, and your support.
To all my friends, I have been overwhelmed by the support and praise.
TO YOU ALL….WE DID IT!
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 15
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Flexibility.......................................................................................................................................................... 16
1.2 Developing a Multi-level Model of Flexibility: Strengths and Limitations of Existing Research............. 18
1.3 Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................................... 21
1.4 Thesis Outline .................................................................................................................................................. 22 1.4.0 Chapter 2.................................................................................................................................................... 23 1.4.1 Chapter 3.................................................................................................................................................... 23 1.4.2 Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................................... 24 1.4.3 Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................................... 24 1.4.4 Chapter 6.................................................................................................................................................... 24 1.4.5 Chapter 7.................................................................................................................................................... 25 1.4.6 Chapter 8.................................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 2 ORGANISATIONAL FLEXIBILITY LITERATURE REVIEW ............... 26
2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
2.1 Importance of Organisational Flexibility ...................................................................................................... 27
2.2 Historical Development of Flexibility ............................................................................................................ 29
2.3 Previous Major Conceptualisations ............................................................................................................... 31
2.4 Commonalities ................................................................................................................................................. 32
2.5 A Framework of Organisational Flexibility .................................................................................................. 34 2.5.0 Proactivity.................................................................................................................................................. 34 2.5.1 Adaptability ............................................................................................................................................... 36 2.5.2 Resilience................................................................................................................................................... 38
2.6 Application of the Flexibility Framework ..................................................................................................... 40
2.7 Summary of Flexibility Literature ................................................................................................................. 41
2.8 Developing Theoretical Propositions ............................................................................................................. 42 2.8.0 Organisational Flexibility and Performance .............................................................................................. 43 2.8.1 Organisational Flexibility and Internal Organisational Characteristics ..................................................... 47
2.9 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 3 STUDY 1 ORGANISATIONAL FLEXIBILITY...................................... 51
3.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
3.1 Research Questions.......................................................................................................................................... 51
3.2 Methodology..................................................................................................................................................... 52 3.2.0 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................ 52 3.2.1 Australian National Survey of Organisations............................................................................................. 52 3.2.2 Sampling Frame......................................................................................................................................... 53
8
3.2.3 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 53 3.2.4 Responses .................................................................................................................................................. 54 3.2.5 Representativeness of the Sample.............................................................................................................. 55 3.2.6 Measures .................................................................................................................................................... 57
3.2.6.0 Flexibility Variables........................................................................................................................... 58 3.2.6.1 Validity Issues for flexibility indicators............................................................................................. 62 3.2.6.2 Performance Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 64 3.2.6.3 Controls.............................................................................................................................................. 65 3.2.6.4 Environmental Moderators................................................................................................................. 66
3.3 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................. 67 3.3.0 Missing Data Analyses .............................................................................................................................. 68 3.3.1 Data Analyses Overview............................................................................................................................ 70
3.4 Results............................................................................................................................................................... 71 3.4.0 Descriptive Data ........................................................................................................................................ 71 3.4.1 Flexibility and Performance Outcomes...................................................................................................... 73 3.4.2 Flexibility and Environmental Variables ................................................................................................... 74 3.4.3 Interaction Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 75 3.4.4 Overview of Interaction Results ................................................................................................................ 75 3.4.5 Results for Competition as a Moderator .................................................................................................... 78 3.4.6 Results for Structure as a Moderator.......................................................................................................... 84 3.4.7 Results for Control as a Moderator ............................................................................................................ 89
3.5 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................... 93 3.5.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 93 3.5.1 Research Questions.................................................................................................................................... 94 3.5.2 Theoretical Contributions ........................................................................................................................ 103 3.5.3 Practical Implications............................................................................................................................... 104 3.5.4 Expanding our knowledge of Organisational Flexibility: Limitations & Future Research..................... 104
CHAPTER 4 GROUP FLEXIBILITY LITERATURE REVIEW...................................107
4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 107
4.1 Group Flexibility and Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 108 4.1.0 Group Flexibility and Organisational Effectiveness ................................................................................ 108 4.1.1 Group Flexibility and Group Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 110
4.2 Previous Conceptualisations of Group Flexibility ...................................................................................... 112
4.3 Limitations of Previous Research................................................................................................................. 117
4.4 Constructs Related to Group Flexibility...................................................................................................... 117
4.5 Defining Group Flexibility ............................................................................................................................ 119
4.6 Group Flexibility: Aggregation or Independence? ..................................................................................... 120
4.7 Factors that Enhance and Inhibit Flexibility .............................................................................................. 122 4.7.0 Leadership................................................................................................................................................ 122 4.7.1 Interruptions and Familiarity ................................................................................................................... 123 4.7.2 Research Model ....................................................................................................................................... 125
4.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 125
CHAPTER 5 STUDY 2 GROUP FLEXIBILITY .........................................................127
5.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 127
9
5.1 Research Questions........................................................................................................................................ 127
5.2 Research Design Overview............................................................................................................................ 128 5.2.0 Case Study Selection................................................................................................................................ 128 5.2.1 Case Study Description............................................................................................................................ 129 5.2.2 Data Collection Methods ......................................................................................................................... 132 5.2.3 Multiple Methods and Triangulation ....................................................................................................... 132
5.3 Stage 1 Qualitative Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 133 5.3.0 Non-Participant Observation.................................................................................................................... 133 5.3.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 134 5.3.2 Participants............................................................................................................................................... 134 5.3.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................. 135 5.3.4 Qualitative Data Methods: Reliability and Validity................................................................................. 136
5.4 Stage 1 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 137 5.4.0 Observations ............................................................................................................................................ 137 5.4.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 138
5.5 Stage 1 Qualitative Data Results .................................................................................................................. 139 5.5.0 Flexibility Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 140
5.6 Group Flexibility and Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 143 5.6.0 Defining Project Effectiveness................................................................................................................. 144 5.6.1 Group Flexibility and Project Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 144 5.6.2 Defining Group Effectiveness.................................................................................................................. 144 5.6.3 Group Flexibility and Group Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 145
5.7 Factors that Enhance or Inhibit Group Flexibility..................................................................................... 146 5.7.0 Communication........................................................................................................................................ 147 5.7.1 Culture ..................................................................................................................................................... 147 5.7.2 Team Building ......................................................................................................................................... 148 5.7.3 Leadership Style ...................................................................................................................................... 149 5.7.4 Dependency ............................................................................................................................................. 149 5.7.5 Physical Distance..................................................................................................................................... 150 5.7.6 Summary of Factors that Enhance or Inhibit Group Flexibility............................................................... 150
5.8 Stage 2 Questionnaires .................................................................................................................................. 150 5.8.0 Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 151 5.8.1 Participants............................................................................................................................................... 152 5.8.2 Questionnaire Validity ............................................................................................................................. 153 5.8.3 Factor Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 154
5.9 Stage 2 Questionnaire Analysis .................................................................................................................... 155 5.9.0 Construct Validity.................................................................................................................................... 156 5.9.1 Within-Group Agreement Analyses......................................................................................................... 156
5.10 Stage 2 Questionnaire Results .................................................................................................................... 158 5.10.0 Flexibility Differences Between Groups................................................................................................ 159 5.10.1 Group Flexibility and Group Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 160 5.10.2 Flexibility and Profession ...................................................................................................................... 161
5.12 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 161 5.12.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 161 5.12.1 Revised Research Model........................................................................................................................ 162 5.12.2 Research Question 1 .............................................................................................................................. 163 5.12.3 Research Question 2 .............................................................................................................................. 164 5.12.4 Research Question 3 .............................................................................................................................. 164 5.12.5 Research Question 4 .............................................................................................................................. 166 5.12.6 Research Question 5 .............................................................................................................................. 169 5.12.7 Additional Findings ............................................................................................................................... 170
10
5.13 Practical Implications.................................................................................................................................. 172
5.14 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... 173
5.15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 174
CHAPTER 6 INDIVIDUAL FLEXIBILITY.................................................................175
6.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 175
6.1 The Role of Individuals in Delivering Organisational and Group Flexibility .......................................... 176
6.2 Previous Conceptualisations of Individual Flexibility ................................................................................ 176
6.3 Constructs Related to Individual Flexibility ............................................................................................... 178
6.4 Conclusions from Previous Research........................................................................................................... 181
6.5 Managerial Flexibility ................................................................................................................................... 184
6.6 Relationship to Existing Aspects of Managerial Performance................................................................... 186
6.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 187
CHAPTER 7 STUDY 3 INDIVIDUAL FLEXIBILITY.................................................188
7.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 188
7.1 Development of Managerial flexibility......................................................................................................... 188 7.1.0 Executive Coaching ................................................................................................................................. 190
7.2 Research Context........................................................................................................................................... 191 7.2.0 An overview of the LEP .......................................................................................................................... 192 7.2.1 Choosing Participants .............................................................................................................................. 194 7.2.2 Coaches.................................................................................................................................................... 194 7.2.3 Structure of Coaching Sessions................................................................................................................ 195
7.3 Methodology................................................................................................................................................... 196 7.3.0 Research Participants ............................................................................................................................... 196 7.3.1 Data Collection Process ........................................................................................................................... 197 7.3.2 Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 198
7.4 Results............................................................................................................................................................. 200 7.4.0 Preliminary Analysis................................................................................................................................ 200 7.4.1 Respondents versus Non-Respondents .................................................................................................... 201 7.4.2 Measurement Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 203 7.4.3 Hypothesis Testing .................................................................................................................................. 204 7.4.4 Repeated Measures .................................................................................................................................. 204
7.5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 206 7.5.0 Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................................................... 207 7.5.1 Future Research Directions...................................................................................................................... 207 7.5.2 Practical Contributions............................................................................................................................. 209 7.5.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................... 210
7.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 211
CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION......................................................................................213
11
8.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 213
8.1 Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 214 8.1.0 Organisational Flexibility ........................................................................................................................ 215 8.1.1 Group Flexibility...................................................................................................................................... 216 8.1.2 Individual Flexibility ............................................................................................................................... 217 8.1.3 Integration of Research Question 1 Findings........................................................................................... 217
8.2 Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 218 8.2.0 Organisational Flexibility ........................................................................................................................ 218 8.2.1 Group Flexibility...................................................................................................................................... 219 8.2.2 Individual Flexibility ............................................................................................................................... 220 8.2.3 Integration of Research Question 2 Findings........................................................................................... 221
8.3 Research Question 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 221 8.3.0 Organisational Flexibility ........................................................................................................................ 222 8.3.1 Group Flexibility...................................................................................................................................... 223 8.3.2 Individual Flexibility ............................................................................................................................... 225 8.3.3 Integration of Research Question 3 Findings........................................................................................... 226
8.4 Theoretical Contributions: A Multi-Level Framework of Flexibility ....................................................... 226
8.5 Practical Contributions ................................................................................................................................. 230
8.6 Limitations and Future Research Directions .............................................................................................. 231 8.6.0 Organisational Flexibility ........................................................................................................................ 232 8.6.1 Group Flexibility...................................................................................................................................... 232 8.6.2 Individual Flexibility ............................................................................................................................... 233
8.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 233
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 235
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................................... 254
Appendix A: Organisational Flexibility Literature Summary ........................................................................ 255
Appendix B: Advantages & Considerations in Using Secondary Data........................................................... 256
Appendix C: Organisational Flexibility Face Validity Exercise...................................................................... 257
Appendix D: Interview Protocol......................................................................................................................... 258
Appendix E: Interview Consent Form............................................................................................................... 261
Appendix F: Qualitative Data Methods: Reliability and Validity................................................................... 262
Appendix G: Comparison of Analytical Techniques and Strategies............................................................... 264
Appendix H: Study 2 Survey .............................................................................................................................. 266
Appendix I: Correlations Among Individual Flexibility Items........................................................................ 272
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 1.1 Methodology Overview .................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.0 Organisational Flexibility Exploratory Research Model .............................................................. 42
Figure 3.0 Interaction between adaptability and competition predicting employee retention .................... 80
Figure 3.1 Interaction between labour resilience and competition predicting employee retention............. 81
Figure 3.2 Interaction between labour resilience and competition predicting employee retention............. 81
Figure 3.3 Interaction between labour resilience and competition predicting customer satisfaction. ........ 82
Figure 3.4 Interaction between labour resilience and structure predicting sales ......................................... 87
Figure 3.5 Interaction between financial resilience and structure predicting sales ..................................... 88
Figure 3.6 Model of Organisational Flexibility & Performance Outcomes including the moderating
effects of environmental characteristics ........................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4.0 Group Flexibility Exploratory Research Model ............................................................................ 124
Figure 5.0 Prentice Alliance Project ................................................................................................................ 130
Figure 5.1 Methods and Timeline of Data Collection and Project Milestones .............................................. 132
Figure 5.2 Analytical Process for Qualitative Data ......................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.3 Revised Group Flexibility Research Model.................................................................................... 162
Figure 7.0 Flexibility Means over Time –Linear Trend .................................................................................. 204
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.0 Characteristics of the Sample ........................................................................................................... 54
Table 3.1 Sampling of AusNos comparative to 2001 Australian Census Data ............................................. 55
Table 3.2 Flexibility Measures: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations................................................ 57
Table 3.3 Test for Face Validity of Organisational Flexibility Items ............................................................. 62
Table 3.4 Performance Outcomes: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations .......................................... 64
Table 3.5 Environmental Characteristics: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations ............................. 65
Table 3.6 Percentage of Missing Data............................................................................................................... 68
Table 3.7 Descriptive Data (Means & Standard Deviations) & Intercorrelations Among the Variables ... 71
Table 3.8 Overview of Results – Main Effects & Interactions........................................................................ 75
Table 3.9a Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Flexibility &Competition................. 78
Table 3.9b Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis of Flexibility & Competition ........... 79
Table 3.10a Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis of Flexibility & Structure .............. 84
Table 3.10b Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis of Flexibility & Structure .............. 85
Table 3.11a Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis of Flexibility & Control ................. 89
Table 3.11b Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis of Flexibility & Control ................. 90
Table 4.0 Group flexibility descriptions and related terminology.................................................................. 119
Table 5.0 Process for Theory Building from Case Study Research ............................................................... 127
Table 5.1 Interview Participants, their Alliance Position, & Interview Duration......................................... 134
Table 5.2 Final Stage of Interview Categorisation........................................................................................... 138
Table 5.3 Example Interviewee Comments focusing on Individual Flexibility ............................................. 139
Table 5.4 Emergent Themes of Flexibility Characteristics ............................................................................. 141
Table 5.5 Individual Flexibility Scale................................................................................................................ 151
Table 5.6 Respondent Characteristics for survey ............................................................................................ 154
Table 5.7 Within-Group Agreement Measures................................................................................................ 157
Table 5.8 Describing the Sample ....................................................................................................................... 157
Table 5.9 Means and Standard Deviations of variance for Alliance Groups on Group Flexibility ............ 159
Table 5.10 Descriptive Data & Intercorrelations Among the Variables ....................................................... 160
Table 6.1 Summary of Individual Flexibility and Related Literature ........................................................... 180
Table 7.0 Data Collection Phases and Measures of the Leadership Effectiveness Program........................ 196
Table 7.1 Individual Flexibility Items .............................................................................................................. 199
Table 7.2 Completed Questionnaires ............................................................................................................... 200
Table 7.3 Demographic Variables - Comparison of Means Respondents versus Non-Respondents .......... 201
Table 7.4 Flexibility - Comparison of Means Respondents versus Non-Respondents .................................. 202
Table 8.0 Multi-level Model of Flexibility ........................................................................................................ 227
14
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this research is to develop a multi-level framework for understanding
flexibility. The goal of this approach is to provide an integrated conceptual view of flexibility
at multiple levels of the organisation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). This research also resolves
confusion about the meaning of flexibility by synthesising and extending prior research on the
flexibility construct. A multi-level model is used to explore similarities in flexibility
characteristics across levels of analysis and to explore relationships at one level of analysis that
are generalisable to other levels of analysis (Rousseau, 1985). Flexibility is a term that is
presumed to be meaningful across levels in organisations (Boguslaw & Porter, 1962; Parsons,
1951; Rousseau, 1985; Weiss, 2001). This research examines flexibility at the organisation,
group, and individual level of analysis.
Interest in the construct of flexibility is not new. Over forty years ago, Boguslaw and
Porter (1962) suggested that every system requires a method for dealing with emergent
situations and these authors identified flexibility as one way in which to deal with these
situations. Interest in flexibility has increased in recent times due to the increasingly dynamic
global environment which is characterised by technological, social, business, and economic
change. According to Weiss (2001), these changes have increased the need for organisations,
groups, and individuals to be flexible.
Despite the frequency in the use of the term flexibility, this construct is relatively under
explored in both the theoretical and empirical literature. As a result, the definition of flexibility
is open to debate while the relationship of flexibility at different levels of analysis to other
constructs is not well understood. This issue is of concern when developing a multi-level
model because an essential step in this process is careful clarification and understanding of the
phenomenon of interest (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). To address this issue, Kozlowski and
15
Klein recommend that when tackling a phenomenon previously relatively unexplored in the
literature, like flexibility, it is important to initially act as if the phenomena occurs at only one
level of theory and analysis. This research adopts this approach and explores the meaning of
flexibility independently at the organisation, group, and individual level of analysis. This is a
critical step in the development of a testable multi-level model as it enables the researcher to
explore and capture those aspects of flexibility that may generalise across levels (Miller, 1978).
Following the development of a conceptualisation of flexibility at each level of analysis, this
research theoretically and empirically explores the relationships between flexibility and
contextual and performance variables at each level of analysis. This step is important to guide
the development of testable hypotheses and guidance for future research on multi-level
flexibility.
1.1 Flexibility
At the organisational level, researchers have argued that higher levels of flexibility
enable an organisation to achieve a better ‘fit’ with their environment, by aiding internal
organisational adjustment or by allowing a firm to actively shape competitive forces (Evans,
1991; Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998; Volberda, 1998). Flexibility has been promoted as a
critical element of organisational performance where it has been promoted as a means of
gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage (Hitt, et al., 1998). Various definitions of
flexibility have been developed. For example, authors have described flexibility as the ability
of an organisation to undertake planning (Sanchez, 1997), build excess resources (Grewal &
Tansuhaj, 2001), adapt to changing circumstances (Golden & Powell, 2000), rapidly respond to
change (Volberda, 1997), absorb shocks and bounce back after a disaster (Bahrami, 2000), and
as a buffer for the effects of a changing environment (Eppink, 1978).
Flexibility has also been discussed as important for work groups. In recent times, in
response to new environmental pressures, organisations have begun to structure work around
16
groups instead of individuals (see: Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999; Boguslaw &
Porter, 1962; Lodewijkx, Wildschut, Syroit, Visser, & Rabbie, 1999). Consequently, groups
have become a central building block of many organisations (Bahrami, 1992). Bahrami (1992)
suggested the key advantage of groups is their ability to be flexible, however theoretical and
empirical attention on group flexibility is limited. In the limited literature available, authors
also suggest that group flexibility is advantageous for a group itself, enabling them to be
effective and complete projects much more successfully (Okhuysen & Waller, 2002; Randolph
& Posner, 1992; Ziller, 1958). A flexible group has been described as displaying characteristics
such as adaptation and response to change (Okhuysen & Waller, 2002), changing their
approach to tasks as circumstances change (Okhuysen & Waller, 2002), and possessing the
ability to reorganise (Ziller, 1958).
Finally, researchers have also promoted the importance of individual flexibility for
individual effectiveness (Kanter, 1982; Kimble, Graezy, & Zigler, 1984). Periods of rapid
change in the work environment place extreme demands on individuals to adapt and cope with
situations. This has increased the need for employees to be flexible (Antonacopoulou &
Gabriel, 2001; James, 1999). Individual flexibility is often mentioned as a desirable
characteristic of employees and considered a necessary trait for job and career success (Anell
& Wilson, 2000). Individual flexibility has also been described in a variety of ways, including
the ability to explore a wide variety of approaches to a problem (Raudsepp, 1990), to see
change as an opportunity (Raudsepp, 1990), to deal with new, unexpected, and unforeseen
circumstances (Gough, 1990, cited in Raudsepp, 1990, p. 6), and also the ability to recover
quickly from adversity in the workplace (Connor, 1992).
17
1.2 Developing a Multi-level Model of Flexibility: Strengths and Limitations of Existing
Research
At the organisational level, flexibility has an extensive history with much of the early
research conducted in the manufacturing (DeGroote, 1994), economics (Stigler, 1939), and
industrial relations (Atkinson, 1984) disciplines. Flexibility in the organisational literature is
also used in reference to many macro-organisational concepts, such as strategic flexibility
(Eppink, 1978), structural flexibility (Krijnen, 1979), flexible decision making (Pye, 1978) and
employment flexibility (Sanchez, 1997). Several authors have presented summative models of
organisational flexibility incorporating ideas from various disciplines to conceptualise
flexibility (Ackoff, 1977; Evans, 1991; Golden & Powell, 2000; Volberda, 1997). This has
resulted in a proliferation of conceptualisations of organisational flexibility from different
perspectives and contexts and no precise, generalisable definition of organisational flexibility.
This lack of definition precision impedes the ability of researchers to compare findings, draw
conclusions and initiate a systematic program of new research on organisational flexibility
(Volberda, 1998). However there are commonalities to be explored across conceptualisations.
These commonalities include, organisational flexibility is not amenable to a simple definition,
the construct has multiple dimensions, it involves both proactive and reactive aspects, and
flexibility encompasses the whole organisation not just the decision of managers.
At the group level of analysis, a number of authors have investigated group flexibility
(e.g. Okhuysen, 2001; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2001; Okhuysen & Waller, 2001; Randolph &
Posner, 1992), but despite this, as yet there is no agreement as to how to define group
flexibility. Specifically some authors have assumed that there is no need to define group
flexibility, rather the term has been generically used. For example, authors have focused on the
interventions and processes that can be used to increase group flexibility, but they do not
clearly define group flexibility (Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). The failure to adequately consider
18
the theoretical nature of group flexibility has meant that it is difficult to operationalise and
empirically research this construct.
Similarly, despite the suggested importance of individual flexibility in the workplace
(Anell & Wilson, 2000; Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001), individual flexibility remains
relatively unexplored. Once again, the literature that does exist adopts vague definitions of
individual flexibility which limits consistent operationalisation of individual flexibility (Anell
& Wilson, 2000). Two authors, Raudsepp (1990) and Connor (1992) have empirically explored
individual flexibility and its importance in the workplace. These authors do not explicitly
define the construct, however they discuss characteristics of individual flexibility including the
exploration of a variety of approaches to a problem, degree of comfort with change and
challenge, and the ability to adapt to change
Considering the definitional concerns and absence of consistent operationalisation of
the flexibility construct, the first aim of this thesis is to review the existing literature and
develop a systematic and generalisable conceptualisation of flexibility at the organisation,
group, and individual levels of analysis. Therefore, the first research question is:
Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of flexibility at the organisation, group,
and individual level of analysis?
The review of the literature at each level of analysis highlighted the relationship
between flexibility and performance. At the organisational level, the literature associates
flexibility with improved and sustained performance (Evans, 1991; Englehardt & Simmons,
2002; Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001; Hitt, et al., 1998). At the group level of analysis, flexibility
has been positively associated with the effectiveness of groups (Kozlowski, et al., 1999;
LePine, 2003; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). At the individual level of analysis, flexible
individuals have been theoretically associated with improvements in performance and
satisfaction in the workplace (Ali & Camp, 1996; Anell & Wilson, 2000; Antonacopoulou,
19
1999). The literature at the three levels of analysis is replete with anecdotal evidence about the
benefits of flexibility, however, empirical evidence supporting these claims are limited. This is
due, in part, to the lack of definitional precision and inconsistency at each level of analysis.
Considering this, the second aim of this research is to empirically explore the flexibility -
performance relationship at the organisation, group, and individual level of analysis. The
second research question is,
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between flexibility and performance at the
organisational, group, and individual level of analysis?
The third purpose of this research is to provide a better understanding of the contextual
factors that impact upon the ability of organisations, groups, and individuals to be flexible. The
existing literature discusses factors that could possibly enhance flexibility, as well as factors
that have the potential to limit or inhibit flexibility. For example, factors that may impact
flexibility at the organisational level include the type of organisational structure (Dastmalchian
& Blyton, 1998), control mechanisms (Reed & Blunsdon, 1998), and the type of external
environment the organisation competes in (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001). At the group level,
authors have discussed factors such as leadership styles (Ziller, 1958), communication levels
(Ziller, 1958), and group composition (Okhuysen, 2001) as possible influences on group
flexibility. Furthermore, at the individual level, research proposes that an individual’s level of
experience (Arnold, 1990, cited in Raudsepp, 1990, p. 7), and training courses (Iles, Forster, &
Tinline, 1996) can influence an individual’s flexibility. This thesis examines how such factors
impact on flexibility and explores additional factors that may enhance or inhibit flexibility.
Therefore, the third research question is:
Research Question 3: What factors impact flexibility at the organisational, group, and
individual level of analysis and how do these factors impact on flexibility?
20
Figure 1.0 presents the conceptual model that guides this research. The primary
research questions tested in this thesis are numbered 1-3 in this model. Cross-levels effects will
not be examined in this thesis due to the time and research constraints (Gilbert & Shultz,
1998).
FLEXIBILITY DEFINITION
Organisation
Group
Individual
PERFORMANCE
Organisation
Group
Individual
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
Organisation
Group
Individual
1
2 3
Figure 1.0
Conceptual framework that is tested
As shown in Figure 1.0, Research Question 1 seeks to establish a definition of
flexibility at the organisation, group, and individual level. The second research question
examines the relationship between flexibility and performance at each level of analysis. The
final research question explores the contextual factors that affect the relationship between
flexibility and performance at the organisation, group, and individual levels of analysis.
1.3 Methodology Overview
Figure 1.1 shows the approaches that were adopted in the three studies. In addition, the
source of data, sample size, the variables studied, and the analysis methods used are outlined.
Research at the organisational level involved the exploration of seven research questions using
cross-sectional secondary data. The second empirical study, which investigated flexibility at
the group level, took at sequential mixed method approach, using qualitative data to explore
21
group flexibility and quantitative analysis to explore the broad relationships found among the
variables from the qualitative research. The third study examined individual level flexibility
and specifically investigated changes in managerial flexibility using a longitudinal, repeated
measures quantitative research design.
STUDY 1
Level: Organisation Source: Secondary Data Design: Cross-Sectional Sample size: 207 Variables: Organisational Flexibility Org. performance Contextual factors Analysis methods: Descriptives
Multivariate Two-way Interactions
STUDY 2
Level: Group & Individual Source: Multi-method Observations, Interviews & Survey Design: Cross-Sectional Sample size: 32 Variables:
Group Flexibility Group Effectiveness Project Effectiveness Contextual Factors
Analysis methods:
Axial coding Constant comparative Descriptives Anova Within-Group Agreement Zero order correlations
STUDY 3
Level: Individual
Source: Survey – Repeated Measures Design: Longitudinal (x3) Sample size: 11 Variables: Individual Flexibility Analysis methods:
Paired t-tests, Anova Repeated measures
Figure 1.1
Methodology Overview
Further details regarding the methodology used during this research is available in Chapters 3,
5, and 7.
1.4 Thesis Outline
This thesis consists of three empirical studies, with two chapters dedicated to
organisation, group, and individual flexibility. The first chapter for organisation, group and
individual flexibility presents a literature review and the second chapter presents details of the
empirical study. There are eight chapters in total. The thesis begins with an examination of
22
organisational flexibility because there is a considerable amount of literature on the construct at
this level. The group flexibility literature and research is then presented, followed by the
individual level, as the existing literature at these two levels is limited.
1.4.0 Chapter 2
Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive review of the organisational flexibility literature.
The importance of organisational flexibility for dealing with and coping with the changing
business landscape is discussed. The historical development of the construct is summarised by
outlining a number of previous major conceptualisations of organisational flexibility.
Commonalities in descriptions of organisational flexibility are identified and a framework of
flexibility is developed. The framework is discussed in-depth, outlining the multi-component
nature of flexibility as consisting of proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. The relationship
between organisational flexibility and performance is examined, as well as the relationship
between flexibility and contextual factors. The chapter concludes with the development of
theoretical propositions and a model for exploration.
1.4.1 Chapter 3
This chapter features an empirical exploration of organisational flexibility. The chapter
begins with an overview of the research questions, followed by a discussion of the secondary
data set used to conduct the research. Specifics of the research approach are outlined, including
the sample, responses, and the measures. Analysis techniques including moderated regression
are discussed. Results of these analyses are presented, followed by a discussion of these results,
and the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. This chapter concludes with the
limitations of this research and future directions.
23
1.4.2 Chapter 4
Chapter 4 reviews the literature on group flexibility, in particular, its relationship to
organisational and group effectiveness. An overview of previous conceptualisations of the
construct and a review of constructs related to group flexibility is provided. From this review,
commonalities in definition are identified and a definition of group flexibility is presented. A
brief discussion on the level of conceptualisation of group flexibility is provided, followed by a
discussion of factors identified in the literature that have the potential to enhance or inhibit
group flexibility. This chapter concludes with the development of a research model and
research questions.
1.4.3 Chapter 5
This chapter empirically explores the group flexibility model presented in Chapter 4.
The chapter begins with an overview of the research questions, followed by a discussion of the
research design. Specifically, details regarding the case study, data collection methods,
participants, and procedures are provided. This study was performed in two stages. Each stage
is discussed separately with analysis techniques for the different types of data presented, and
the results provided. The chapter then integrates the two stages of research to address the
research questions, and concludes with a discussion of the contributions and limitations of the
research.
1.4.4 Chapter 6
Chapter 6 reviews the limited literature on individual flexibility which includes a
discussion of previous conceptualisations of individual flexibility and constructs related to
individual flexibility. From this review, commonalities are identified and a definition of
individual flexibility is developed, such that a flexible individual is proactive, adaptable, and
resilient. Further, the managerial flexibility literature is reviewed, which revealed it is
24
described in similar terms to individual flexibility. Finally, the chapter reviews the relationship
between managerial flexibility and managerial performance.
1.4.5 Chapter 7
This chapter focuses on empirically examining managerial flexibility. The empirical
investigation specifically focuses on developments in levels of flexibility over time using
executive coaching. The chapter begins with an overview of executive coaching and its value
in developing individual flexibility. The research context is discussed, including the
participants, the data collection process, and measures. Analysis techniques are outlined and
the results are presented. The chapter then discusses the theoretical and practical implications
of the results and outlines future research directions, concluding with the study’s limitations.
1.4.6 Chapter 8
The final chapter examines the results for the three research questions. The results for
each research question are addressed by presenting the empirical findings at the organisation,
group, and individual levels of analysis. The results of the three empirical studies are integrated
to present a multi-level view of the flexibility. The chapter then presents a revised version of
the multi-level framework of flexibility. The model offers a systematic, comprehensive, and
tangible definition of flexibility at each level of analysis. The model also includes performance
indicators found to be enhanced by flexibility at each level of analysis, and provides a list of
factors found to enhance or inhibit flexibility for organisations, groups, and individuals. The
theoretical and practical contributions of the model are discussed and the chapter concludes
with an overview of limitations and future research directions.
25
CHAPTER 2 Organisational Flexibility Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
Organisational flexibility is an important construct because it is one of the most
frequently mentioned criteria for organisational effectiveness (Evans, 1991; Hitt, et al., 1998).
Organisational flexibility is associated with an organisation’s ability to respond more
effectively to demands such as market fluctuation, new technology, changing competition, and
globalisation (Evans, 1991; Englehardt & Simmons, 2002). In the current environment of
technological and social uncertainty, the capacity for organisations to develop and deploy
flexibility characteristics in response to unexpected events is critical for survival (Weiss,
2001).
Although the construct of flexibility is clearly important, the definitions of this
construct have been somewhat vague and a number of different conceptualisations of the
construct have been developed. For example, authors such as Bonder (1976), Gustavsson
(1984), and Bahrami (1992) discuss ‘agility and versatility’ when talking about flexibility,
while Tomlinson (1976) focuses on ‘adaptivity’ to define flexibility. Golden and Powell (2000)
discuss ‘responsiveness’ as an important aspect of flexibility, while other researchers discuss
‘robustness’ or ‘defensive’ flexibility (Bahrami, 1992; Evans, 1991; Pye, 1978).
In this chapter, I will explore key similarities among different author approaches to
organisational flexibility. A more comprehensive definition of organisational flexibility is
developed with the goal of presenting a systematic and generalisable definition of
organisational flexibility. In particular, flexibility is defined as an organisational capability that
involves proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. Proactivity refers to an organisation’s
capability to scan, anticipate and plan for future events. For example, proactivity can involve
the ability to generate and evaluate alternative scenarios. Adaptability refers to the capability to
respond effectively to events as they unfold. For example, the ability of an organisation to
26
modify itself or the way in which it behaves when confronted with change. Resilience refers to
the capability to recover from environmental disturbances. The ability to bounce back from an
external crisis is an example of resilience. I describe the theoretical foundation for the proposed
components of flexibility and explore the relationships among the three components.
This chapter seeks not only to clarify, but also to challenge common beliefs about how
flexibility impacts on organisations. The chapter will begin with an overview of the importance
of organisational flexibility. Second, I provide a synopsis of the historical development of
organisational flexibility theory. Third, I review previous conceptualisations of organisational
flexibility and extract a number of definitional commonalities among these. On the basis of this
approach, I draw out a number of critical features that describe the nature of flexibility. Fourth,
I explore the specific constructs of proactivity, adaptability, and resilience in more detail. I then
discuss some common assumptions made about the relationship between flexibility and the
environment and performance outcomes. Finally, I provide an overview of the limited
empirical work done on organisational flexibility, identifying directions for future empirical
research.
2.1 Importance of Organisational Flexibility
To respond to change and outperform their competitors, organisations need to be
flexible. At the organisational level, flexibility has been promoted as one of the most important
elements of performance and survival. Organisational flexibility has been associated with
various performance outcomes, such as gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage (Hitt,
et al., 1998), providing organisations with the power to control their environment (Evans,
1991; Englehardt & Simons, 2002), and the ability to manage chaos and adversity (Grewal &
Tansuhaj, 2001). In particular, authors have proposed that organisational flexibility allows
firms to respond more effectively to demands such as market fluctuations, and increasing
product and service demands (Evans, 1991; Englehardt & Simmons, 2002), changing
27
competition, and managing in environments with high competitive intensity (Evans, 1991;
Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001; Englehardt & Simmons, 2002). Flexibility is important for
organisational survival where the external organisational environment is competitive,
uncertain, and dynamic (Volberda, 1998; Weiss, 2001).
Flexibility can be linked to the population ecology approach to organisational survival,
in that it suggests that organisations in populations will only survive if they adapt. Population
ecology advocates that when looking at populations of organisations, the changing
environment determines which organisations survive or fail (Daft, 2001). However,
characteristics of the internal organisational environment also play a large part in determining
which organisations are selected for attrition (Betton & Dess, 1985). Hannan and Freeman
(1977) in their original work on population ecology suggest that the stronger the inertial
pressures within an organisation the lower a firm’s adaptive flexibility and the more likely the
logic of environmental selection is appropriate. These authors also discuss the central paradox
in population theory, that is, that inertia is largely a phenomenon associated with the complex
departmental structures of large organisations.
The larger an organisation the greater the inertia it possesses, and the less flexible and
adaptable it is, therefore small organisations should be more adaptable to environmental
changes because of their lack of inertia. Evidence suggests that such organisations do suffer
high mortality rates (Betton & Dess, 1985). In contrast, large organisations with considerable
inertia seem to be better able to insulate themselves from environmental effects (Betton &
Dess, 1985, p. 752).
An important issue arising from population ecology is whether survival itself indicates
any relevant information about the processes that encourage or discourage that survival (Betton
& Dess, 1985). The construct of flexibility might have the potential to explain this paradox of
population ecology. Organisational flexibility is an ability that can be developed by small and
large organisations alike. Before further insights into the importance and explanatory power of
28
flexibility for organisational performance and survival can be explored, a closer examination of
the flexibility literature is needed to obtain a clearer grasp of the concept.
Empirical research on organisational flexibility is limited. This problem is exacerbated
as people have an intuitive understanding of what flexibility is, however, the translation of this
intuitive understanding to a theoretical definition is still to occur (Volberda, 1998). Volberda
argues that organisational flexibility is often used as a general and abstract term without any
specific clarification of what the construct of organisational flexibility really means. At present
there are a variety of definitions of organisational flexibility. This highlights the confusion
surrounding a definition of the construct.
2.2 Historical Development of Flexibility
There are three reasons commonly offered for the interest in flexibility, including the
globalisation of markets, which increases unpredictability and requires that organisations
develop their capacity to respond to change. In addition, the saturation of mass markets has led
to an increased demand for customised rather than standardised products (Piore & Sabel,
1984). There is also greater emphasis on quality and customisation which has increased the
need for employee commitment which has resulted in an increased need for a more flexible
workforce (Reed & Blunsdon, 1998, pg 458).
The organisational flexibility concept entered the academic literature more than six
decades ago. Organisational flexibility bears its foundations in early operational manufacturing
literature, with flexibility being widely recognised as one of the most important dimensions of
a successful manufacturing strategy (DeGroote, 1994). The concept was then introduced into
economics by Stigler (1939) who used the term to illustrate how small firms compete
successfully with large, more static-efficient producers by using more flexible production
technologies. In this context, Stigler (1939) defined organisational flexibility as the ability of a
single-product firm to adjust output to exogenous shocks (For example, output and input price
29
changes, weather conditions, and technological advancements) at relatively low costs.
Flexibility was then referenced by Ansoff (1968, cited in Eppink, 1978) when he drew
attention to the ignorance of organisations to plan and respond to future developments and
unforeseen events. He recognised that unforeseen events usually have detrimental effects on
organisations that don’t respond appropriately. In this respect, flexibility can be seen as a
characteristic of an organisation that makes it less vulnerable to, or puts it in a better position,
to respond successfully to unforeseen environmental change (see Eppink, 1978). Subsequently,
strategic management researchers adopted the concept, applying it to organisational strategy
and organisational design. As a result of the introduction of the term ‘flexibility’ into strategic
management literature, and then by organisational development researchers, interest in the
concept has escalated.
Flexibility is used in reference to many macro-organisational concepts, including, but
not limited to, strategic flexibility (Eppink, 1978; Evans, 1991; Hitt et al., 1998), structural
flexibility (Krijnen, 1979, Chow, 1998; Dastmalchian & Blyton, 1998; Ng & Dastmalchian,
1998; Reed & Blunsdon, 1998), flexible decision making (Pye, 1978; Collingridge, 1983;
Benjaafar, Morin, & Talavage, 1995), and employment flexibility (Sanchez, 1997; Atkinson,
1984; Kalleberg, 2001; Lepak, Takeuchi, & Snell, 2003). Despite this cross-discipline
application, authors appear to be referencing the same underlying concept of ‘organisational
flexibility’, regardless of what ‘type’ of flexibility they are examining. Each area of research
on flexibility has contributed to the clarification and understanding of flexibility. The goal of
this research is to identify some core commonalities in the meaning of flexibility to develop a
more systematic approach to the conceptualisation and measurement of the construct.
Therefore, this research focuses on what makes an organisation flexible.
30
2.3 Previous Major Conceptualisations
Several authors have presented summative models incorporating ideas from various
disciplines to conceptualise flexibility (Bahrami, 1992; DeLeeuw & Volberda, 1996; Evans,
1991; Golden & Powell, 2000; Koornhof, 2001; Volberda, 1998). Below, I present a brief
discussion on each of these models, and identify how these conceptualisations create problems
for an overall conceptualisation of flexibility.
Evans (1991) specifically focused on high technology in his investigation of the
flexibility of various components of an organisation. He argued that the flexibility of industry
products, manufacturing processes, markets, distribution channels, and competitive boundaries
result in continuous instability for firms. This author reported two distinguishable dimensions
of flexibility: temporal (i.e. preparing or reacting to events) and intentional (offensive or
defensive) (Evans, 1991). This study also emphasised the polymorphous nature of
organisational flexibility, its attributes and capabilities that enable flexibility in one situation
need not be the same, transferable to, or appropriate for provision of flexibility in other
situations (Evans, 1991).
Bahrami (1992) defined organisational flexibility as a multi-dimensional construct
incorporating agility, versatility, change, innovation, novelty, and robustness. The study
investigated organisational flexibility in 37 high-technology firms, focusing on flexibility in
organisational design. As a result, Bahrami proposed the ‘Bi-Model Organisation’ which is
inherently flexible as it is capable of accommodating opposing tendencies such as;
centralisation versus decentralisation, stability versus change, and uniformity versus diversity,
yet function as a coherent and cohesive organisation.
The third conceptualisation of flexibility is provided by Golden and Powell (2000) who
defined flexibility simply as the ‘capacity to adapt’ (p. 376). These authors also argue that this
capacity is multi-dimensional. Golden and Powell presented an extension of Evan’s (1991)
two-dimensional flexibility framework, also applying this model in an information technology
31
context. They proposed four areas in which flexibility can be achieved: temporal (length of
time to respond to change), range (adaptation responses), intention (offensively or defensively
responding to change), and focus (strategically looking out or in). Golden and Powell sought
to move beyond subjective and informal judgements of flexibility by presenting empirical
indicators of each of these four areas to encourage more rigorous measurement of flexibility.
Golden and Powell’s paper provided insights into the operationalisation of flexibility.
DeLeeuw and Volberda (1996) adopted a unique perspective on flexibility by exploring
organisational flexibility, proposing that the flexibility of an organisation is determined by the
amount and variety of managerial procedures and the extent to which an organisation can
control its environment. That is, they argued that flexibility is not only a management task (i.e.
flexible decision making), but includes the entire organisation (i.e. organisational design).
In addition to the above conceptualisations, a number of other studies have contributed
to the understanding of organisational flexibility. However, these studies adopted a narrower
focus than the above summative models of organisational flexibility by focusing on one
specific dimension or type of flexibility. For example, Miller (1997) noted that flexible
organisations strive to anticipate changes in the environment, and commit to moving, adapting
and changing as required by their environment. Reed and Blunsdon (1998, p. 459) suggested
flexibility is antithetical to high levels of formalised rules and regulations, and connotes the
capacity to respond purposively in the face of perceived changes in conditions. However, the
authors recognise this definition is vague and does not provide a good understanding of
flexibility. A complete review of these more limited definitions is not conducted here.
However, Appendix A outlines examples of the literature reviewed.
2.4 Commonalities
The above review has highlighted several characteristics of flexibility. Flexibility is a
situational construct (Bahrami, 1992; Evans, 1991; Golden & Powell, 2000), is
32
multidimensional (Bahrami, 1992; Evans, 1991; Golden & Powell, 2000), includes a defensive
aspect (Evans, 1991; Golden & Powell, 2000), means being both proactive and reactive
(Evans, 1991; Golden & Powell, 2000), and can be defined as encompassing the total
organisation, and not just the decisions of managers (DeLeeuw & Volberda, 1996). Although
previous studies contribute to the understanding of organisational flexibility, there are some
limitations to these approaches, which are discussed below.
First, there is inconsistency in how flexibility is defined which impedes our ability to
compare findings and draw conclusions. Example definitions include; preparing in advance for
some future transformation, and after the fact adjustments undertaken once episode has
occurred (Evan, 1991), the organisational ability to respond in a proactive or reactive manner
to market threats and opportunities (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001), and flexibility means to fit the
organisation more particularly for the existence under conditions of change environment
(Chakravarthy, 1982). Often the definitions that are used are vague, resulting in problems with
subsequent operationalisation.
Second, the first three summative papers, Evans (1991), Bahrami (1992), and Golden
and Powell (2000) provide a niche view of organisational flexibility by focusing on flexibility
in high information technology organisations (Bahrami, 1992; Evans, 1991), or the influence of
information technology on organisational flexibility (Golden & Powell, 2000). This focus
might potentially limit the generalisation of these conceptualisations to other areas.
The papers examined during the review of the organisational flexibility literature (see
Appendix A) contain similarities in their underlying approach to describing flexibility
characteristics. From this review, I have identified three key similarities in the characteristics
used to explain organisational flexibility, linking these characteristics to existing constructs,
namely that an organisation that is flexible has the ability to be proactive, adaptable, and
resilient. The first two aspects of flexibility, proactivity and adaptability, are concepts that are
often mentioned as fundamental features of change and flexibility. The concept of resilience
33
has more recently been incorporated in discussions of organisational flexibility. I use this
concept to describe an organisation’s ability to bounce back when negatively affected by
change. The next section explores these three aspects of flexibility in more detail by presenting
a framework of organisational flexibility.
2.5 A Framework of Organisational Flexibility
I argue that the key similarities that were derived from the literature review on
organisational flexibility map onto existing constructs in the general organisational literature.
In particular flexibility is associated with proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
In the following section, I will detail how each of these constructs was chosen to represent the
themes identified in the organisational flexibility literature. In addition, indicators of each of
these constructs are identified. Finally, how each of these indicators relates to organisational
performance outcomes is discussed.
2.5.0 Proactivity
A strong theme in the flexibility literature is the importance of proactivity for
anticipating and dealing with changes in competitive conditions and the environment
(Englehardt & Simmons, 2002; Golden & Powell, 2000; Krijnen, 1979; Volberda, 1998).
According to Golden and Powell (2000), proactive organisations plan a configuration of
alternatives for future action, therefore allowing themselves to accommodate both foreseen and
unforeseen circumstances. Englehardt and Simmons (2002) state that developing proactivity
entails the creation of flexible configurations of organisational capabilities and an emphasis on
maintaining a portfolio of alternative options for future events.
An organisation is proactive if it creates or controls a situation by taking the initiative
or by anticipating events, as opposed to simply responding to events (Ozomer, Calantone, &
Bonetto, 1997). Initiative includes actively scanning and monitoring the internal and external
environment for changes, patterns, and trends. From here, proactive organisations can plan a
34
configuration of alternatives for future action allowing them to accommodate a variety of
changes (Golden & Powell, 2000). Organisations that demonstrate proactivity are more
effective because they manage uncertain situations through vision, foresight, and proaction,
deal with environmental changes, or develop methods to influence the environment so that it
does not have to feel the impact of changes (Krijnen, 1979).
Miles and Snow (1978) discussed proactivity at the business strategy level. They
argued that organisations with prospector and analyser strategies are proactive as they take an
aggressive strategic posture, emphasising technological leadership, innovation, and
responsiveness to the environment (Bourgeois, 1985; Miles & Snow, 1989). As well as
dealing with competitive conditions, proactivity is important for managing uncertainty and
unforeseen changes. Weiss (2001) argues that flexibility is valuable only in a world of
uncertainty, where organisations have to anticipate new information or changing conditions.
Subsequently, this proactivity allows an organisation to anticipate change by means of
scanning and planning, and as a result the organisation can develop activities to influence the
environment so that the organisation does not have to adapt itself (Krijnen, 1979).
According to the flexibility literature, several organisational features can be indicators
of proactivity, including strategy, structure, and technology. Examples indicators of proactivity
include, initiating change in strategic policies rather than reacting to events (Aragon-Correa,
1998), surveying the external environment and undertaking external opportunity scanning
(Crant, 2000), actively seeking market opportunities and changing technologies (Grewal &
Tansuhaj, 2001), taking an active role towards its direction (as opposed to Miles and Snow’s
(1978) defender and reactor business strategy), structuring the organisation so that subgroups
can interact with different external groups (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969), and creating a culture
that encourages greater levels of knowledge sharing and planning (Child & McGrath, 2001).
Proactivity, as a component of flexibility, has been associated with various outcomes.
Proactivity assists organisations in dealing with the increasing demands from customers as it
35
decreases response times by anticipating and preparing (Hitt, et al., 1998). Hitt, et al. (1998) in
their theoretical investigation of strategic flexibility suggest that proactivity is positively
associated with bringing new or improved products and/or services to the markets to cope with
the large number of competitors and increasing emphasis on innovation in these markets (Hitt,
et al., 1998). In Miller and Friesen’s (1983) research on strategy making and the environment,
these authors found that increased environmental dynamism and intensity of competition
increases the need for proactivity to enhance innovativeness, the ability of an organisation to
introduce new or improved products, and production processes. Finally, flexible organisations
tend to focus on human capital, which includes being proactive in employee skill development
and the use of flexible employment techniques in response to employee and environmental
needs (Hitt, et al., 1998).
In summary, this review suggests proactivity is a component of flexibility that can
enable organisations that operate in uncertain and dynamic environments to address
environmental changes and opportunities by preparing and developing alternative scenarios for
future events. As a result, this aspect of flexibility is perhaps one of the most important abilities
that organisations must possess so as to deal with the changing business landscape (Hitt, et al.,
1998). As discussed, this component of flexibility has been associated with several
performance outcomes, including innovation, product and service quality, and innovative work
practices.
2.5.1 Adaptability
Another prominent aspect of flexibility identified in the review of organisational
flexibility is adaptability (DeLeeuw & Volberda, 1996; Golden & Powell, 2000; Hitt, et al.,
1998; Sanchez, 1997). Adaptability is an important aspect of flexibility because it allows
organisations to adapt and cope with both temporary unpredictable changes as well as the more
continuous dynamic adjustments to the environment (Mott, 1972). To adapt is to adjust
36
fittingly. Applied to the organisational setting, adaptability is the ability to tailor structures,
designs, and behaviours to fit the demands of a particular environment or situation (Ashford,
1986).
Ackoff (1977) proposed an organisational design to promote flexibility arguing that
without changing, organisations cannot adapt effectively to external changes. Miles and Snow
argued that organisations must constantly modify and refine the mechanism/s by which they
achieve their purposes “rearranging the roles and relationships plus their decision making and
control processes” (1978, p. 3).
As with the proactivity component of flexibility, adaptability definitions have a strong
focus on the environment. These definitions emphasise that to maintain and improve
performance, an organisation must continually adapt by modifying the organisational strategy,
structure, and processes to align with the environment (Lawrence & Dyer, 1983, cited in
Koberg, Chesley, & Heppart, 2000, p.259). Adaptability is directed towards the survival of an
organisation; it cannot continually perform and prosper unless it adapts to changing conditions.
An organisation that possesses the ability to adapt and change itself or the way in which it
behaves in the face of internal and external changes which were not predicted when the
organisation was designed, will have a greater likelihood of success (Tomlinson, 1976).
Several indicators of adaptability have been suggested. For example, changes in the
technologies and procedures used to produce or deliver products and services (Boynton &
Victor, 1991), the ability to do different things and apply different capabilities depending on
the needs of the situation (Bahrami, 1992), the ability to take on new values and norms
(Volberda, 1997), encouraging moderate to low levels of control within the organisation, and
openness to experimentation (Chakravarthy, 1982).
By being adaptable, an organisation is more likely to focus on accepting and exploiting
market opportunities (Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal, & Hunt, 1988) and trends in the environment. As
a consequence, the literature advocates that the greater this capacity to adapt and adjust to
37
change, the greater the organisation’s ability to serve their market, satisfy stakeholders and
customers (Fox-Wolfgramm, et al., 1988), strike a balance between creativity and productivity
(Chakravarthy, 1982), enhance financial viability, and overall, survive (Fox-Wolfgramm, et al.,
1988).
Adaptability is a component of flexibility that enables organisations to effectively and
efficiently respond to organisational and environmental changes. An adaptive organisation has
the ability to adapt structures, routines, and processes to respond to both temporary and
permanent changes, which has a positive effect on a number of financial and market outcomes.
2.5.2 Resilience
Although proactivity and adaptability have historically been associated with change and
effectiveness, the flexibility literature also recognises the importance of resilience. As a
component of flexibility, resilience is particularly important because it makes an organisation
less vulnerable to unforeseen change and puts it in a better position to respond successfully to
this change (Eppink, 1978). Additionally, due to recent world events which have created
heightened levels of uncertainty in the business environment, awareness of the concept of
resilience has greatly increased. Wilavshy (1988) advocates that resilience is an appropriate
strategy when the predictability of change is low and the amount of knowledge about what to
do is minimal.
DeLeeuw and Volberda (1996) also refer to resilience in their research on the dual
control perspective of flexibility. They define resilience to be a measure of the persistence of a
system and the ability to absorb change and disturbance but still maintain its same relationship
with other entities within its environment. In the context of strategic flexibility, Evans (1991)
refers to resilience as the tendency to rebound or recoil, show recuperative power, and the
capability to withstand shocks without permanent damage (Fiering, 1982; Grumm, 1976;
Grumm & Brietenecker, 1981; Holling, 1973). Mallak (1998) uses resilience to describe how
38
organisations cope with the pace of modern-day change and associated organisational stress,
Coutu (2000) refers to resilience as bouncing back from hardship, and Connor (1992) argues
that resilience skills are necessary not only for survival but also for prospering during major
organisational change.
These three themes: withstanding shocks, coping with stress, and bouncing back, were
consistent throughout the flexibility literature using the term resilience. As a result, my
research will use the definition of resilience as an ‘organisation’s ability to minimise
organisational strain and disturbance when reacting to change, and the ability to recover when
negatively effected by change.’ This definition is consistent with the findings of Worline,
Dutton, Frost, Kanov, and Maitlis’ (2002) empirical exploration the concept. The results of
their case study analysis revealed that organisational resilience is a characteristic of an
organisation that allows it to absorb strain, retain coherence, with minimal stress when reacting
to change (Worline, et al., 2002).
The resilience construct is expressed through a variety of indicators, with the most
frequently mentioned indicator being organisational slack. The aim of organisational slack is to
serve as a buffer between organisation and environmental discontinuities (Eppink, 1978).
Organisational slack can enhance an organisation's level of flexibility through building excess
and liquid resources, which should mitigate loss in the advent of a crisis (Grewal & Tansuhaj,
2001). Organisational slack can be developed in several aspects of the firm including, financial
slack, product slack, and human resource slack. Financial slack refers to financial resources in
excess of what is required to maintain the organisation (Ang & Straub, 1998). Product slack,
sometimes referred to as product redundancy, is the extent to which products and services exist
that are substitutable, such that they are capable of satisfying functional requirements in the
event of disruption, degradation or loss of functionality (Bruneau, Chang, Eguchi, Lee,
O’Rourke, Reinhorn, Shinozuka, Tierney, Wallace, & von Winterfelt, 2002). Finally, human
resources slack is commonly gained by implementing such strategies as numerical flexibility.
39
It is presumed that “peripheral workers (casuals, temporaries, part-timers) establish a buffer or
protect the regular, core labour force from fluctuations in demand” (Kalleberg, 2001, p. 484).
Resilience has been associated with organisational level outcomes such as maintaining
market share as resilient organisations have a buffer against unexpected increases in demand or
decrease in supplies, dealing successfully with labour market fluctuations as resilient firms
offer a variety of work contracts and conditions which help to alleviate the effect of
fluctuations (Hitt, et al., 1998), and resilient organisations are able to maintain production
levels during times of adversity and change (Worline, et al, 2002).
Resilience as a component of flexibility enables organisations to minimise stress and
maintain productivity when reacting to change, and the ability to overcome and bounce back
from crises and external shock. As a result, resilience as an organisational capability has been
associated with several outcomes, in particular, maintenance of current operations and markets
in the face of alterations to the environment.
2.6 Application of the Flexibility Framework
In collating the research on organisational flexibility, I identified three characteristics
that define organisational flexibility for the modern organisation, including proactivity,
adaptability, and resilience. The organisational flexibility literature associates at least one or
more of these components (proactivity, adaptability, resilience) with the flexibility construct,
and it is possible that all three of these components are equally important for an organisation
striving for flexibility.
Weiss (2001) was the first to raise the issue that different aspects of flexibility might
influence outcomes differently and also advocated that all components of flexibility are critical
for achieving success and survival. He defined flexibility as consisting of tactical flexibility
(adjusting output to external shocks) and operational flexibility (diversification of products and
switching capacity). His research flowed from Mills and Schumann (1985) who found that
40
firms with higher output variability would be considered more flexible, however Weiss’s
empirical findings revealed this is not necessarily the case when considering different
dimensions of flexibility. For example, the dimension of tactical flexibility might result in
outcomes such as maintaining market share and keeping up with demand. In contrast,
operational flexibility might result in higher levels of customer satisfaction and sales. Weiss
concluded that it is important to take account of the different dimensions of flexibility as well
as their interaction when investigating flexibility (2001).
In this thesis, I explore whether the components of flexibility vary in their relationship
with performance outcomes. Therefore, it is important to explore the relationships between all
three flexibility dimensions and a variety of organisational outcomes. It is also plausible that
the three dimensions of flexibility are not equally recognised in the practical management of
day to day operational activities within the organisation, strategic management, and
organisational change. For example, an organisation may place a lot of emphasis on reacting to
external events, but devote little time to proactive methods of anticipating change. Rarely, until
recently, did organisations consider strategies for dealing with adversity and crisis situations.
This distribution of attention may limit the overall flexibility of an organisation, even when
substantial resources are directed to the development of flexibility. A broader view of
flexibility for managers could involve enhancing the organisation’s ability to generate
alternative scenarios for future events, the ability to respond and adapt structures and processes
effectively to changes, and the ability of the organisation to withstand external shocks and
stress. By providing a systematic and comprehensive definition of flexibility, it is possible to
develop a practical guide to the broad spectrum of activities that support flexibility.
2.7 Summary of Flexibility Literature
To summarise, the organisational flexibility framework suggests that a flexible
organisation is proactive in engaging in the exploration of alternative decisions and scenarios,
41
is adaptable in terms of adjusting structures, routines, and processes to respond to change, and
is resilient in terms of minimising the stress when reacting to scenarios, recovering when
negatively effected by these scenarios, and growing and learning from the experience. This
definition of flexibility applies to the organisational level of analysis where a single
organisation is the unit of analysis. Potential indicators of each flexibility component can be
identified. Indicators of proactivity would include a strategy that involves external scanning
(Volberda, 1998), and also the structure to support this (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969). Indicators
of adaptability would include an organisational structure that can be manipulated
(Chakravarthy, 1982), and also organisational technology that can be modified and tailored to
the current environment (Volberda, 1997, 1999). Indicators of resilience would include having
financial slack to cope with crises (Eppink, 1978), and also durable communication processes
to pull through threatening situations (Anderson, 1994).
2.8 Developing Theoretical Propositions
The purpose of this section is to explore the relationships between organisational
flexibility, organisational performance, and key contextual variables including internal
organisational design and characteristics of the external environment. From this review, an
exploratory research model is developed with key research questions about performance,
design, and the environment. This model is displayed in Figure 2. 0 with research questions
labeled 1 to 7. This section will detail how these research questions were derived from the
literature.
42
5
Organisational Flexibility
[proactivity, adaptability, resilience]
External Environment changes
Organisational Structure
Organisational Performance 1
2
Organisational Control
4
3
67
Figure 2.0
Organisational Flexibility Exploratory Research Model
2.8.0 Organisational Flexibility and Performance
The organisational flexibility literature makes several claims about the impact of
flexibility on organisational performance. However, theoretical explorations and empirical
research on possible relationships between these constructs are limited. Reasons for this
limitation include the problems with the inconsistency and vagueness of flexibility definitions
and the associated difficulty with operationalisation of this construct. There are also well
known issues associated with defining and measuring organisational performance (Kanter,
1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Lin & Carley, 1997; Scott, 1977; Tomaskovic-Devey, 2003).
Despite these challenges, there are three studies that have examined the flexibility-
environment-performance relationship. First, Grewal and Tansuhaj’s (2001) study examined
flexibility in relation to performance during periods of economic crisis. These authors
suggested that flexibility increases organisational effectiveness because it promotes improved
communication, planning, and strategising. Coupled with an adapted product offering, these
factors should enhance firm performance (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001; Miles & Snow, 1978).
Flexibility was operationalised as the availability of excess resources, such as sharing
investments across business activities (i.e. resilience), the organisation’s ability to respond
43
effectively to disparate situations (i.e. adaptability), and the organisation’s emphasis on
managing macro environmental risk (i.e. proactivity). Performance was measured by assessing
the satisfaction levels of middle managers and MBA students with respect to meeting various
goals, such as sales, profit, and growth. Their results showed organisational flexibility is useful
when organisations must navigate themselves out of a crisis, is invaluable when managing
chaos, and is useful for organisations managing environments with high competitive intensity
(Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001).
Second, Volberda (1998) presented a measurement system called the ‘Flexibility,
Audit, and Redesign (FAR) method’ to investigate performance improvements in three large
organisations. The FAR method measures flexibility by concentrating on numerous aspects of
the organisation, such as the external environment, inputs, suppliers, customers, technologies,
processes, and structures. Using the resulting flexibility profile of each organisation and
various indicators of performance, Volberda demonstrated the importance of flexibility for
each organisation. Within the first organisation, he found that their level of flexibility enabled
the organisation to respond to increasing environmental dynamism, which resulted from less
routine technology, a less mechanistic organisational form, and output slack. In the second
organisation, Volberda showed that increased flexibility resulted in organisational
improvements such as the ability to move more effectively to respond to unpredictability, a
more innovative culture, more satisfied employees, and increased organisational
communication. Finally, with an enhanced level of flexibility, the third organisation was able
to more effectively deal with the changing environment, which was characterised by
unpredictability, technological developments, and new priorities of internal customers.
Third, Lund (1998) sought to understand flexible traits and their meaning for
effectiveness. Lund operationalises flexibility as manifested in internal dimensions of structure,
culture, processes, and external dimensions of technology and product market innovation.
Effectiveness was defined as ‘the degree to which organisational goals were realised’ (Daft,
44
1983, p. 92) and the criteria relating to firms producing a larger output with the same amount
of resources, or the same output with less resources (Lund, 1998, p. 21). Lund interviewed the
management and employees of an organisation that had been identified in a previous study as
‘highly flexible.’ His results showed that the flexibility of the above organisational
characteristics combined, are linked to the fulfilment of customer expectations, integration of
new technology, the same output with less resources, multiskilling, and product innovation.
All three of these studies addressed the importance of flexibility for performance in
competitive and unpredictable environments and each paper contributes uniquely to the
development of theoretical propositions. Grewal and Tansuhaj (2001) define flexibility as an
organisation’s ability to manage economic and political risks by promptly responding in a
proactive or reactive manner to market threats or opportunities. This definition touches upon
the three dimensions of flexibility that have been identified from the literature (proactivity,
adaptability, and resilience). Grewal and Tansuhaj operationalised flexibility accordingly with
items measuring these three dimensions. Their empirical findings showed flexibility helped
firms manage chaos and challenges in the economy and that flexibility is related to successful
performance in highly competitive environments.
Additionally, Volberda’s (1999) FAR method covered all aspects of the organisation in
describing flexibility. Interviews conducted with managers as part of Volberda study revealed
the output of the FAR method provides managers with a complete picture of their
organisation’s level of flexibility, as well as clear recommendations for flexibility
improvement. The purpose of the FAR method was to generate a diagnosis and description of
actual flexibility and specify areas of attention for improving flexibility (Volberda, 1998). The
FAR method is yet to be used as a method of measuring flexibility in predictive studies,
however, it provides an insight into areas of the organisation that can help or hinder flexibility.
Lund’s (1998) empirical research was aimed at understanding flexibility traits and their
meaning for effectiveness. Lund defined organisational flexibility as the ability of firms to
45
react upon a turbulent environment with new products and new technological processes and his
operationalisation of flexibility was focused on how characteristics of flexibility are manifested
in elements of the organisation, rather than defining what the concept means and how to
operationalise this meaning. However, this paper provided evidence of the relationship
between flexibility characteristics and effectiveness.
Although definitions and operationalisations of flexibility and performance in these
studies are not consistent, making it difficult to compare findings, all three empirical papers
established the benefits of flexibility for organisational outcomes, as well as addressing the
importance of considering the external environment when developing flexibility. By applying
the proposed flexibility framework, it will be possible to incorporate the contributions of these
three empirical studies (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001, Lund, 1998; Volberda, 1998) and overcome
some of their limitations to provide a systematic definitional framework for conceptualising
flexibility, allowing the development of scales to operationalise the concept.
From the above review, directions for exploratory research were identified. Firstly, the
literature advocates that organisational flexibility is related to organisational performance
(Lund, 1998; Miles & Snow, 1978; Volberda, 1998), therefore, I propose:
Research Question 1: Does organisational flexibility impact upon organisational
performance outcomes.
Second, the review identified that some authors have claimed that organisational flexibility is
valuable in changing environments (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001), therefore the second research
question is,
Research Question 2: Is environmental change related to organisational flexibility
The third research question seeks to explore the potential moderating effect of the environment
on the flexibility-performance relationship in light of Weiss (2001) who advocates that
flexibility is only valuable in environments of uncertainty.
46
Research Question 3: Does environmental change moderate the relationship between
flexibility and organisational performance outcomes.
2.8.1 Organisational Flexibility and Internal Organisational Characteristics
Several authors have claimed that internal organisational characteristics can enhance or
hinder an organisation’s ability to develop flexibility (Chakravarthy, 1982; Fox-Wolfgramm, et
al., 1988; Reed & Blunsdon, 1998; Volberda, 1997, 1999). Volberda (1997) argues, if
management tries to increase the organisational flexibility repertoire beyond the limits of the
organisational conditions, the controllability of the organisation will diminish. Additionally, in
Chakravarthy’s (1982) exploration of adaptability and organisational structure, he concluded
that organic organisations have a greater leeway for adaptability than organisations that are
more mechanistic in structure. This leeway for flexibility comes from the design of the internal
organisation, whether it is the structure, human resource practices, labour distribution, or
technology.
Volberda (1997, 1999) also considered structure, but adds other design characteristics
of technology and culture in his investigation of the proactivity component of flexibility. He
argues that there are a range of information systems and manufacturing technologies that are
impacted according to the degree of flexibility. For example, an organisation that is future
orientated and plans alternative scenarios requires an information system that has the ability to
record and store the data, to allow for the production of reports and statistics for proactive
planning. Other investigations of flexibility and structure have suggested that organic
structures have a greater tolerance of strategic flexibility (Fox-Wolfgramm, et al., 1988;
Volberda, 1997, 1999), and similarly, innovative cultures are more accepting of strategic
flexibility (Volberda, 1997, 1999).
Anderson (1994) investigated the impact of organisational resilience on the
effectiveness and efficiency of American inner-city public schools. From this study, he
47
determined that there are a number of internal organisational characteristics1 that are associated
with resilience and these organisations are considered healthy and are most likely to survive
external disturbances and avoid persistent incompetence. Furthermore, Worline, et al. (2000) in
their investigation of organisational resilience, suggested that resilience is related to structural
and processual characteristics of the firm that allow the organisation to absorb strain and retain
control.
Structure and control processes are the two most cited organisational characteristics that
have the potential to hinder or encourage organisational flexibility (Chow, 1998; Dastmalchian
& Blyton, 1998; Krijnen, 1979; Ng & Dastmalchian, 1998; Reed & Blunsdon, 1998; Volberda,
1996). Dastmalchian and Blyton (1998) note that traditionally, formalisation of structures and
procedures governing organisational actions have been interpreted as creating inflexibility,
evident in the rigidity and inflexibility typically associated with bureaucratic structures (Pugh
& Hickson, 1976, in Dastmalchian & Byton, 1998). Characteristics of bureaucracies, such as
narrowly defined job descriptions and overt control, tend to limit the creativity, flexibility, and
the rapid response needed in today’s knowledge based organisations. Bureaucratic
organisational designs function better with well-understood problems and situations, and tend
not to cope well with changing environments (Daft, 2001).
Similarly, during times of complexity and high uncertainty, the most effective structure
is one that loosens the lines of command and enables people to work across departmental and
hierarchical lines to anticipate, avoid, and solve unpredicted problems (Daft, 2001). It has been
argued that organisational flexibility is diametrically opposed to high levels of formalised rules
and procedures, because if conditions in the organisation change, formal regulations can
constrain the capacity to organise work in ways that are appropriate to the new conditions
(Reed & Blunsdon, 1998). Consequently, for organisational flexibility to flourish, and
1 1) recognise and actively structure and restructure themselves to support proper and consistent articulations of a mission, b) support the optimal development of shared decision making, c) build trust, d) encourage openness, and e) are tireless in their efforts to support the growth of individual and collective competence.
48
performance outcomes to be gained, organisations are likely to be characterised by low levels
of formal regulation. Indeed Reed and Blunsdon (1998) found that flexible organisations tend
not to use formal means of communication.
Further on organisational structure and control, a flexible organisation has to remain in
a controllable form. Without this there is the very real potential for chaos and disorder. Weick
(1982) concluded that total flexibility makes it impossible for an organisation to retain a sense
of identity and continuity, flexibility without stability equals chaos. This is similar to
Tetenbaum’s (1998) approach to dealing with complex and unpredictable environments. He
suggested that an organisation should undertake enough process and product innovation to
keep it competitive, yet enough stability to maintain efficiency and prevent it from dissolving
into disarray.
Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine (1999) investigated the flexibility versus efficiency
question stating that ‘much organisation theory argues that efficiency requires flexibility, and
that organisations therefore confront a tradeoff between efficiency and flexibility.’ They used a
case study approach to demonstrate through various organisational mechanisms and managing
contextual factors, an organisation can achieve well above average industry performance in
both efficiency and flexibility. The flexibility/stability paradox is incorporated in the
exploratory research model of this study, as the model recognises the importance of being
supple (adaptability) but also recognises the importance of hardiness and control (resilience).
As such, flexibility is an organisation’s ability to balance dialectical forces like facilitating
scenario planning, adaptability, speed, and decision-making capabilities, whilst instilling co-
ordination, focus and control, and the staying power to withstand periods of adversity and
crisis (Bahrami, 1992).
The above review of internal organisational characteristics revealed that structure and
control have the potential to encourage or hinder flexibility, and therefore, alter the relationship
between flexibility and performance. As such, the following research questions are proposed.
49
Research Question 4: Is organisational structure related to organisational flexibility
Research Question 5: Is organisational control related to organisational flexibility
Research Question 6: Does organisational structure moderate the relationship between
flexibility and organisational performance outcomes.
Research Question 7: Does organisational control moderate the relationship between
flexibility and organisational performance outcomes.
2.9 Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to explore the existing literature on organisational
flexibility. The review of this literature exposed a number of commonalities across definitions
and descriptions of flexibility. In particular, flexibility is a multi-dimensional construct, a
flexible organisation engages in the exploration of alternative decisions and scenarios, is able
to adjust structures, routines, and processes in response to change, and is able to minimise the
stress when recovering from change and/or adversity. These descriptions map onto three
existing concepts in the organisational development literature which allowed organisational
flexibility to be defined as involving proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. Further, emerging
from the literature was that although all three components are important for flexibility,
different combinations of these components will be needed for success in different situations.
The interaction between flexibility and environmental characteristics was also
discussed. The literature suggests that flexibility is important for organisations facing uncertain
and/or dynamic environments. In addition, the design of the internal organisation may interact
with flexibility to impact on organisational outcomes. Finally, an exploratory research model
was proposed for empirical examination.
50
CHAPTER 3 Study 1
Organisational Flexibility
3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, I empirically explore organisational flexibility and its relationship with
organisational level outcomes, internal organisational characteristics, and the external
environment. The chapter begins with an overview of the research questions under
investigation. This is followed by an outline of the research design and methodology used in
this research. The sampling method, sample characteristics, and distribution strategies are then
discussed. This chapter finishes with a discussion of the findings, emphasising the theoretical
and practical contributions of the study, and outlining research limitations.
3.1 Research Questions
Chapter 2 proposed a framework by which to consider organisational flexibility. It was
proposed that flexibility consists of multiple dimensions including, proactivity, adaptability,
and resilience and that these components enhance organisational performance and are
potentially influenced by organisational and environmental factors. Research Question 1 seeks
to explore the relationship between proactivity, adaptability, and resilience and organisational
performance outcomes. Question 2 addresses the relationship between flexibility and change in
the external environment. Research Questions 4 and 5 address the relationship between each of
these components and the organisational design variables of structure and control. Research
questions were also proposed to examine the moderating role of each of these contextual
variables on the relationship between organisational flexibility and organisational performance.
These form Research Question 3 (environmental changes), 6 (structure), and 7 (control).
51
3.2 Methodology
3.2.0 Research Design
This study is an exploratory study designed to learn more about the construct of
organisational flexibility and the relationships between these flexibility components,
environmental considerations, contextual considerations, and performance outcomes. In
addition, this study is designed to identify questions for future research (Neuman, 2003, p. 29).
Secondary data was collected as part of the 2001-2002 Australian National Organisations
Survey (AusNOS) and was used to test the research questions. Appendix B lists the advantages
and considerations of using secondary data, and how the advantages were capitalised and the
considerations were addressed.
3.2.1 Australian National Survey of Organisations
The main goals of the AusNOS survey were to describe corporate Australia and to
explain the conditions for enterprise development within Australia. The survey also examined a
number of ‘hot’ topics for Australian businesses. AusNos studies a diverse population of
organisations and puts very minimal limits on type, geography (within Australia), size (larger
than 1 employee), or other dimensions. Therefore, the target population for the AusNOS
survey was all Australian workplaces with more than one employee, and included
organisations in all sectors (non-profit, profit, government), industries (as categorised by the
Australian and New Zealand Industry Classification, ANZIC), and size categories.
This design is known as ‘unrestricted diverse organisation surveys’ as opposed to
restricted or single type (Kalleberg, Knoke, Marsden, & Spaeth, 1996) and permits
investigators to observe the full range of variations in structures and processes within the
Australian economy. The AusNOS data has been used to provide Australian business
managers, government policy and decision makers, and the public with snap shots of
Australian business and the economy. Several papers have been written using this data on a
52
variety of topics and units of analysis including socially embedded labour processes
(Tomaskovic-Devey, Zimmer, & Harding, 2003b), market characteristics (Tomaskovic-Devey,
Zimmer, & Harding, 2003) and casualisation (Jones & Harding, 2003).
3.2.2 Sampling Frame
To gather a sample of Australian organisations, AusNOS used Hypernetwork sampling.
Hypernetwork sampling results in a probability-proportional to size sample of organisations by
working from a probability sample of individuals, obtaining names of the organisations that
employ them (Kalleberg, Marsden, Aldrich, & Cassell, 1990). The primary strength of
hypernetwork sampling for workplaces is its ability to create a sampling frame in the absence
of a complete list of organisations (Tomaskovic-Devey, et al., 2003). Also, hypernetwork
sampling is based on obtaining information from individual households, in theory all
workplaces are at risk (proportional to employee size) to fall into the network sample
(Tomaskovic-Devey, et al., 2003).
The first phase on hypernetwork sampling involved generating a list of organisations
from the 2000 Australian National Social Science Survey (NSSS) where individuals provided
details of their work organisation. This stage generated a list of 1405 Australian workplaces.
After a comparison with Australian Telephone and Business directories, the list of 1405
workplaces decreased to 1058 due to businesses closing and organisations listed multiple
times.
3.2.3 Data Collection
Prior to phoning chief decision makers to conduct the telephone interview, an
introductory letter was sent to the top decision maker in the organisation, as a form of initial
contact, to inform them of the survey purpose and format. In larger organisations some of the
questions were delegated to functional specialists within the organisation (Tomaskovic-Devey,
53
et al., 2003). Initial contact was made with the target respondent in each organisation to set up
a meeting at a later date.
Interviews were conducted by telephone over 2001-2002 and contained 434 questions
addressing the organisation’s products, suppliers, consumers, competition, organisational
resources, and where appropriate, internal procedures, goals, structures, and job features
(Tomaskovic-Devey, et al., 2003). Interviews were conducted using Computer-Assisted
Interviewing (CATI), suiting the sampling technique as this method of collection is best suited
when respondents are spread over a wide geographic area (Sekaran, 1992). There are several
other important benefits of using telephone interviewing. Costs are substantially less than face
to face, a smaller number of interviewees is required, which in turn helps to improve data
quality (consistency and skill), monitoring of interviews can take place during the interview,
correction of interviewee problems is instantaneous, and identification and replacement of
ineffective interviewers is faster and more effective (Kalleberg, et al., 1996). The telephone
survey took, on average, 47 minutes to complete.
There exists strong theoretical rationale supporting the choice of collecting subjective
data from chief decision makers in organisations (Spanos & Lioukas, 1991). It is often argued
that managers’ perceptions shape the firm’s behaviour and these perceptions are more critical
to strategy making and organisational performance than some distant objective indicators
(Chattopadhyay, Glick, Miller, & Huber 1999; Hambrick & Snow, 1977; Snow, 1976; Spanos
& Lioukas, 1991).
3.2.4 Responses
The final sample consisted of 607 organisations (a response rate of 57.3%).
Characteristics of the final sample of AusNos workplaces are described in Table 3.0. All three
sectors, profit, non-profit, and government were represented in the sample, the average age of
54
the organisations was 43 years old with the youngest being 3 years old, the oldest was 203
years old, and the average size of the organisations was 395 employees.
Table 3.0
Characteristics of the Sample
Frequency (n) Frequency (%) Category n = 607 n = 607
Sector Non-Profit organisations 89 14.7 Profit organisations 303 49.9 Government organisations 215 35.4
Organisation Size <10 107 17.6 10 – 49 174 28.7 50 – 499 251 41.4 500+ 75 12.4
Organisation Age Up to 5 years 27 4.4 6 to 10 years 90 14.8 11 to 25 years 161 26.5 26 to 40 years 94 15.5 41 to 70 years 107 17.6 More than 70 years 128 21.1
3.2.5 Representativeness of the Sample
It is important to compare organisations who participated in the AusNOS survey with
those who did not. This proved challenging due to the difficulty of finding an up-to-date,
accurate database to enable the comparison of organisational characteristics. However, it was
possible to compare industry characteristics of the AusNOS sample to industry distribution
statistics obtained from the 2001 Australian Census. This comparison revealed that, in general,
the distributions are quite similar. Table 3.1 shows the sampling of AusNOS relative to the
Census data. In general, AusNOS over sampled industries with large workplace sizes and
under sampled industries with many small workplaces (Tomaskovic-Devey, 2003). This is
consistent with previous organisational research which has shown that the hypernetwork
55
sampling frame has most difficulty in identifying very small establishments and least difficulty
in finding larges ones (Tomaskovic-Devey, Leiter, & Thompson, 1994).
Table 3.1
Sampling of AusNOS comparative to 2001 Australian Census Data
Industry AusNos % Census%
Agriculture, and Fishing 1.6 4.0
Mining .7 .9
Manufacturing 10.0 12.4
Electricity, Gas, Water .8 .7
Construction 2.5 6.8
Wholesale Trade 5.4 5.4
Retail Trade 8.9 14.9
Accommodation, Cafes & Restaurants 3.6 5.0
Transport & Storage 3.0 4.3
Communication Services 2.6 1.8
Finance & Insurance 4.6 3.8
Property & Business services 8.1 11.3
Gov Administration & Defence 10.9 4.6
Education 12.9 7.3
Health and Community Services 17.1 9.9
Cultural and Recreational Services 3.1 2.5
Personal and Other Services 4 3.7
(Source: AusNos Data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census 2001)
Over-sampled Under-sampled
The sample of 607 organisations was reduced using particular parameters. First, it was
necessary to remove organisations from the sample that were government or non-profit
organisations. These sectors were not included as the purpose of the research was to determine
the impact of the external environment on an organisation. For government and non-profit
organisations, the external environment is usually relatively stable. Also, performance
indicators of interest include profitability, market share, and revenue improvements, and these
are not appropriate outcome measures for non-profit and government organisations. As a
56
result, the literature that was reviewed and the research questions developed relate specifically
to organisations in the private sector. In addition, only organisations employing at least twenty
employees were considered in the sample in order to ensure a minimum operating structure of
each firm (Spanos & Lioukas, 2001). Finally, some measures were asked in a longitudinal
sense as they referred to changes over the past two years. As a result, only organisations that
have been in operation for at least 3 years were included (Galbreath & Galvin, 2004). The final
sample size was 209 out of the original sample of 607 organisations.
3.2.6 Measures
Secondary data was used to explore the research questions and as instrument design
was controlled by the AusNOS researchers, the questions were not designed specifically to
generate data on flexibility. However, due to the coverage of the 434 survey questions, the data
was more than adequate to tap into a number of organisational flexibility indicators and this
study’s research questions. Initially, the AusNOS questionnaire items were examined by
keeping in mind the organisational flexibility characteristics identified from the literature
review and the proposed organisational flexibility framework. Volberda (1998) and Grewal
and Tansuhaj (2001) offer an extensive list of indicators of organisational flexibility, which
were used to examine the suitability of the AusNOS items as a test of the flexibility
framework.
A comprehensive evaluation of each item in the AusNOS survey was conducted in
order to assess its validity as a measure of organisational flexibility. Below, the six items
determined as the most suitable measures for the three flexibility components, are discussed. In
addition, the items that were used to represent the internal and external organisational context,
items that were used as control variables, and the measures of organisational outcomes are
described.
57
3.2.6.0 Flexibility Variables
Table 3.2 displays descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the items used to
measure flexibility variables. This table is referred to in the discussion of the measures below.
Table 3.2
Flexibility Measures: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables Mean S.D. P1 P2 A1 A2 R1 R2 Proactivity 1 (External) 5.16 2.69 - Proactivity 2 (Internal) 4.84 1.61 .21** - Adaptability 1 (responsive environment) .31 .33 .21** .01 - Adaptability 2 (adapting products/services) .31 .42 .38** .17* .53** - Resilience 1 (Labour) 1.88 .35 .29** .16* -.04 .14* - Resilience 1 (Financial) .65 .31 .08 .10 .16* .16* .07 -
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
Proactivity. Two questions were chosen from the survey to assess the proactive ability
of organisations. The first questions measured external information seeking was chosen. This
item was chosen as surveying the external environment and undertaking external opportunity
scanning is an important indicator of proactivity (Crant, 2000). Additionally, product/service
and process change requires the continuous search for, and discovery of, new products and new
process solutions. External information scanning was measured by asking respondents the
question, “in the past two years has your organisation actively consulted outside sources for
information about….” nine different activities. These activities included technology, product
and service development, government relations, marketing, new market opportunities, research
and development, training, finance, and product and service delivery. Respondents answered
yes or no accordingly. The external information seeking variable was created by using the
mean response for each respondent over the nine categories of information seeking. This
resulted in a mean of 5.16 (sd = 2.69).
58
The second question used to measure proactivity is internal information seeking or the
extent to which information is shared between departments and groups within the organisation.
Similar to external information seeking, this is an important indicator of proactivity as
formalised small group forums that focus and deliberate on core activities facilitate greater
levels of knowledge sharing and planning and, as a result, are more responsive to market
requirements and better able to adapt to external changes (Child & McGrath, 2001). Internal
information seeking was measured by four items asking respondents about the existence of
established forums made up of employees and managers set up to deal with and share
knowledge on several core activities such as; implementation of new technology, quality
control, other problems in product/service delivery, health and safety and work place
conditions. A variable was created for internal information seeking by using the mean response
for each respondent over the four categories of information seeking. This process resulted in a
mean of 4.84 (sd = 1.61).
External and internal information seeking were correlated at r = .21 (p < .01).
Adaptability. In this study, adaptability was assessed by two questions, responsiveness
to the environment, and adapting products/services and processes. The first question,
responsiveness, was an appropriate indicator of an organisation’s level of adaptability as
adaptable organisations must be able to change in response to the environment if they are to
address and resolve the problems that the environment presents (Jankowicz, 2000).
To measure responsiveness to the environment, respondents were asked “in response to
the environment, in the past two years, has your organisation (a) started producing any new
products or services, (b) discontinued any products or services, (c) outsourced the production
of any goods or services.” Participants responded yes or no accordingly (1 = yes, 2 = no). A
responsiveness variable was created for each participant using their mean response over the
three items. The overall mean of responsiveness was .32 (sd = 33).
59
Second, adapting products/services and processes is an important indicator of
adaptability as it provides a measure of the extent that organisations change their product and
service range, production methods, delivery methods, and task organisation, to match market
demands. Product and service demands placed upon organisations have changed in dramatic
ways, product life cycles are shorter, demand for product choice and customisation is swelling,
and pressures for globalisation and innovation are overwhelming, so an organisation’s need to
respond to these changes is greater than ever before (Boynton & Victor, 1991). This is true for
organisations in all industries. For example, even organisations with stable demands, such as
hospitals, require systems and structures that facilitate long-term organisational learning about
products, but at the same time they must achieve rapid and radical changes in the processes
employed to meet these stable product demands (Boynton & Victor, 1991).
Adapting products/services and processes was measured by asking respondents about
research and development within the organisation. Respondents were asked whether research
and development had resulted in (a) new products and services, (b) better products and
services, (c) changed work methods, (d) more efficient product and service delivery, and (e)
more efficient task organisation. Respondents answered yes or no accordingly (1 = yes, 0 =
no). Those respondents that reported in a lead up question that they do not do any kind of
research and development received a zero for these questions. The variable was calculated by
obtaining the mean of the responses for the four items, which resulted in a mean for adapting
products/services and processes of .31.
The two indicators of adaptability, responsiveness and adapting of products/services
and processes were highly related and were correlated at [r = .53, p < .001)].
Resilience. Excess organisational resources or organisational slack is commonly used
as an indicator of organisational resilience, as it allows organisations to withstand shocks and
more effectively bounce back from adversity (Evans, 1991). In this study, resilience was
measured by two indicators, financial resilience and labour resilience.
60
The first indicator, financial resilience, refers to the level of financial resources an
organisation needs to mitigate loss in the advent of a crisis or change (Grewal & Tansuhaj,
2001). Financial resilience was measured by asking respondents two questions. First, the
question was asked, “if their organisation had a short-term emergency, such as a freak storm
that closed down their business for a month, would they have the cash reserves to continue,
would they claim insurance, take out a loan, go out of business, or have cash but claim
insurance anyway”. The responses were recoded into a dichotomous variable, with the scale 1
‘would have the cash’ (have the cash, and have the cash but would claim insurance’) and 0
‘would not have the cash’ (claim insurance, take out a loan, or go out of business).
The second question used to measure financial resilience asked respondents, “If your
organisation was thinking about making a big change in its organisational activities and could
expect to lose money/be over budget for a few months with a gradual move to higher profits
after that, do you think that your organisation could afford to make that big change?” This
variable was measured on a scale of 1 ‘could afford’ and 0 ‘couldn’t afford.’ A financial
resilience variable was calculated by using the mean response for each respondent for the two
questions. The overall mean for financial resilience is .91 (sd = .29).
The second indicator of resilience is labour resilience, which describes the ability of an
organisation to minimise stress, maintain production, and/or recover in the event of a labour
shortage or a tightening labour market. This measure is related to the characteristics of the
core/s job within an organisation. AusNOS defined core job as ‘the job title for employees who
are most directly involved with the most important product or service within the organisation.’
The more the core job qualification is based on formal education, experience, social class, and
skills, the less likely the organisation has the ability to find qualified employees in the event of
a labour shortage. The less core job recruitment depends upon these characteristics, the more
labour resilient an organisation is.
61
Labour resilience is similar to ‘redundancy,’ as discussed by Molleman and Slomp
(1999) in their model of functional flexibility and team performance, which is developed to
enable coping with the variation in the supply and demand of labour. To measure labour
resilience, respondents were asked the importance of eight characteristics of the core job in
determining the core job’s rate of pay. These characteristics included, union negotiations, skills
acquired within the organisation, routines, experience elsewhere, social connections, job
performance, formal education, and work difficulty. Responses were on a scale of 1 ‘not
important’ to 3 ‘very important.’ The labour resilience variable was calculated for each
respondent by using their mean responses to the eight characteristics. The resulting variable
was then recoded, so that higher scores represent high levels of labour resilience (i.e. less of the
characteristics are important for the core job) and low scores indicate low levels of labour
resilience (i.e. more of the characteristics are important for the core job). The overall mean for
labour resilience was 1.88 (sd = .35), indicating a low level of labour resilience in this sample.
The correlation between financial resilience and labour resilience is (r = .07, n.s). It was
not expected that these two variables would be correlated as they are measuring two very
different types of resilience.
3.2.6.1 Validity Issues for flexibility indicators
When using secondary data, validity is a critical issue to address, as research design and
measures were not specifically designed for the purpose of this study. Due to the exploratory
nature of this investigation it is important to examine the validity of the flexibility instrument.
Content validity of the flexibility items was examined and in particular, face validity was of
interest. Content validity ensures that the measure includes an adequate and representative set
of items that would tap the construct of interest. Face validity indicates that the items that are
supposed to measure a concept do, on the face of it, look like they are measuring the concepts
(Sekaran, 1992).
62
One way to test face validity is for the items to be evaluated by expert judges or raters.
This method was used to test face validity and this process also acts as a cross-validation to
ensure that the items represent the three flexibility components identified in the literature
review. The criteria for experts in this case were individuals known to have in-depth
knowledge of organisational concepts, organisational theory, and strategic management, as
well as individuals with a significant amount of experience in senior positions within
organisations. Thirteen expert coders were forwarded a document that provided them with the
definitions of each flexibility component and the list of flexibility items. Raters included eight
academics and five business professionals. Each rater was provided with instructions that
informed them that each question related to one of the three flexibility components and they
were asked to match the question with the flexibility component they think it best measured. A
copy of this document is attached in Appendix C.
The cross validation exercise revealed that 95 percent of respondents matched the
flexibility dimension with the correct item (74/78 matches). The percentage of matches was
relatively consistent between academics and practitioners. Table 3.3 shows the percentage of
items matched for academics versus practitioners. The findings of this face validity exercise,
provides confidence that these questions are adequate indicators of the components they seek
to measure. The point of the expert rater activity was to establish the face validity of the chosen
items. By asking a select group of academics and practitioners to match the flexibility item
with the appropriate flexibility component and finding 95% correct matches, establishes a
reasonable level of face validity that the items are tapping the correct constructs.
Table 3.3 Test for Face Validity of Organisational Flexibility Items
Question and Answer Number matched Academics Practitioners
When faced with a crisis, your organisation is able to pull through without going out of business, taking out a loan, or claiming insurance RESILIENCE
13/13 8/8 5/5
63
Your organisation actively consults outside sources for information about different activities; such as technology, product & service development, government relations, marketing, new market opportunities, research & development, training, finance, and product and service delivery PROACTIVITY
12/13 7/8 5/5
In the past two years, in response to the environment, your organisation has started producing new products or services, discontinued some products or services, and outsourced the production of some goods or services ADAPTABILITY
13/13 8/8 5/5
Your organisation has forums of employees and managers set up to deal with and share knowledge on several core activities such as; implementation of new technology, quality control other problems in product/service delivery, and health and safety and work conditions. PROACTIVITY
12/13 7/8 5/5
Your organisation is thinking about making a big change in its organisational activities and could expect to lose money for a few months with a gradual move to higher profits after that, do you think that your organisation could afford to make that big change RESILIENCE
12/13 8/8 4/5
Over the past two years, your organisation has made developments or modifications in the following areas; new products/services, better products and services, changed work methods, more efficient product/service delivery, and more efficient task organisation ADAPTABILITY
12/13 7/8 5/5
3.2.6.2 Performance Outcomes
Consistent with prior organisational level research, where it is preferable to measure
outcomes as opposed to performance (which tend to be sector or industry specific), seven non-
industry specific outcomes were examined. Additionally, it was anticipated that due to the
diversity of the organisations involved in the study, it would be difficult to extract adequate
and objective financial data. Further, respondents were ensured anonymity, so this also
precluded the collection of such data from secondary sources.
Outcomes were measured using quasi-longitudinal scales (questions are phrased to
examine changes in a variable over a specified time period) (Tomlinson, 1976) and the
measures fit with Spanos and Lioukas’ (2001) classification of internal and external outcomes.
Respondents were asked to rate improvements in performance on internal (improvements in
64
product and service quality, developmental processes, employee retention, and profitability)
and external (improvements in customer satisfaction, market share, and sales) outcomes over
the past two years. The scale used was a 5-point Likert scale where 1 was ‘much worse’ and 5
was ‘much better’. Each performance indicator had a mean above 3.5 with a standard deviation
of one or less. All performance indicators were highly correlated, see Table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Performance Outcomes: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables Mean S.D. P&S Qual
DevelopProcess
Cust. Sat
Emp. Retention
Market Share Profit Sales
Product and Service Quality 4.22 .77 -
Developmental Processes 3.94 .79 .57** -
Employee Retention 3.66 .92 .36** .38** -
Customer Satisfaction 3.78 .79 .53** .43** .42** -
Market Share 3.72 .86 .37** .39** .25** .40** -
Profitability 3.75 1.05 .36** .27** .17* .31** .48** -
Sales 3.83 1.00 .33** .29** .16* .34** .55** .62** -
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
3.2.6.3 Controls
Due to the widely recognised relationship between organisational size and key
attributes of a firm (Horwitz, Brosnan, & Walsh, 2000), organisational size was controlled for
in analyses. Size is one of the most frequently studied contextual variables used as a control in
order to remove whatever effects this may have on performance (Spanos & Lioukas, 1991).
Size was measured as the natural logarithm of the number of employees (full time + part time
+ casual).
Customer demands are becoming less predictable, and changing more frequently (Hitt,
et al, 1998). Demand fluctuations have a marked impact on the organisation’s performance
outcomes, particularly in relation to external indicators profitability and revenue (Boynton &
Victor, 1991). Demand change was measured by asking respondents whether the demand for
65
their goods and services had changed over the past two years. A scale of 1 ‘decreased,’ 2
‘stayed the same,’ and 3 ‘increased’ was used. The mean for demand change was 2.50
(sd = .70) (see Table 3.5).
Table 3.5
Environmental Characteristics: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables Mean S.D. Control Functional Structure
Changes in Comp.
Organisational Control 5.82 1.62 -
Functional Structure 4.08 2.91 .19** -
Changes in Competition 2.55 .60 .15* .03 -
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
3.2.6.4 Environmental Moderators
Both internal and external aspects of the environment have been shown to influence the
relationship between flexibility and performance outcomes (Grewal & Tasuhaj, 2001; Reed &
Blunsdon, 1998; Wang & Ahmed, 2003). Three environmental indicators were measured
including, the level of formal control in the organisation, the level of functional structure, and
changes in competition. Table 3.5 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations for the
environmental moderator measures.
Internal. Two measures of the internal environment were chosen due to their
established relationship with flexibility (Duncan, 1979; Reed & Blunsdon, 1998). First, the
level of formal control within the organisation was measured by asking respondents if they
have formal rules and procedures documented for seven different activities, such as job
descriptions, job performance expectations, employee evaluations, employment contracts,
hiring procedures, grievance procedures, and work procedures. Respondents were given a
score out of seven. Lower scores represent lower levels of control, and higher score represent
66
higher levels of control. The mean level of control was 5.82 (sd = 1.62), indicating that there is
a high level of formal rules within the organisations in this sample.
Second, a measure of functional structure was used, as more functional structures are
traditionally recognised to be less flexible due to the slow response time to environmental
changes and less innovative efforts (Daft, 2001; Duncan, 1979). Functional structure was
measured by asking respondents if their organisation has a separate department or work group
for nine different activities, such as human resource management, strategic planning, finance,
government relations, and research and development. As a result, organisations were given a
score out of nine on their level of functional structure. Higher scores represent more
functionally structured organisations and lower scores represent less formally structured
organisations. The mean level of structure was 4.08 (sd = 2.91), indicating the level of
functional structure within the organisations in this sample varies quite significantly.
Control and functional structure were correlated at (r = .19, p < .01) (see Table 3.5).
External. To measure the external environment, an item measuring the dynamic nature
of competition was used. Competition dynamism was measured by asking respondents, “has
the level of market competition changed in the past two years?”, on a response scale of 1
‘decreased, 2 ‘stayed the same’ and 3 ‘increased.’ The competition dynamism mean was 2.55
(sd = .60), suggesting a moderate to high level of increase in competition for these
organisations.
3.3 Analysis
Preliminary analyses examined the characteristics of missing data. A small percentage
of data was missing and this was missing completely at random, determined by the results of
Little’s Missing Completely at Random test. As a result, the maximum likelihood method was
used to compute and insert missing values. This data was then analysed using correlational
67
analyses, moderated multiple regression, and simple slope analyses. The details of these
analyses are discussed below.
3.3.0 Missing Data Analyses
Item non-response in the AusNOS survey was potentially due to respondents not
knowing the answer, not having access to information to answer the question, or a simple
refusal to answer. Several methods exist for dealing with missing data such as discarding these
respondents from the database or through listwise deletion during analyses, which reduces
sample size, or substituting the mean value computed from all respondents to the question as
the response for the missing value (Gilley & Leone, 1991) which can severely bias the results,
as the mean calculated with this method is probably closer to itself than to the missing value it
replaces (Ferber, 1966; Francis & Busch, 1975; Peterson, Leone, & Sabertehrani, 1980). For
this study, a more sophisticated method of replacing the missing data was used. Prior to
replacing the missing data, the amount and pattern of missing data was determined.
Missing values analysis was conducted which produced output showing the pattern of
missing data (see Table 3.6). As Table 3.6 shows, the range of missing data is zero to 3.7
percent with the largest percentage of missing data for the variable ‘improvements in
developmental processes.’ This percentage is low in relation to the sample size, but
unfortunately, as yet there are no fixed guidelines for how much missing data can be tolerated
for a sample of a given size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Ryan (1991) uses an exclusionary
score of 20 percent and thus according to this criterion, all missing data percentages fell below
this exclusionary score.
If a low percentage of data points are missing in a random pattern in a large dataset, the
problems of missing data are less serious (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). So the second step was
to determine whether data was missing at random or missing systematically. Little’s Missing
Completely at Random (MCAR) test which examines the hypothesis that data is missing
68
completely at random was used. The Little’s MCAR test for the AusNos dataset [chi-square =
195.35 (df = 199; p < .56)], indicated that the data is indeed missing at random (i.e. no
observable pattern exists to the missing data) (see Ryan, 2001).
Table 3.6
Percentage of Missing Data
N % Missing No. Missing Variable n = 218 n = 218 n = 218
Age 218 0.0 0 Organisation Size 218 0.0 0 Changes in Demand 217 0.5 1 Proactivity 218 0.0 0 Adaptability 218 0.0 0 Financial Resilience 215 1.4 3 Labour Resilience 216 0.9 2 Competition Dynamism 217 0.5 1 Control 214 1.8 4 Structure 217 0.5 1 Improvements in quality of products and services
218 0.0 0
Improvements Developmental processes
210 3.7 8
Improvements Attract and retain employees
218 0.0 0
Improvements Satisfaction of customers
214 1.8 4
Improvements market share 214 1.8 4 Improvements in profitability 215 3 1.4
Improvements in Sales 216 2 .9
The method used to deal with the small percentage of missing data with no observable
pattern, was maximum likelihood (ML), which offers substantial improvements over listwise
deletion (Allison, 2002). ML is an effective and practical method for handling data that are
missing at random (Smits, Mellenbergh, & Vorst, 2002). The basic principle of ML estimation
is to choose as estimates, those values that, if true, would maximise the probability of
observing what has in fact been observed (Allison, 2002). SPSS was used to perform the ML
replacement of missing values using the estimation maximisation imputation function. Missing
69
data values were estimated in less than 25 iterations. The resulting dataset with imputed
missing values was used in all subsequent analysis.
3.3.1 Data Analyses Overview
Research Questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 relate to investigating the relationship between
organisational flexibility and performance outcomes, competition changes, organisational
structure, and degree of organisational control. To address these questions, a correlational
matrix was calculated and the main effects in the subsequent interactional analysis were used
to test these research questions.
Research Questions 3, 6, and 7 all relate to the interactive effects of the flexibility
dimensions and environmental characteristics on performance outcomes. To investigate these
questions, moderated regression analyses were performed. To perform the interaction analyses,
procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991) were used. Prior to conducting the regression
analyses and calculating interaction terms, the independent variables (IV) were centred (i.e.
subtracting the variable's mean from each case's value on that variable) for the continuous
variables IVs (proactivity, labour resilience, control, structure, and competitive dynamism).
The chief advantages of centering are that it (a) reduces multicollinearity between the ‘x’ and
‘y’ predictors and the x*y interaction term and (b) can render more meaningful interpretations
of the regression coefficients for x and y (Aiken & West, 1991). Dichotomous variables
(adaptability and financial resilience) were not centred. Rather, these measures were dummy
coded 0-1, indicating the absence or presence of adaptability or financial resilience.
Next, the interaction terms were calculated for each flexibility dimension with each
environmental factor by multiplying the two new variables (centred or dummy coded). From
here, the regression equations were calculated. Control variables, size and demand changes,
were entered at Step 1, flexibility components and each environmental factor entered at Step 2,
70
and the interaction terms entered at Step 3. This process was repeated for all seven
performance outcomes.
One approach to interpreting significant interaction results is to plot the relationship
between the IV and DV at high and low levels of the moderator (Aiken & West, 1991;
Schaubroek, & Merritt, 1997). Where the interaction term was significant, to illustrate the
nature of the interaction effect, procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991) were
followed, in which the relationship between flexibility and performance outcomes was
examined at a high level of the environmental characteristic (one standard deviation above the
mean), and at a low level of the environmental characteristic (one standard deviation below the
mean). The regression lines for each of these values were calculated and plotted on a graph.
The following section presents the results of these analyses.
3.4 Results
3.4.0 Descriptive Data
Descriptive data (means and standard deviations) and intercorrelations among each of
the variables are displayed in Table 3.7. It was expected, due to the widely recognised
relationship between organisational size and key organisational attributes and outcomes, that
size would be significantly related to several variables (Horwitz, Allan, Brosnan, & Walsh,
2000).
71
Table 3.7 Descriptive Data (Means and Standard Deviations) and Intercorrelations Among the Variables Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Size 40.22 - 35.92
2. Age 2.60 .70 .23** -
3. Changes in Demand 2.50 .02 .08 - .67 -
4. Proactivity 4.84 1.61 .12t .02 .01 -
5. Adaptability .32 .46 .09 .06 .01 .34** -
6. Labour Resilience 1.88 .35 .11 -.05 .12t .30** .04 -
7. Financial Resilience .90 .29 .14* .07 -.02 .10 .15* .07 -
8. Control 5.82 1.62 .48** .03 .06 .16* .09 .27** .16* -
9. Structure 4.09 2.91 .34** .12t -.04 .26** .21** .11t .04 .19** -
10. Competitive Dynamism 2.55 .60 .12t .18** -.11t .08 -.04 .02 .15* .15* .03 -11. Improvement in P&S Quality 4.22 .77 .10 -.02 .29** .08 .12t .16* .13* .19* .04 .02 -12. Improvement in Developmental Processes 3.9 .79 .05 .03 .24** .20** .18** .18** .18** .16* .04 -.04 .57** -13. Improvement in ability to employee retention 3.66 .92 .08 .01 .06 .11 .13t .09 .05 .10 .05 .05 .36** .38** -14. Improvement in Customer Satisfaction 3.78 .79 .08 -.09 .25** .11 .19** .15* .13* .18** .11t -.04 .53** .43** .42** -15. Improvement in Market share 3.7 .86 .18** -.12t .38** .15* .12t .19** .08 .12t .02 -.10 .37** .39** .25** .40** -16. Improvement in Profitability 3.75 1.05 .13t -.05 .42** .00 -.05 .03 .02 .17* -.00 .07 .36** .27** .17* .31** .47** -
17. Improvement in Sales 3.75 1.00 .12t -.05 .53** .02 .03 -.00 .01 .08 .01 -.12t .32** .29** .16* .34** .55** .62** -
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
72
As shown in Table 3.7, size was significantly related to nine of the sixteen variables;
age (r = .23, p < .01); proactivity (r = .12, p < .07); financial resilience (r = .14, p < .05);
control (r = .48, p < .01); structure (r = .34, p < .01); competitive dynamism (r = .12, p < .07);
market share (r = .18, p < .01); profitability (r = .13, p < .07); sales (r = .12, p < .07). As a
result, size was entered as a control variable in subsequent analyses. Also as expected, demand
changes had a significant impact upon six of the seven outcome variables; product and service
quality (r = .29, p <.01); developmental processes (r = .24, p < .01); customer satisfaction (r =
.25, p < .01); market share (r =.38, p < .01); profitability (r = .42, p < .01); and sales (r = .53, p
< .01). Therefore demand changes were controlled for in subsequent analyses.
3.4.1 Flexibility and Performance Outcomes
Research Question 1 addressed the relationship between organisational flexibility
components and organisational level performance outcomes. The correlations between
different dimensions of flexibility and performance outcomes vary.
Proactivity. Proactivity was positively related to developmental processes (r = .20, p <
.01) and market share (r = .15, p < .05). However, proactivity in this sample was not related to
improving product and service quality (r = .08, n.s.), employee retention (r = .11, n.s.), satisfied
customers (r = .11, n.s.), improvements profitability (r = .00, n.s.) or improvements in sales (r =
.02, n.s.).
Adaptability. Adaptability was positively related to improvements in five performance
measures; product and service quality (r = .12, p < .1), developmental processes (r = .18, p
<.01), employee retention (r = .13, p < .1), customer satisfaction (r = .19, p< .05), and market
share (r = .12, p < .1). Adaptability had no relationship with profitability (r = -.05, n.s.) and
sales (r = .03, n.s.).
Resilience. The more labour resilient an organisation, the more likely they experienced
improvements in their product and service quality (r = .16, p < .05), developmental processes (r
73
= .18, p < .01), customer satisfaction (r = .15, p < .05), and market share (r = .19, p < .01).
Labour resilience did not show any relationship with the ability of organisations to retain
employees (r = .09, n.s.), and similar to adaptability, labour resilience was unrelated to
improvements in profit (r = -.04, n.s.) and sales (r = -.00, n.s.).
Financial resilience was related to three of the performance outcomes, such that higher
levels of financial resilience are positively related to improvements in product and service
quality (r = .13, p < .05), improvements in developmental processes (r = .18, p < .01) and the
satisfaction of customers (r = .13, p < .05). Financial resilience showed no relationship with the
remaining performance outcomes; employee retention (r = .05, n.s.), market share (r = .08,
n.s.), profit (r = .02, n.s.), and sales (r = .01, n.s.).
3.4.2 Flexibility and Environmental Variables
Research Questions 2, 4, and 5 sought to examine the relationship between
organisational flexibility components and an external environmental variable (competitive
dynamism) and internal organisational characteristics (control & functional structure).
Flexibility and Competition. The only flexibility characteristic associated with
changing competition was financial resilience (r = .15, p <.05). There was no significant
relationship between proactivity and competition (r = .08, n.s), adaptability and competition (r
= -.04, n.s), and labour resilience and competition (r = .02, n.s).
Flexibility and Functional Structure. Organisations with functional structures were
more likely to report higher levels of proactivity (r = .26, p <.01), adaptability (r = .21, p <.01),
and labour resilience (r = .11, p < .01) than organisations with non-functional structures. There
was no relationship between functional structure and financial resilience (r = .04, n.s.)
Flexibility and Control. Organisations with high levels of formal control were more
likely to have higher levels of proactivity (r = .16, p <.05), labour resilience (r = .27, p <.01),
74
and financially resilience (r = .16, p <.05) than organisations with less formal controls. There
was no correlation with adaptability (r = .09, n.s.)
3.4.3 Interaction Analysis
Interaction analyses addressed Research Questions 3, 6, and 7 by examining the
moderating effects of competition changes, functional structure, and control on the flexibility -
performance relationship. ∆R2 significant at the .1 level are included in the results discussion,
as low ∆R2 can be expected in multi-industry samples and results are relatively robust if results
are significant at .1 or below (Slater, 1995). An overview of the results is presented, followed
by a more detailed discussion of the interaction analysis results.
3.4.4 Overview of Interaction Results
This research was exploratory with the purpose of exploring organisational flexibility
and its relationship with contextual and performance variables. As a result, analyses involved
examining the effects of three contextual variables (competition changes, structure, control) on
the relationship between the flexibility dimensions (proactivity, adaptability, resilience) and the
performance improvement indicators (product and service quality, developmental processes,
customer satisfaction, employee retention, market share, profitability, and sales). This meant a
total of twenty-one moderated regression analyses. It is recognised that this approach could
potentially be excessive and capitalising on chance, however, due to the limited empirical work
on organisational flexibility and the exploratory nature of this research, it was seen as
appropriate. Further, this approach has provided direction for future research where specific
hypothesis can be formulated more accurately.
Table 3.8 provides an overview of the results of the interaction analysis. This table
displays the significant main effects and interactions, accompanied by an interpretation of these
results.
75
Table 3.8 Overview of Results – Main Effects & Interactions Moderated Regression Outcome Main Effects Interactions Interpretation
Structure Developmental Processes Adaptability (+) None Adaptability is associated with improvements in developmental processes
Financial Resilience (+) None Financial resilience is associated with improvements in developmental processes
Customer Satisfaction Adaptability (+) None Adaptability associated with higher customer satisfaction
Market Share Labour Resilience (+) None Labour resilience is associated with higher market share
Sales Functional Structure (+) Labour Resilience (+) Functional structure moderates the effect of labour resilience on sales. The results suggest that labour resilience tends to be more positive for sales in more functional structures.
Financial Resilience (-) Functional structure moderates the effect of financial resilience on sales. The results suggest financial resilience tends to be more positive for sales in less functional structures
Control Product and Service Quality Organisational Control (+) None Organisational control is associated with improvements in product and service quality
Developmental processes Adaptability (+) None Adaptability is associated with improvements in developmental processes
Financial Resilience (+) None Financial resilience is associated with improvements in developmental processes
Customer Satisfaction Adaptability (+) None Adaptability is associated with higher customer satisfaction
Organisational Control (+) None Organisational control is associated with higher customer satisfaction
Competition Developmental processes Financial Resilience (+) None Financial Resilience is associated with improvements in developmental processes
Employee Retention Adaptability (-) Competition moderates the effect of adaptability on employee retention. The results suggest adaptability tends to be more important for employee retention in more stable competition
Labour Resilience (+) Competition moderates the effect of labour resilience on employee retention. The results suggest labour resilience tends to be more positive for employee retention in more dynamic competition
Financial Resilience (+) Competition moderates the effect of financial resilience on employee retention. The results suggest financial resilience tends to be more positive in more dynamic competition
Customer Satisfaction Adaptability (+) None Adaptability is associated with higher customer satisfaction
Labour Resilience (+) Competition moderates the effect of labour resilience on customer satisfaction. The results suggest labour resilience tends to be more positive for customer satisfaction. in more dynamic competition
Financial Resilience (+) None Financial resilience is associated with higher customer satisfaction
Market Share Labour Resilience (+) None Labour resilience is associated with higher market share
(+, -) direction of the relationship
76
Analyses revealed six significant interactions, involving two of the moderators, three
flexibility variables, and three performance outcomes. This following section discusses the
summary of results presented in Table 3.8, which is followed by a detailed description of the
results and associated moderated regression statistics, which are displayed in Tables 3.9a, 3.9
b, 3.10a, 3.10b, 3.11a, and 3.11b.
In support of Research Question 3, which suggested environmental conditions may
influence the relationship between flexibility and organisational performance, competition
changes were found to moderate the relationship between three flexibility variables and two
performance outcomes. The adaptability and employee retention relationship was moderated
by competition with adaptability being more important for employee retention in stable
environments. The labour resilience and employee retention relationship and financial
resilience employee retention relationship was moderated by competition, with labour and
financial resilience being more important for employee retention in dynamically competitive
environments. Finally, competition moderated the relationship between labour resilience and
customer satisfaction, with labour resilience being more important for customer satisfaction
when operating in dynamically competitive environments.
In support of Research Question 6, which suggested structure may influence the
relationship between flexibility and organisational performance, results show structure acted as
a moderator in the relationship between labour resilience and sales, and financial resilience and
sales. For labour resilience this interaction was positive, indicating labour resilience is more
important for sales in highly functional structures. For financial resilience, this interaction was
negative, suggesting financial resilience is more important for sales in minimal functional
structures.
A lack of support was found for Research Question 7, which suggested organisational
control may influence the relationship between flexibility and organisational performance.
The following section presents a more detailed discussion of the interaction results.
77
3.4.5 Results for Competition as a Moderator
A moderated regression was performed to examine the impact of changes in competition on the
relationship between each flexibility variable and each performance outcome. There were four
significant interactions with competition as the moderator, as shown in Table 3.9a and Table
3.9b and there were several main effects.
Product and Service Quality
Step 1 of the moderated regression examining competition as the moderator between flexibility
and product and service quality revealed no main effects, and no R squared change ( R2
=
.04, F = .86, n.s.). Furthermore, the entry of the two-way interactions at Step 3 did not
contribute significantly to the prediction of product and service quality ( R2 = .02, F =
1.74, n.s.).
Developmental Processes
In the moderated regression analysis, the entry of the main effect variables into the equation at
Step 2, added a significant amount of variance ( R2 =.08, F = 4.05, p < .01). The major
contributor to this variance was the positive impact of financial resilience on developmental
processes (β = .15, p < .05) meaning organisations that had financial resilience were more
likely to see improvements in their developmental processes. The entry of the interaction terms
at Step 3 did not contribute a significant amount of variance in the prediction of developmental
processes ( R2 = .08, F = .50, n.s.).
78
Table 3.9a
Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Testing the Interaction of Flexibility Components and Competition When Predicting Product and Service Quality, Developmental Processes, Employee Retention, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Share (n = 218)
P&S Quality DevelopmentalProcesses
Employee Retention Customer Satisfaction Market Share
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 – Controls
Organisational Size .09 .05 .07 .05 .00 .02 .08 .05 .06 .07 .03 .05 .16* .14* .14*
Demand Changes .27** .27** .27** .23** .22** .22** .05 .05 .06 .25** .24** .26** .40** .35** .36*
R2 .08** .06** .00 .07** .16**
Step 2 – Focal variable
Proactivity -.01 -.00 .12 .12 .04 .06 .01 .00 .07 .07
Adaptability .09 .09 .11 .11 .11 .11 .15 .15* .06 .05
Labour Resilience .11 .10 .10 .09 .06 .05 .10 .09 .11t .11t
Financial Resilience .11 .09 .15* .15* .02 .07 .12t .14* .06 .13t
Organisational Comp. .03 .16 -.03 .01 .05 -.36 -.03 -.18 -.09 -.56*
R2 .04 .08** .02 .06* .04t
Step 3 – 2-way Interactions
Proactivity* Comp. -.04 .00 -.00 .06 .07
Adaptability * Comp. -.02 .02 -.16t .04 -.09
Labour resilience* Comp. .13t .09 .12t .14* -.04
Financial resilience* Comp. -.11 -.06 .53* .13 .53*
R2 .01 .01 .05* .03t .03
Comp = Competition t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
79
Table 3.9b Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Testing the Interaction of Flexibility Components and Competition When Predicting Sales and Profitability (n = 218)
Sales Profit
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 – Controls
Organisational Size .09t .11t .11t .10t .12t .13*
Demand Changes .54** .54** .55** .42** .42** .42**
R2 .30** .19**
Step 2 – Focal variable
Proactivity .02 .02 . .02 .02
Adaptability -.00 -.00 -.09 -.08
Labour Resilience -.09 -.09 -.03 -.04
Financial Resilience .03 .07 .03 .06
Organisational Comp. -.09 -.38t -.05 -.25
R2 .01 .01
Step 3 – 2-way Interactions
Proactivity* Comp. .04 -.02
Adaptability * Comp. .03 .08
Labour resilience* Comp. -.00 .08
Financial resilience* Comp. .28 .17
R2 .01 .02
Comp = Competition t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
80
Employee Retention
In the moderated regressions for employee retention and competition, the entry of the main
effect variables into the Step 2 equation did not add a significant amount of variance to the
prediction ( R2
= .02, F = 1.04 n.s.). However, the entry of the two-way interaction terms
did contribute a significant amount of incremental variance to the prediction of employee
retention ( R2 =.05, F = 2.59, p <.05). The major contributors to this variance were the
interactions between adaptability and competition (β = -.16, p < .07), labour resilience and
competition (β = .12, p < .07), and financial resilience and competition (β = .53, p < .05).
The adaptability/competition interaction is depicted in Figure 3.0 which suggests that
the level of competition moderates the relationship between adaptability and employee
retention, such that the link between adaptability and employee retention tends to become more
positive when the competition was less dynamic.
4.49
3.60
4.08
3.63
1
2
3
4
5
no adaptability adaptability
Empl
oyee
Ret
entio
n
stable competition dynamic competition
.
Figure 3.0
Interaction between adaptability and competition predicting employee retention
Further, results suggested that competition also moderates the relationship between labour
resilience and employee retention, such that the link between labour resilience and employee
retention tended to become more positive when the competition was more dynamic (see Figure
3.1).
81
4.20
3.78
4.37
3.45
1
2
3
4
5
low labour resilience high labour resilience
Empl
oyee
Ret
entio
n
stable competition dynamic competition
Figure 3.1
Interaction between labour resilience and competition predicting employee retention
The third significant interaction result suggests that competition moderates the relationship
between financial resilience and employee retention. As shown in Figure 3.2, findings suggest
the relationship between financial resilience and employee retention tended to become more
positive when the competition was more dynamic.
4.20
3.82
4.37
3.41
1
2
3
4
5
6
no financial resilience financial resilience
Empl
oyee
Ret
entio
n
stable competition dynamic competition
Figure 3.2
Interaction between labour resilience and competition predicting employee retention
82
Customer Satisfaction
In the regression analyses for customer satisfaction, the entry of the main effect variables at
Step 2, added a significant amount of variance to the prediction of improvements in customer
service ( R2 =-.06, F = 2.62, p <.05). The key to this change was the positive main effect of
financial resilience on customer satisfaction (β = .12, p < .07). The entry of the two-way
interaction also contributed significantly to the prediction of customer satisfaction ( R2 =.03,
F = 2.01, p <.1). More specifically, the interaction between labour resilience and
competition positively interacted to impact customer satisfaction (β = .12, p < .07). This
interaction is shown in Figure 3.3. This result suggests that the relationship between labour
resilience and customer satisfaction tended to become more positive when the competition was
more dynamic.
2.85
2.742.32
2.70
1
2
3
4
5
low labour resilience high labour resilience
Cus
tom
er S
atis
fact
ion
stable competition dynamic competition
Figure 3.3
Interaction between labour resilience and competition predicting customer satisfaction.
Market Share
In the regression analyses for market share, the entry of the main effect variables at Step 2,
added a significant amount of variance to the prediction of improvements in market share
( R2 = .04, F = 2.12, p <.1). The key to this change was the positive main effect of labour
83
resilience on market share (β = .11, p < .07). The entry of the two-way interaction did not
contribute significantly to the prediction of market share ( R2 =.03, F = 1.67, n.s.).
Sales
In the moderated regressions for sales and competition, the entry of the main effect variables
into the Step 2 equation did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction of sales
( R2 = .01, F = .86, n.s.). There was no significant R squared change
at Step 3 with the
entry of the two-way interaction terms ( R2 = .01, F =.69, n.s.).
Profit
In the moderated regressions for profit and competition, the entry of the main effect variables
into the Step 2 equation did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction of profit
( R2 = .01, F = .47, n.s.). Neither was there a significant change with the entry of the two-
way interactions at Step 3 ( R2 = .01, F = .87, n.s.).
3.4.6 Results for Structure as a Moderator
A moderated regression was performed to examine the impact of structure on the
relationship between each flexibility variable and each performance outcome. Results of the
analyses are shown in Table 3.10a and Table 3.10b.
Product and Service Quality
In the moderated regression analysis, the entry of the main effect variables into the equation at
Step 2, did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction of product and service
quality ( R2 = .04, F = 1.69, n.s.). Furthermore, the entry of the two-way interaction terms
at Step 3 did not contribute a significant amount of incremental variance to the prediction of
quality of products and services ( R2 =.02, F = 1.44, n.s.). See Table 3.10a for these results.
84
Table 3.10a Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Testing the Interaction of Flexibility Components and Structure When Predicting Product and Service Quality, Developmental Processes, Employee Retention, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Share (n = 218)
P&S Quality DevelopmentalProcesses
Employee Retention Customer Satisfaction Market Share
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 – Controls
Organisational Size .09 .05 .06 .05 .00 -.00 .07 .05 .04 .07 .00 .00 .16* .15* .14*
Demand Changes .27** .26** .27** .23** .22** .23** .05 .04 .04 .26** .25** .25** .37** .35** .35**
R2 .08** .00 .07** .16**
Step 2 – Focal variable
Proactivity -.01 -.04 .12 .10 .04 .05 -.00 .03 .07 .09
Adaptability .09 .10 .12t .11 .10 .09 .15* .15* .08 .07
Labour Resilience .11 .10 .10 .1 .06 .06 .10 .99 .11t .09
Financial Resilience .11t .10 .14* .14* .02 .01 .11 .10 .05 .05
Organisational Structure .01 .42* -.01 .08 -.00 .16 .07 .38t -.07 -.30
R2 .04 .08** .02 .06* .04t
Step 3 – 2-way Interactions
Proactivity* Structure -.07 -.06 -.06 .05 -.05
Adaptability * Structure -.00 .07 .14 .10 .06
Labour resilience *Structure .03 -.00 .09 .08 .12t
Financial resilience* Structure -.43* -.13 -.25 -.40* .21
R2 .02 .01 .02 .03 .02
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
85
Table 3.101b Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Testing the Interaction of Flexibility Components and Structure When Predicting Sales and Profitability (n = 218)
Sales Profit
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 – Controls
Organisational Size .10t .11t .10 .10t .12t .11t
Demand Changes .54** .55** .55** .42** .42** .42**
R2 .30** .19**
Step 2 – Focal variable
Proactivity .02 .02 .02 .05
Adaptability .01 .00 -.08 -.08
Labour Resilience -.09 -.10 -.03 -.03
Financial Resilience .02 -.01 .02 .02
Organisational Structure -.02 .41* -.02 .13
R2 .00 .00
Step 3 – 2-way Interactions
Proactivity* Structure -.08 .05
Adaptability * Structure .12 .07
Labour resilience * Structure .12* .05
Financial resilience* Structure -.52** -.20
R2 .05** .01
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
86
Developmental Processes
In the regression analyses for developmental processes and structure, the entry of the main
effect variables at Step 2, added a significant amount of variance to the prediction of
improvements in developmental processes ( R2
=.08, F = 3.99, p <.01). The key to this
change was the positive main effect of two variables, adaptability (β = .12, p < .07), and
financial resilience (β = .14, p < .05) such that the higher levels of financial resilience and
adaptability in the organisation, increased the likelihood of improvements in developmental
processes. However, the entry of the two-way interaction did not contribute significantly to the
prediction of developmental processes ( R2 =.01, F = .35, n.s.).
Employee Retention
In the moderated regressions for employee retention and structure, the entry of the main effect
variables into the Step 2 equation did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction
of employee retention ( R2
= .02, F = .95 n.s.). The entry of the two-way interaction did
not contribute to the prediction of employee retention ( R2 =.02, F = 1.32, n.s.).
Customer Satisfaction
In the moderated regressions for customer satisfaction and structure, the entry of the main
effect variables at Step 2, added a significant amount of variance to the prediction of
improvements in customer service ( R2
= .06, F = 2.77, p <.5). The key to this change was
the positive main effect of adaptability on customer satisfaction (β = .15, p < .05), indicating
that higher levels of adaptability is associated with improvements in customer satisfaction. The
entry of the two-way interaction failed to contribute to the prediction of customer satisfaction
( R2 = .03, F = 1.90, n.s).
Market Share
The entry of the main effects at Step 2 contributed a small but significant variance to the
equation ( R2 = .04, F = 1.83, p <.1). The major contributor to this variance was the main
87
effect of labour resilience on market share (β = .15, p < .05), signalling organisations with high
levels of labour resilience are likely to experience improvements in market share.
Sales
In the moderated regressions for sales and structure, the entry of the main effect variables at
Step 2, failed to add a significant amount of variance to the prediction of improvements in sales
( R2
= .00, F = .42, n.s.). However, the addition of the two-way interaction at Step 3 did
add significantly to the prediction of sales ( R2 =.05, F = 3.68, p < .01). Specifically, this
change was the result of the interaction between labour resilience and structure (β = .12, p <
.05), and financial resilience and structure (β = -.52, p < .01).
As depicted in Figure 3.4, these results suggest that the level of functional structure
moderates the relationship between labour resilience and sales, such that the link between
labour resilience and sales tended to become more positive when organisations were more
functionally structured.
0.681.11
1.741.71
0
1
2
3
4
5
low labour resilience high labour resilience
Sale
s
low structure high structure
Figure 3.4
Interaction between labour resilience and structure predicting sales
Results also suggest functional structure moderates the relationship between financial
resilience and sales. As shown in Figure 3.5, findings suggest the relationship between
88
financial resilience and sales improvement tends to become more positive when organisations
were less functionally structured.
1.05
1.56
0.74
1.89
0
1
2
3
4
5
no financial Resilience financial resilience
Sale
s
low structure high structure
Figure 3.5
Interaction between financial resilience and structure predicting sales
3.4.7 Results for Control as a Moderator
A moderated regression was performed to examine the impact of organisational control
on the relationship between each flexibility variable and each performance outcome. There
were no significant interactions with control as the moderator, as shown in Table 3.11a and
Table 3.11b, however, there were several main effects.
Product and Service Quality
In the moderated regression analysis, the entry of the main effect variables into the
equation at Step 2, did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction of product and
service quality ( R2 = .05, F = 2.81, p < .05). The main contributor to this change in
variance was the positive main effect of organisational control on product and service quality
(β = .13, p < .07). Organisations with high levels of control experienced improvements in
product and service quality. The addition of the interaction product terms at Step 3, did not add
a significant amount of variance to the prediction of product and service quality ( R2 =.02,
F = 1.27, n.s.).
89
Table 3.11a
Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Testing the Interaction of Flexibility Components and Control When Predicting Product and Service Quality, Developmental Processes, Employee Retention, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Share (n = 218)
P&S Quality DevelopmentalProcesses
Employee Retention Customer Satisfaction Market Share
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 – Controls
Organisational Size .09 -.00 -.00 .05 -.04 -.05 .07 .03 .05 ,07 -.08 -.02 .16* .14t .13t
Demand Changes .27** .26** .27** .23** .22** .23** .05 .04 .04 .26** .25** .24** .37** .36** .35**
R2 .08** .01 .07** .16**
Step 2 – Focal variable
Proactivity -.01 -.02 .11 .11 .04 .04 .00 .01 .06 .07
Adaptability .08 .10 .11t .13t .10 .11 .15* .16* .07 .06
Labour Resilience .10 .10 .08 .08 .05 .06 .08 .07 .12t .11t
Financial Resilience .08 .11 .14* .18* .02 -.01 .09 .08 .05 .05
Organisational Control .13t .08 .09 -.12 .04 .18 .13t .26 -.02 .06
R2 .05* .08** .02 .06** .03
Step 3 – 2-way Interactions
Proactivity* Control -.11 -.10 -.01 -.00 .04
Adaptability * Control -.07 -.11 -.03 -.05 -.10
Labour resilience * Control -.01 .03 -.05 -.01 .03
Financial resilience * Control .02 .28 -.16 -.12 -.00
R2 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
90
Table 3.11b
Summary of Results for Moderated Regression Analysis Testing the Interaction of Flexibility Components and Control When Predicting Sales and Profitability (n = 218)
Sales Profit
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 – Controls
Organisational Size .09t .08 .07 .11t .06 .05
Demand Changes .54** .55** .55** .42** .42** .42**
R2 .30** .19**
Step 2 – Focal variable
Proactivity .02 .02 .01 .01
Adaptability .00 .00 -.08 -.08
Labour Resilience -.09 -.09 -.06 -.07
Financial Resilience .01 .04 .01 .03
Organisational Control .04 -.08 .13t .11
R2 .00 .02
Step 3 – 2-way Interactions
Proactivity* Control .00 -.08
Adaptability * Control -.12t .02
Labour resilience * Control .00 .14t
Financial resilience * Control .20 .05
R2 .01 .02
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
91
Developmental Processes
In the regression analyses for developmental processes and control, the entry of the
main effect variables at Step 2, added a significant amount of variance to the prediction of
improvements in developmental processes ( R2
=.08, F = 4.29, p <.01). Two variables
were the major contributors to this change, adaptability and financial resilience. Adaptability
was positively associated with improvements in developmental processes (β = .11, p < .07),
and financial resilience was also positively related to this outcome (β = .14, p < .05). However,
the entry of the interaction terms at Step 3 did not add any contribution to improvement in
developmental processes ( R2 =.02, F = 1.45, n.s.).
Employee Retention
In the moderated regressions for employee retention and control, the entry of the main effect
variables into the Step 2 equation did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction
of the outcome ( R2
= .02, F = 1.10, n.s.). The entry of the two-way interaction also did not
contribute to the prediction of employee retention ( R2 =.01, F = .60, n.s.).
Customer Satisfaction
In the moderated regressions for customer satisfaction and control, the entry of the main effect
variables at Step 2, added a significant amount of variance to the prediction of improvements
in customer service ( R2
= .06, F = 3.17, p <.01). There were two main contributors to this
change, adaptability and organisational control. Adaptability showed a positive main effect on
customer satisfaction (β = .15, p < .05), and organisational control was also found to positively
effect customer satisfaction (β = .13, p < .07). The entry of the two-way interactions at Step 3
did not contribute to the prediction of customer satisfaction ( R2 =.01, F = .35, n.s.).
Market Share
The entry of the main effects at Step 2 in the moderated regression did not contribute any
significant variance to the equation ( R2
= .03, F = 1.63, n.s.). Similarly, there was no
92
significant R squared change with the entry of the two-way interactions at Step 3 ( R2 = .01,
F = .50, n.s.).
Sales
In the moderated regression for sales and control, the entry of the main effect variables at Step
2, did not add a significant amount of variance to the prediction of improvements in sales
( R2
= .01, F = .46, n.s.). Further, the entry of the interaction terms at Step 3 did not add
any significant variance ( R2 = .01, F = .94, n.s.).
Profit
In the moderated regression for profitability and control, neither the entry of the main effects
( R2 = .02, F = .98, n.s.) nor the entry of the two-way interactions add significantly to the
prediction of profitability ( R2 = .02, F = 1.03, n.s.).
3.5 Discussion
3.5.0 Introduction
The purpose of this research was to develop a definition of organisational flexibility
from an extensive review of the literature and to empirically explore organisational flexibility
and it’s the impact on organisational performance. Further, this research empirically explored
the moderating effects of internal and external environmental characteristics on the flexibility -
performance relationship. Correlational and interaction analysis were used to examine research
questions in a secondary data set, featuring responses from 207 Australian CEOs. In the
following discussion, the results of the analyses are explored and the implications of these
findings for theory and practice are also examined. Due to the exploratory nature of this
research, the discussion presents several avenues for future research.
93
3.5.1 Research Questions
What is Organisational Flexibility?
One of the most significant contributions of this research is the development of a
comprehensive and operationalisable definition of organisational flexibility that can be applied
to multiple contexts. The review in Chapter 2 discussed the lack of clarity in defining
organisational flexibility and highlighted similarity in flexibility characteristics featured in
current flexibility conceptualisations from several disciplines. A collation and comparison of
these conceptualisations suggested organisational flexibility is a multi-dimensional construct
consisting of three key components; proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. The review also
suggested that organisation flexibility is a situational construct, meaning the combination of
components applied by the organisation to a particular situation may vary depending upon the
nature of the situation. This means that the three flexibility components maybe differentially
associated with certain organisational outcomes.
How is flexibility related to organisational performance?
Results showed that flexibility is more likely to be associated with improvements in
non-financial outcomes, including product and service quality, developmental processes,
employee retention, customer satisfaction, and market share, than financial outcomes, such as
profitability and sales. Results provided partial support for the suggestion of the ‘situational’
nature of flexibility, by revealing the three components of flexibility; proactivity, adaptability,
and resilience relate in different ways to a variety of performance outcomes. However,
relationships between flexibility components and performance outcomes were somewhat
similar.
Proactivity and organisational performance
The review of the literature suggested proactivity is the component of flexibility that
allows organisations to scan the internal and external environment and plan for future
94
scenarios. Results showed that proactivity is positively correlated with two outcomes,
improvements in developmental processes and improvements in market share. These findings
are consistent with existing literature which advocates by establishing links with external
parties in relevant industries, organisations are able to remain up to date with scientific
developments, customer demands, and analyse competitor’s products to contribute to
improving processes, and more successfully capturing the market (Daft, 2001). These results
further establish the importance of proactivity as a component of flexibility needed to improve
internal and external performance.
Adaptability and organisational performance
The existing literature suggested adaptability is the component of flexibility that allows
the organisation to tailor structures, designs, and behaviours to fit the demands of a particular
environment or situation. Findings from this research indicate adaptability was positively
correlated with five outcomes including improvements in product and service quality,
developmental processes, employee retention, customer satisfaction, and market share. Yet
adaptability was not correlated with financial indicators of improvements in profit and sales.
These findings complement Chakravarthy (1982) research on organisational adaptation.
According to his research, adaptable organisations are more likely to be able to ensure the
optimal use of organisational resources for product and process development, satisfying market
demands, whilst focusing on encouraging employee creativity and empowerment
(Chakravarthy, 1982). Accordingly, demand for product and service changes and
improvements are being fulfilled, increasing the likelihood of customer satisfaction and
maintenance of market share. This research suggests adaptability is an important part of
flexibility that enables an organisation to respond to both internal and external demands.
Resilience and organisational performance
Existing theoretical and empirical work suggests resilience is the component of
flexibility that enhances an organisation’s ability to minimise organisational strain and
95
disturbance when reacting to change, and to bounce back when negatively affected by change.
Two types of resilience were investigated in this study, labour and financial resilience. Labour
resilience allows an organisation to minimise stress, maintain production and recover in the
event of labour shortage or tightening of the labour market. Labour resilience was positively
correlated with improvements in product and service quality, developmental processes,
customer satisfaction, and market share.
These findings have implications for organisations with low labour resilience, where
the core job is complex with extensive and demanding qualifications. How do these
organisations achieve the same positive outcomes as organisations possessing high labour
resilience with a low skilled and complex core job? This is an interesting avenue for further
investigation.
Financial resilience refers to the level of financial resources an organisation needs to
mitigate loss in the advent of a crisis or change. Results showed that financial resilience was
associated with improvements in developmental processes and greater customer satisfaction.
Financial slack has been previously associated with firm performance. For example, Hambrick
and D’Aveni (1988) found that financial slack resources for achieving flexibility are less likely
to be found in low performers, and more likely to be found in high performers. Further, these
findings are similar to Greenley & Oktemgil’s (1998) results that high performing companies
are able to deploy financial slack to generate more resources for achieving flexibility and
coping with the environment. Therefore, resilience is an important component of flexibility,
impacting internal processes, as well as the external market.
How is Flexibility Related to Internal & External Environmental Characteristics?
The design of the internal organisation is highlighted as an important consideration for
organisational flexibility (see Chakravarthy; 1982; Fox-Wolfgramm, et al. 1988; Lund, 1998;
Volberda, 1997, 1999) as well as the external organisational context (see Grewal & Tansuhaj,
2001; Volberda, 1998). As such, this research investigated the relationships between flexibility
96
components, and structure, control, and competition changes providing some empirical insight
into these relationships.
Flexibility and competition changes
Research Question 2 focused on the association between changes in competition and
the three flexibility components. As discussed in the literature review, flexibility is promoted
as essential for organisational effectiveness in competitive environments, yet contrary to these
arguments and expectations, the degree of competitive dynamism in the environment was
unrelated to proactivity, adaptability, and labour resilience. Further, these findings do not
support previous literature which suggests that firms in highly competitive environments
should focus more on proactivity to learn about competitors (Han, Kim, & Srivastava 1998);
that adaptability is important to enable appropriate response to competitors is greater in highly
competitive environments (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993); and that for organisations in competitive
environments, investments in flexible resources is essential (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001). A
possible explanation for this finding is the operationalisation of competition. Competition was
measured looking at changes in competition or competitive dynamism, not competitive
intensity which Grewal and Tansuhaj (2001) used in their research. This difference needs to be
considered in the interpretation of the results.
Although there was no support for the relationship between proactivity, adaptability,
and labour resilience and competition, results show a positive relationship between competition
changes and financial resilience. This is, in some respects, counter intuitive, as one would
expect that in environments of increased competition, organisations would be unable to hold
onto financial resilience, rather allocating it to deal with and respond to competitive changes
(Carroll & Hannan, 1989). Nonetheless, the results of this study are consistent with Miles and
Snow’s (1994) view of the impact of changing environmental circumstances on organisations.
They suggest that when faced with change, organisations tend to tighten their belts and
97
decrease spending on innovation, which would result in increased financial slack or resilience
(Miles and Snow, 1994).
Flexibility and functional structure
Research Question 4 was addressed using an indicator of structure which measured the
degree the organisation was split up into departments/groups based on functions. It was found
that functional structure is positively associated with three of the flexibility variables,
proactivity, adaptability, and labour resilience.
The results suggesting a link between proactivity and functional structure are consistent
with aspects of Lawrence and Lorsch’s (1969) theory of differentiation and integration. They
maintain that a successful organisation that structures itself by function also has higher levels
of proactive scanning and planning. Further, in highly functional structures, individuals and
groups are separated into departments based on function and they develop relationships which
enable information gathering with parts of the external environment, as well as internal
relationship with other departments. These are both aspects of proactivity measured in this
study.
Organisations with a functional structure are also more likely to be able to adapt. This
may at first seem counter-intuition, as one would usually expect a more functional structure to
be slow moving when it comes to responding to change and adaptation (Duncan, 1979). The
measures of adaptability used in this research may help to explain this finding. This study used
adaptability indicators that primarily focused on adapting products and services in response to
the environment. Functional structures, if complemented by appropriate processes, such as
proactivity, are able to adapt as each function is able to concentrate on keeping up to date with
the environment, competition, technology, and customer changes and to respond accordingly
(Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969).
Functional structure was related to an organisation’s ability to be labour resilient. This
was consistent with expectations, as it was predicted that more functionally structured
98
organisations would possess greater levels of resilience due to their association with economies
of scale and core jobs that require a low number of qualifications and degree of skill (Daft,
2001).
Flexibility and control
To address Research Question 5, results showed that control, as measured by the degree
of formal rules and procedures, was positively related to three flexibility variables, proactivity,
and labour and financial resilience. Using rules and procedures is the traditional type of control
method used within organisations. This approach is becoming easier and more effectively
encourages proactivity with the use of information systems that allow formalisation and
information exchange for processes such as planning, predicting, resource allocation, and
setting of targets and strategies.
Organisations with high levels of control are more likely have a high labour resilience.
This suggests that organisations with a high degree of rules and procedures are expected to
have a core job that is less likely to require multiple and complex position qualifications. This
finding is consistent with the literature on job complexity and control which advocates that
when jobs are complex and challenging, individuals are likely to be interested in creativity and
completing their jobs in the absence of external controls or constraints (Oldham & Cummings,
1996). However, it is important to consider the negative implications of such a finding for
organisations with high labour resilience and high formal controls. Organisations with formal
controls may monitor employee behaviour closely, have limited employee involvement,
provide feedback in a controlling manner, and generally pressure employees to think, feel, or
behave in certain ways (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
Further, the higher the level of control within the organisation, the more likely the
organisation was financially resilient. Therefore, these organisations are likely to bounce back
from situations that could potentially financially cripple other organisations.
99
Do environmental characteristics moderate the relationship between flexibility and
performance outcomes?
This research sought to examine the moderating role of environmental characteristics,
and as such the moderating effect of characteristics of the external environment (changes in
competition) and internal organisational characteristics (functional structure & control) on the
relationship between flexibility and organisational outcomes was investigated. To help
interpret these results, Figure 3.6 presents a model of organisational flexibility depicting the
results of the moderated regression. This figure also provides several avenues for future
empirical examination.
.
Functional Structure
Competitive Dynamism Organisational Flexibility
Proactivity
Adaptability
Resilience Labour
Financial
Organisational Performance
Developmental processes
Employee Retention
Customer Satisfaction
Market Share
Sales
-
-
Interaction
Main Effect
Negative Interaction
Figure 3.6
Model of Organisational Flexibility & Performance Outcomes including the moderating
effects of environmental characteristics
100
Findings support the moderating effect of structure and competition, however, there
were no moderating effects of organisational control. The lack of interaction between
flexibility and control is contrary to expectations, as it was proposed that for organisational
flexibility to flourish, and performance outcomes to be gained, organisations should be
characterised by low levels of formal rules and control (Reed & Blunsdon, 1998). On the
contrary, results revealed that higher levels of control resulted in higher levels of performance,
including improved product and service quality, higher levels of customer satisfaction, and
profitability. These results suggest that for this sample of private organisations, formal rules
and regulations can have positive impacts on performance. This relationship deserves further
theoretical and empirical attention before any real conclusions can be made
Examining the analyses involving competition, results provided mixed support for the
expectations of this research. Labour and financial resilience were found to be important for
employee retention for firms experiencing dynamic competition. This means that
organisation’s experiencing changes in competition, with less complex and demanding core
jobs, and/or that possess financial slack, are likely to have high levels of employee retention.
Adaptability was more important for employee retention where competition was stable.
A possible explanation for this finding is the association between dynamic and uncertain
environments and employee turnover (Bloom & Michel, 2002). Research indicates that
turnover enables organisations to replenish their teams with the skills and competencies
needed for adaptation in uncertain environments (Bloom & Michel, 2002). Furthermore, this
literature advocates that organisations operating in dynamic environments require a high-
performing management group with a broad array of skills, and diverse perspectives, who
compete aggressively, and who consistently perform at high levels (Tushman & Rosenkopf,
1996). However, the literature advocates the sustainability of this intense individual
performance is questionable and as a result can lead to higher turnover at management levels
of the organisation, which is consistent with the findings of this research.
101
Positive results were found for the impact of labour resilience on customer satisfaction
in dynamically competitive environments. Where competition is changing, this finding
suggests that those organisations with less complex and demanding core jobs are likely to
experience improvements in the satisfaction of their customers.
Structure was found to moderate the relationship between resilience and sales.
However, the direction of the interaction differed for the two types of resilience. Highly
functional structures were likely to experience improved sales with high levels of labour
resilience, but were more likely to experience fewer sales with financial resilience. Firstly
focusing on labour resilience, according to the structure literature, organisations where the core
job requires less qualifications and demands of employees, which indicated high labour
resilience, are more likely functionally structured (Ng & Dastmalchian, 1998). This study
extends this association to suggest that these organisations are more likely to also experience
increased sales. Organisations lower in labour resilience, have core jobs that require extensive
qualifications and experience, and results suggest these organisations should be minimally
functionally structured to experience sales improvements.
Focusing on financial resilience and functional structure, the interaction result was
negative. This means that organisations with high functional structures are more likely
experience poor sales with financial resilience, yet organisations with minimal functional
structures would more likely experience increased sales with financial resilience. These results
are somewhat consistent with the functional structure literature which suggests a highly
significant relationship between structure factors and flexibility (Reed & Blunsdon, 1998).
Reed and Blunsdon (1998) found that organisations that showed structural complexity and
high functional differentiation were likely to possess less flexibility. These results reiterate the
importance of financial resilience for sales performance in less structured organisations.
In summary, a picture emerges that organisational flexibility is more likely to have a
positive impact on non-financial outcomes, than financial outcomes such as profit and sales.
102
As different flexibility components were associated with different outcomes (although there
was some consistency in results) supports Weiss’s (2001) argument that flexibility components
may impact outcomes differently. Consistent with expectations the results revealed that the
external environment influences the impact of flexibility on performance indicators of
employee retention and customer satisfaction. Structure acted as a moderator between
flexibility and the financial indicator sales, but control had no influence on the flexibility –
performance relationship.
3.5.2 Theoretical Contributions
As previously mentioned, this study has explored and analysed the organisational
flexibility literature to provide a conceptualisation of the construct. This research proposed
organisational flexibility as a multi-dimensional construct encompassing the ability of an
organisation to be proactive, adaptable, and resilient. Furthermore, this definition was used to
explore the impact of flexibility on performance outcomes. This exploration and subsequent
analysis has provided direction for future theory discussion and empirical research.
Earlier, it was proposed that this research on organisational flexibility could contribute
to the literature on population ecology. In a review of the organisational literature, population
ecology was significantly featured as theory to describe why some organisations survive in a
population, whilst others ‘die’. Critics of this approach ask the question whether survival itself
indicates any relevant information about the processes that encourages or discourages that
survival (Betton & Dess, 1985). It is advocated that when an environment has changed
radically, flexibility in response, enhances survival (Campbell, 1965; Weick, 1979). This
research has shown that flexible organisations experience benefits in several areas of
performance including developmental processes, employee retention, customer satisfaction,
and market share, which could enhance their chance of organisational survival. Further
103
investigation adopting a longitudinal research design is needed to establish more clearly
whether more flexible organisations experience lower attrition levels.
3.5.3 Practical Implications
Although further investigation is necessary, the results of this study provide preliminary
information to managers and practitioners to encourage a more focused approach to flexibility
development and deployment by providing an insight into key characteristics of organisational
flexibility, including how it interacts with environmental variables to affect different aspects of
a firm’s performance. These research findings suggest aspects of flexibility that can be
developed to improve specific organisational outcomes. For example, when an organisation is
seeking to improve the firm’s ability to satisfy customers, the results suggest the organisation
should focus on developing adaptability and financial resilience. Further, the results of this
study provide managers and practitioners with an insight into how their organisation’s internal
and external environment can impact upon the ability of flexibility characteristics to positively
enhance performance. For example, organisations in environments where competition is
dynamic, labour resilience will positively impact employee retention, however, adaptability
will likely result in poorer employee retention.
3.5.4 Expanding our knowledge of Organisational Flexibility: Limitations & Future
Research
Although this research has advanced our understanding of organisational flexibility,
there are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting and applying these
results. The major limitation of this research is the use of secondary data.
As secondary data was used and while instrument design was controlled by one of the
researchers, the questions were not designed specifically to generate data for the issues
explored in these analyses. Specific measures have since been developed to measure each
component of flexibility to be used in future empirical investigations.
104
Although the dataset was culled to include only private firms in the sample, analyses
did not specifically look at differences between industries, and/or product versus service firms.
This factor could have affected results due to the diversity of industries included in the dataset.
Furthermore, an avenue for future research, is exploring these research questions using a
sample of public sector and non-profit organisations, which involves the consideration of
appropriate outcome measures.
The present study included only one source of data collection, being self-report from
the chief decision maker at each establishment. Although this research revealed a lack of
association between flexibility and financial outcomes, research in the future should attempt to
integrate a variety of data collection techniques such as objective financial data to measure
performance. To further advance our understanding of the flexibility framework and to
complement this research, it would be valuable to conduct qualitative research exploring senior
managements’ definition of flexibility and relationships with organisational context,
environmental conditions, and organisational performance.
This research did not track changes over time. Although the current investigation used
quasi-longitudinal measures of performance and the external environment, because of the
complex causal links between the environment and flexibility it is particularly important to
obtain proper longitudinal measures of these processes. For example, Bromiley (1991) in his
research on organisational resilience and performance measured a lagged time period between
resilience and performance. Future research should attempt to incorporate measurement at
multiple points in time.
Finally, much of the literature that discusses the benefits of flexibility for responding to
the external environment argues that flexibility is necessary for organisational performance and
survival in ‘uncertain and turbulent’ environments (Englehardt & Simons, 2002; Eppink, 1978;
Evans, 1991; Sanchez, 1997; Weiss, 2001). Uncertainty, as defined by Ozsomer, Calantone, &
Benedetto (1997) as the rate of change and innovation in the industry as well as the uncertainty
105
or unpredictability of actions of competitors and customers (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence
& Lorsch, 1967; Miller & Friesen, 1983). It is possible that this study has investigated high
pressure environments rather than uncertain and dynamic environments, such that I examined
organisations operating in environments characterised by dynamic competition as opposed to
an environment where organisations are unable to foretell future events. As a result, these
research results should be interpreted and applied accordingly.
106
CHAPTER 4 Group Flexibility Literature Review
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is concerned with flexibility at the work group level. This is an
important issue as work groups play a central role in facilitating flexibility at the
organisational level (Bahrami, 2002; Dastmalchian & Blyton, 1998; Evans, 1991). To
date, little theoretical or empirical research has focused on the construct of group
flexibility. First, an overview of the role of groups in organisations is provided. Next,
the importance of group flexibility for group effectiveness in ambiguous and novel
environments is addressed. This chapter also explores issues such as factors that
enhance or hinder group flexibility. Finally, this chapter concludes by presenting a
research model and outlining propositions for empirical research.
Before I begin this chapter, it is important to acknowledge that there is a debate
in the extant literature about the differing characteristics of groups versus teams. Often
the terms group and team are used interchangeably, with authors drawing no distinction
between the two (Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 1997; Kozlowski, et al., 1999).
However, some researchers have argued that it is important to distinguish between
groups and teams in terms of differences in contexts, tasks, and interdependence
requirements (Kozlowski, et., 1999). Fisher et al. (1997) investigated the differences
between teams and groups, and their results showed that flexibility was one of four
characteristics considered to be common to groups and teams. This finding suggests that
flexibility is of importance in both groups and teams. In the following chapter, I use the
term ‘group’ unless publications I am referencing have used the term ‘team’.
107
4.1 Group Flexibility and Effectiveness
The literature claims that group flexibility contributes to enhancing
organisational effectiveness (Bahrami, 2002; Fisher, et al., 1997), as well as group
effectiveness (Kozlowski et al., 1999; LePine, 2003; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). This
literature is reviewed in more detail below.
4.1.0 Group Flexibility and Organisational Effectiveness
To remain competitive in today’s environment, organisations must often change
what they do or how they do it (Fisher, et al., 1997; Kozlowski, et al., 1999; LePine,
2003). Among the most popular means of achieving increased flexibility has been to
structure work around groups rather than individuals (Cascio, 1995; Ilgen & Pulakos,
1999; LePine, 2003). Structuring an organisation into groups enhances a firm’s ability
to interact with the environment by enhancing the capacity to scan for opportunities and
threats and by increasing the level of proactivity and resilience of the organisation
(Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969). Fisher, et al. (1997) suggested that organisations have
embraced groups in the belief that they are the way to meet the demands of a turbulent
and challenging marketplace. Bahrami (2002) discussed the importance of using groups
in order to achieve high levels of organisational flexibility. This author argued that the
key advantage of groups is their ‘intrinsic flexibility’. Specifically, groups can be
formed, re-formed, and disbanded with relative ease, and as such, they are an important
tool for enhancing an organisation’s flexibility.
Bahrami & Evans (1989) suggest that organisations in competitive and dynamic
environments should opt to use a particular type of group structure, a dualistic structure.
Dualistic structures involve the application of the notion of dualism to structures of
production and change (Goldstein, 1985). This means an organisation’s design ought to
have two quite separate structures, one concerned with production, the other with
108
change (Goldstein, 1983). Dualistic structures have a central formal structure that
remains relatively stable, focusing on production, to enable the clustering of skills and
activities, reporting relationships, and control systems. The key to overcoming the
inflexibility of this central formal structure is to have overlays of temporary project
groups and multi-functional groups focused on assignments, new product development,
strategic assessment, and environmental scanning (Bahrami, 2002). Bahrami concludes
that the flexibility of the organisation is dependent to some extent upon the liquidity and
versatility of its groups.
Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, and Melner (1999) investigated the use of
teams in organisations, their prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. These
authors studied 80 American organisations that were randomly selected to participate in
the study. The results of this study revealed that approximately one-half of the
organisations studied reported using teams. Further analysis revealed that the
organisations with teams tend to earn more revenue, have more sophisticated structures,
and employed a larger number of staff.
Other research suggests that the use of groups is particularly important for larger
organisations, as groups provide a level of flexibility that would not be possible without
them given the coordination and communication issues that arise in large firms
(Bahrami, 2002; Bahrami & Evans, 1989). Different organisations use different types of
groups to achieve their goals (Katz & Allen, 1985), and research has identified a variety
of different types of groups that are associated with a number of different benefits and
costs (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine, et al., 1999). For example, long-term work
groups are those that have been in existence for a long period of time which enables the
development of expertise and knowledge building. However, these groups are also
associated with ongoing maintenance costs in the form of planning, coordination,
109
selection, training, and the need for a constant supply of materials. As a result, these
long term groups require a more extensive resource commitment than short-term groups
(Devine et al., 1999). Work groups that are established on the basis that they will only
be a temporary group have been called ‘project teams’ and have more flexibility than
long-term groups in that they tend to have fewer technical, mechanical, and workspace
dependencies, also they are less tightly coupled to the organisation. Devine et al. (1999)
in their study of teams in organisations predicted that this type of team, the ‘short-term
team’, would be used more extensively in environments where products, competitors,
customers, distributors, retail, and services are rapidly changing. In more stable
industries, such as mining, Devine et al. hypothesised that ‘long-term teams’ would be
more likely to be used.
4.1.1 Group Flexibility and Group Effectiveness
Given the current emphasis on groups in organisations, the increasingly complex
work that groups are expected to accomplish and the increasing uncertainty in the
organisational environment, research that focuses on the flexibility of groups is essential
(Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). Several authors have proposed that there are a number of
benefits of group flexibility for group effectiveness. In particular, Kozlowski et al.
(1999) suggest that flexible groups have the ability to maintain coordination and pacing
to meet the ebb and flow of novel task demands. Lodewijkx, et al. (1999) suggest that
groups are able to adapt their behaviour to respond to variations in the task and/or the
social environment. LePine (2003) argues flexible groups are able to make non-scripted
adjustments to their system of member roles that contribute to group effectiveness. In
contrast, groups that are low on flexibility tend to persist in habitual patterns that may
significantly hinder performance (Gersick & Hackman, 1990).
110
Discussions on the impact of group flexibility on effectiveness have been based
on the idea that flexibility is most important for groups that operate in dynamic
environments or groups that tackle complex and/or ambiguous tasks. In these situations,
the ultimate goal or objective of a group may be clear, but the activities and tasks
needed to achieve that goal may not be so clear (Boguslaw & Porter, 1962; Kozlowski,
et al. 1999). When the task of a group is well-defined, such as a routine assembly
activity, the ability to change and adapt may not be important to accomplishing the task.
That is, routine, repetitive work may not benefit from group flexibility (Jehn & Shah,
1997; Roy, 1959, cited in Okhuysen, 2001, p. 806). However, if a group’s task is
ambiguous, the ability to change to meet unexpected challenges or to take advantage of
new opportunities is critical (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Isenberg, 1981; Ziller, 1958).
When a group’s task is ambiguous, groups must be prepared to adjust spontaneously to
rapidly changing performance conditions for success, by deriving and using new
strategies and techniques for confronting novel elements within their environment
(Argote & McGrath, 1993; Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000).
Okhuysen (2001, p.797) sums up the importance of group flexibility for group
performance by stating that;
“The flexibility of groups directly affects their performance by providing more
opportunities to select effective strategies. However, an important point is that as a
group increases its flexibility, it also increases opportunities to abandon mediocre or
ineffective strategies. An inflexible group, in contrast, can lock the group into a
mediocre strategy for a longer time. Simply put, more flexibility in a group improves
performance because members can calibrate their strategies to meet the needs of the
task”.
111
Little empirical research has investigated the relationship between group
flexibility and group effectiveness. While the theoretical literature promotes flexibility
as important for achieving task performance goals (Argote & McGrath, 1993; Jehn &
Shah, 1997; Okhuysen, 2001; Roy, 1959; Ziller, 1958), there is a lack of evidence
supporting the influence of group flexibility on outcomes such as group satisfaction,
innovation, group viability, and commitment. However, it seems reasonable to suggest
that flexible groups who are able to work together to adapt to changing task demands
would report higher levels of group viability, which refers to a group’s ability to
continue working together effectively (Druskat, & Wolff, 1999).
Another issue, there is no agreement as to how to define group flexibility.
Specifically, authors have assumed that there is no need to define group flexibility,
using it as a generic term. The failure to adequately consider the theoretical nature of
group flexibility has meant that it is difficult, if not impossible, to operationalise this
construct. The failure to define group flexibility has impeded empirical investigations
into this topic. In the remainder of this chapter, existing definitions and descriptions of
group flexibility are reviewed in order to identify similarities and differences in the way
in which group flexibility has been considered.
4.2 Previous Conceptualisations of Group Flexibility
Only a handful of researchers have attempted to describe and explicitly define
group flexibility, only one study could be identified that conducted an empirical
investigation of group flexibility. In Randolph and Posner’s (1992) work on project
teams, they discussed group flexibility as an important way in which to achieve success
in project teams and task forces. They defined group flexibility as encompassing the
willingness to consider a wide variety of approaches to a problem, looking at problems
from a number of angles, and viewing and understanding problems in different ways
112
(Randolph & Posner, 1992). From this description, group flexibility is about exploring
problems creatively and being open to different ideas. Other authors that have been
theoretically interested in group flexibility include Okhuysen (2001), Okhuysen and
Eisenhardt (2002), Okhuysen and Waller (2002) and Ziller (1958).
Okhuysen and colleagues (Okhuysen, 2001; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002;
Okhuysen & Waller, 2002) have conducted research investigating the impact of a range
of interventions on group flexibility. Okhuysen (2001) set to discover if self-
interruptions create more flexible work processes in groups, and whether the interaction
between familiarity of group members (with each other) and interventions, add
flexibility to groups or reduce flexibility. Okhuysen’s (2001) interest in group flexibility
originates from the notion that change is important in groups because the ability to adapt
can have important consequences for group performance (Ancona, 1990; Gersick, 1988;
Waller, 1999, cited in Okhuysen, 2001). This author makes a distinction between the
importance of flexibility in groups in well-defined tasks as opposed to ambiguous tasks.
For groups with well-defined tasks, the ability to change and adapt may not be
important for accomplishing their tasks as it is in a group where they are faced with
novel, changing, and unexpected situations (Kozlowski, et al, 1999). For ambiguous
tasks, the ability to change to meet unexpected challenges or to take advantage of new
opportunities is critical (Isenberg, 1981). That is, a group facing an ambiguous task
needs to be ‘flexible.’
Okhuysen (2001) conducted a laboratory experiment using 168 first year
students. These students were assigned to 42 groups. The results of this study indicate
that a cluster of interruptions to a task lead to greater flexibility and greater
opportunities for adaptation, leading to higher performance. Interruptions include
behaviours such as joking with team mates or discussion of the meeting and time
113
remaining. These behaviours enhance flexibility by providing group members with an
opportunity to stop and think, and to evaluate the group’s progress on the task, and to
modify their working strategies if necessary. This study suggests that it is plausible to
propose groups that were faced with interruptions and were unable to evaluate their
progress, or to modify their strategies, would be considered inflexible. While Okhuysen
does not explicitly define flexibility, he does suggest that a number of capabilities that
are associated with flexibility including; displaying minimal rigidity in the face of
alternatives, the ability to reorient the activities of the group, to select effective
strategies given the circumstances, the ability to explore potential opportunities, to
explore problems, and to develop new strategies, suited to the task.
Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002) further elaborated on the concept of group
flexibility. These authors argued that group flexibility allows group members to
improve their performance on ambiguous and/or novel tasks. These authors explored
how formal interventions improve knowledge integration in groups and consequently
improve group flexibility. Okhuysen & Eisenhardt argued that simple formal
interventions, such as managing time, questioning others, and sharing information are
central to facilitating group flexibility. In this experimental study, 160 introductory
organisational behaviour students were randomly assigned to 40 groups and 30 of these
groups were given information about three formal interventions, sharing information,
questioning others, and managing time. The control group received no extra information
about the task.
The findings of this study indicate simple formal interventions of managing time
and questioning others was central to group flexibility and that elaborate interventions
may be less effective than simple ones, as they constrain the flexibility of groups to
adapt (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002). Okhuysen and Eisenhardt suggest that the simple
114
formal interventions act as interruptions which allow members to take advantage of
“windows of opportunity” to adjust their processes given their current situation. In
contrast, inflexible groups do not take advantage of interruptions. Again Okhuysen and
Eisenhardt (2002) did not explicitly define flexibility, rather, these authors discussed
how a number of interventions could promote group flexibility.
Okhuysen and Waller (2002) explored the issue of semi-structures and group
flexibility. They adopted Brown and Eisenhardt’s (1997) conceptualisation of semi-
structures, which are tools used by groups to provide flexible methods to organise their
work. Okhuysen and Waller included semi-structures of time pacing (having temporal
milestones to guide work and evaluate progress) and interruptions (time-driven,
humour, formal instructions). The use of these semi-structures increases flexibility when
dealing with an ambiguous task (Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). Okhuysen and Waller
(2002) also investigated the influence of group familiarity on the use of semi-structures.
They used the data from the two previous studies (Okhuysen, 2001; Okhuysen &
Eisenhardt, 2002) to explore this issue. The findings of this study suggest that although
group familiarity is clearly useful in helping a group adopt time pacing, increasing
flexibility at the same time, group familiarity may impose a limit on group flexibility.
This is because familiarity means that individuals have a rich set of expectations about
the behaviours they should adopt due to established norms and values, which leads to
many interruptions such as talking about social and task activities. As a result, adding
other semi-structures such as time pacing may actually detract from group flexibility
(Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).
Okhuysen and Waller (2002) did not explicitly define group flexibility. These
authors state that in uncertain situations “group members must adapt and respond to
changes in the circumstances around them, or they must change their approaches as
115
their understanding of their tasks emerge” (2002, p.1063). These authors conclude by
suggesting future research should focus more explicitly on flexibility in groups as a
property that may contribute directly to group effectiveness.
As the above review indicates, very little attention has been directed towards
explicitly defining group flexibility. One exception is the work of Ziller (1958). This
author defined group flexibility as “the ability of a group to reorganise to meet the time
demands of a new situation” (1958, p. 346). Ziller explored the relationship between
group characteristics and group flexibility, adopting an experimental procedure with
aircrew employees belonging to 96 work groups. The group task required the
completion of an eight-item intelligence test in a period of time which demanded a
change in the group’s customary operating procedure. Ziller identified a number of
indicators of group flexibility including, (1) whether group members worked
individually with little or no interaction with others, (2) whether group members worked
as a unit discussing each problem in turn, (3) whether group members began working as
a unit but upon recognising that there was insufficient time to compete the task modified
their strategy, (4) whether group members worked as a highly organised unit and limited
the time spent on each problem to two minutes and appointed a time keeper and
recorder, and (5) whether group members subdivided into two, three, four, or five
sections and divided the problems accordingly.
Ziller (1958) reported groups that obtained the highest score on the task used the
subgroup or highly organised group approach (4, 5). He wanted to specifically
investigate the groups who had the capacity to reorganise, as the aircrew was already
organised as a highly integrated group with a single leader and were accustomed to
performing as a single unit. He suggested that flexible crews are able to overcome this
organisational routine and reorganise in accordance with the time demands of a new
116
situation. Overall, the results of this study indicate that more flexible groups have more
open communication systems with relatively fewer restraints on the member’s
interaction.
4.3 Limitations of Previous Research
The above review suggests that research on group flexibility has a number of
limitations. First, the majority of the research has been conducted in a laboratory setting,
has used experimental designs, and three of the four studies used introductory university
students. While an experimental design allows control of extraneous effects and enables
the examination of the effects in a focused manner that is difficult to match in field
settings (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002), the applicability of experimental studies to
actual work groups is uncertain. This approach to group flexibility echoes problems in
the early research on group processes, which was criticised for an over reliance on
experimentation (Sampson, 1989; Shaw, 1981, Steiner, 1986, cited in Wheelan &
Hochberger, 1996, p. 143). Second, only Ziller’s (1958) study explicitly defined group
flexibility and subsequently operationalised this construct. The other research on group
flexibility has focused on the interventions and processes that can be used to increase
group flexibility, but they do not clearly define group flexibility. The lack of clarity
regarding the definition of group flexibility has contributed to the lack of understanding
of the nature and effects of group flexibility.
4.4 Constructs Related to Group Flexibility
A number of studies have examined a range of constructs that seem conceptually
similar to group flexibility (e.g., Kozlowski et al., 1999; LePine 2003; Lodewijkx, et al.,
1999). Kozlowski et al. (1999) refer to ‘team adaptability’ in their theoretical paper on
developing adaptive teams. These authors defined team adaptability as “the capability of
117
a team to maintain a coordinated interdependence and perform by selecting an
appropriate network from its repertoire or by investing a new configuration” (1999, p.
273). Team adaptability requires rapid selection, evaluation, and modification of
behaviour as situations change. Kozlowski et al. discussed adaptability in the context of
non-routine tasks. These authors identified a number of ways through which to enhance
team adaptability including team members developing and sharing an understanding
that the team is a flexible network of role linkages, exploring transaction alternatives,
and exploring coordination sequences.
Lodewijkx, et al. (1999) focused on investigating competition between
individuals and groups using a group adaptiveness perspective. These authors proposed
that in order to maximise their gains and to minimise their losses or to achieve a
competitive advantage, groups more readily adapt their behaviour to variations in their
environment than individuals, who are more constrained by norms of interpersonal
fairness and equality (Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990; Schopler, &
Insko, 1992; cited in Lodewijkx et al, 1999, p. 389). Using an experimental design with
third year social psychology students, these authors found that groups show greater
adaptation to environmental variations than individuals whose conflict behaviours can
be described as much more static, fair, and accommodative.
LePine (2003) examined the factors that allow group members to effectively
adapt the systems of member roles in response to unforeseen change in their work
environment. This author used the term ‘role structure adaptation’ as the focus of
adaptation at the group level. Role structure adaptation refers to “reactive and non-
scripted adjustments to a team’s system of member roles that contribute to team
effectiveness” (LePine, 2003, p. 28). His research took place in a laboratory setting with
73-three person teams composed of college juniors and seniors who completed a three
118
hour computerised decision making simulation. The results of this study indicate that
groups who adapted their role structure in response to a communications breakdown,
performed better than groups that failed to adapt their role structure.
In summary, this review indicates that different terminologies have been used to
investigate a number of constructs that seem conceptually related to group flexibility.
Similar to flexibility, these constructs all examine the ability of a group to change its
behaviour and/or processes to meet the challenges of changing situations and include
team adaptability (Kozlowski et al., 1999), group adaptiveness (Lodewijkx et al., 1999),
and role structure adaptation (LePine, 2003).
4.5 Defining Group Flexibility
The review of the group flexibility literature suggests that this is a
multidimensional construct which encompasses a group’s ability to scan issues and
consider alternatives (Okhuysen, 2001; Randolph & Posner, 1992), modify its structure,
behaviour, processes, and roles to meet new challenges (Okhuysen, 2001; Okhuysen &
Eisenhardt, 2001; Kozlowski et al., 1999; Lodewijkx et al., 1999; LePine, 2003; Ziller,
1958) and deal with changing circumstances (Okhuysen & Waller, 2001; Ziller, 1958).
Table 4.0 summarises the definitions and labels that have been used when discussing
group flexibility.
In this review, a number of studies that examined constructs which are
conceptually similar to group flexibility were identified. This review indicated that
groups who possess ‘adaptability’ (Kozlowski, et al., 1999), conform to the group
adaptiveness model (Lodewijkx et al., 1999) and are capable of role structure adaptation
(LePine, 2003) can be classified as flexible groups. The review of the group flexibility
literature and examination of existing definitions and related constructs, has provided a
basic understanding of group flexibility. The purpose of my exploratory research on
119
group flexibility is to gain a more thorough understanding of the meaning of ‘group
flexibility’ and to compare it to existing descriptions of the phenomena.
Table 4.0
Group flexibility descriptions and related terminology
Source Terminology Description/Definition
1. Randolph & Posner (1992) Group Flexibility
- the willingness to consider a wide variety of approaches to a problem,
- looking at problems from another angle - as akin to idea fluency - the view and
understand a problem in different ways.
2. Okhuysen (2001) Group Flexibility
- Resisting imposition of formal intervention (page 801)
- Minimal rigidity in the face of alternatives (801)
- Clusters in the group’s interaction indicating their ability to reorient the activities of the group and to select effective strategies (801)
- Explore potential opportunities, to explore problems, and to develop new strategies for their task(page 802)
3. Okhuysen & Eisenhardt (2001) Group Flexibility - Adjust their processes, given their current
situation
4. Okhuysen & Waller (2001) Group Flexibility
- Adapt and respond to changes in the circumstances around them,
- Change their approaches as their understanding of their tasks emerges
5. Ziller (1958) Group Flexibility - The ability of a group to reorganise to meet the time demands of a new situation
6. Kozlowski et al. (1999) Team adaptability
- The capability of a team to maintain a coordinated interdependence and performance by selecting an appropriate network from its repertoire or by investing a new configuration
7. Lodewijkx et al. (1999) Group adaptiveness - groups more readily adapt their behaviour to
variations in these environments
8. LePine (2003) Role Structure Adaptation
- reactive and nonscripted adjustments to a team’s system of member roles that contribute to team effectiveness
4.6 Group Flexibility: Aggregation or Independence?
Further, an important issue to consider when assessing group flexibility is at
what level of analysis to assess this construct. Some authors have argued that group
characteristics are simply aggregated attributes of individuals (Barrick, Stewart,
120
Neubert, & Mount, 1998; LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997; Taggar,
Hackett, & Saha, 1999). In the case of flexibility, Molleman and Slomp (1999) note
that worker flexibility is important in determining how flexible work groups are. Using
this approach to group flexibility measurement, means gathering and summarising
individual level data to operationalise work group level constructions (Klein, et al.,
2001). This involves testing the variability of responses within a group and this
variance statistic becomes the attribute the group, as opposed to an attribute of any
individual response (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985).
Alternatively, Kozlowski, et al. (1999) note that teams are not just the sum of
individual parts and this is supported by Gilbert and Shultz (1998), who argue that
groups have characteristics that are more than the simple aggregation of individual
members. Hutchins (1996) argued that group effectiveness after an unanticipated
change in task context, may depend on the effectiveness with which members can
jointly adapt their roles. From this perspective, group flexibility is measured by
individual perceptions of the group’s ability to be flexible.
Existing theory level of measurement and compilation of group constructs, has
suggested that groups whose members vary greatly in their perceptions of the work
environment, may be unable to bridge their differences to formulate, much less
implement adaptive responses to the environment (Hambrick, 1994; Klein, Conn,
Smith, & Sorra, 2001). Therefore, using this approach to measuring flexibility involves
testing a direct consensus composition model which tests the degree to which members
agree in their perceptions of group flexibility of the work group. In the absence of
agreement here, the group level construct is flawed (Chan, 1998; Klein, et al, 2001).
The research suggests that it is important to investigate whether group flexibility
should be measured as the mean of group member perceptions of work group
121
flexibility, or should it be the aggregation of individual group member scores for
individual flexibility. Considering the above review of the group flexibility literature
and the issues discussed, this research seeks to address the following research
questions,
Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of a flexible group?
Research Question 2: How should group flexibility be conceptualised: As an
aggregation of individual flexibility levels or the overall flexibility of the group?
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between group flexibility and group
effectiveness?
4.7 Factors that Enhance and Inhibit Flexibility
It is impossible to consider groups in isolation from the context in which they
are embedded. The context in which a group is located has an impact on the group’s
ability to develop flexibility capabilities, the ability of the group to use these capabilities
effectively, and the ability of the group to improve their level of flexibility. Previous
literature has described factors that impact upon group flexibility and situations where
they enhance flexibility levels and situations where they inhibit group flexibility. These
factors include leadership and communication (Ziller, 1985), interruptions (Okhuysen,
2001; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002), and group member
familiarity with each other (Okhuysen, 2001; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen
& Waller, 2002).
4.7.0 Leadership
Ziller (1958) focused his research on identifying processes within the
organisation and the group that would help or hinder group flexibility. Ziller
122
investigated a leader’s level of authoritarianism and the impact of authoritarianism on
communication and the group’s ability to be flexible. Highly authoritative leaders were
expected to structure the communications of the group around themselves, and
therefore, restrict information exchange and group flexibility. Ziller’s experimental
study of aircrew groups, showed that fifty percent of groups whose leaders were low in
authoritarianism used approaches to the experimental task that reflected reorganisation
and flexibility. This result was in contrast to the thirty-one percent of the groups with
leaders high on authoritarianism who did not respond as flexibly to the experimental
task. Ziller concluded that groups whose leaders are willing to modify their judgments
about group norms are best prepared to adapt to the requirements of a new situation.
4.7.1 Interruptions and Familiarity
Okhuysen (2001) investigated the impact of interruptions on group flexibility.
He predicted that interruptions would add to a group’s flexibility by providing group
members with an opportunity to stop and think, to evaluate the progress of the group,
and to modify the group’s working strategies. He also investigated group familiarity,
proposing two opposing effects of familiarity of group members on group flexibility.
First, group familiarity may provide an adaptable behaviour structure as members
develop norms and values that represent appropriate behavioural responses (Albelson,
1981; Lord & Kernan, 1987, cited in Okhuysen, 2001, p. 797). Using this rationale,
when the norms and values encourage adaptability, the adoption of a formal
intervention is expected to increase the flexibility of groups who are familiar with each
other. Second, familiarity may lead to inertia, making familiar groups harder to change.
When group norms are strongly held within a group, then attempts to use interventions
may be met with rigidity and unwillingness to change. Okhuysen (2001) reported that
familiarity among group members reduced the ability of a group to adopt a second
123
intervention that was needed to get the group to organise themselves differently. Rather
familiarity led members to reduce their level of flexibility as they saw the second
intervention as an imposition.
This finding is consistent with Marks et al. (2002) who propose groups that have
been in existence for longer periods of time might have previously developed mental
models that are less malleable and less flexible, thus not allowing such rapid
adjustments for novel circumstances.
Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002) studied formal interventions designed to
improve knowledge integration in groups. These formal interventions act as knowledge
integration tools as they structure the group interaction so that knowledge is more
effectively introduced and combined. These authors found that elaborate interventions
used during group meetings were less effective than simple ones, like questioning
others, managing time, and sharing information, because elaborate interventions
constrain the flexibility of groups. Okhuysen and Waller (2002) also found that the use
of time-pacing in groups is a tool that can be used to provide flexibility.
In summary, this review suggests that some group characteristics and
organisational processes may help or hinder a group’s ability to be flexible include, the
level of familiarity of group members, the duration of time the group has been together,
the processes used in the group that permit evaluation, reorientation, and refocusing, the
leadership style within the group, and communication. Taking this evidence into
consideration, my exploratory group flexibility research also investigates:
Research Question 4: What factors enhance group flexibility and how do these
factors impact on flexibility?
Research Question 5: What factors hinder group flexibility and how do these factors
impact on flexibility?
124
4.7.2 Research Model
Figure 4.0 displays the model that is used to guide the exploratory investigation
of group flexibility. This model lays out the underlying logic of the problem in a way
that can serve as a guiding framework for exploring group flexibility and its various
aspects (McGrath, 1984, p. 12). The research questions are represented by the lines 1-5.
Figure 4.0
Group Flexibility Exploratory Research Model
Measurement Aggregate or Independent construct
Group Flexibility Factors that enhance flexibility
Characteristics of Group flexibility
Group Effectiveness
1
Factors that limit flexibility
4
5 2
3
4.8 Conclusion
This chapter has discussed the literature on group flexibility and proposed a
group flexibility research model. This review suggests that group flexibility is multi-
dimensional and can be described as a group’s ability to scan issues, modify its
structure, behaviour, processes, and roles to meet new challenges and deal with
changing circumstances. These characteristics of flexibility will be used to guide
empirical investigation to further explore the concept. The proposed research model
includes the exploration of the unit of measurement appropriate for group flexibility to
125
address issues of aggregation and within-group agreement. Consistent with the
literature, the proposed relationship between group flexibility and group effectiveness is
investigated. Finally, the research suggests several contextual factors that have the
potential to facilitate or impede flexibility, such as leadership, communication,
interruptions, and familiarity. The research model seeks to investigate the impact of
these factors, as well as explore other factors that may influence group flexibility. The
testing of this research model in the next chapter provides a more advanced
understanding of group flexibility for further empirical investigation and contributes to
the practical management of work groups in organisations.
126
CHAPTER 5 Study 2
Group Flexibility
5.0 Introduction
The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine empirically the flexibility
construct at the group level. This study involved both a qualitative and quantitative
exploration of group flexibility. The chapter begins with an overview of the research
questions investigated, followed by a description of the case study used to conduct this
research. Results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis are then compared and
integrated to test the group flexibility research model. This chapter concludes with a
discussion of the results and their practical and theoretical implications.
5.1 Research Questions
This research was focused on exploring five research questions developed in the
previous chapter. First, how should group flexibility be conceptualised? A review of the
literature in the previous chapter identified three themes from the existing descriptions
and discussions of group flexibility. These themes suggest that group flexibility can be
described as a group’s ability to scan issues and consider alternatives, modify its
structure, roles, and processes to meet new challenges, and be able to deal with
changing circumstances. This chapter empirically explores this definition of group
flexibility. The second research question is concerned with how to conceptualise group
flexibility. That is, should group flexibility be composed of an aggregation of individual
group members’ scores for individual flexibility or the overall flexibility of the group?
The third research question seeks to investigate the relationship between group
flexibility and group effectiveness. The last two research questions seek to examine the
factors that facilitate group flexibility and the factors that limit group flexibility.
127
5.2 Research Design Overview
A case study approach for the investigation of group flexibility was used which
allowed for a more detailed and extensive exploration of the concept than would
otherwise be available (Vaughan, 1992). The design of this case study research was
guided by Eisenhardt’s (1989) work on the topic. This author identified eight steps to
guide the case research process. This process is illustrated in Table 5.0.
Table 5.0
Process for Theory Building from Case Study Research
Step Activity
Getting Started Definition of research question
Selecting Cases Neither theory nor hypotheses Specified population Theoretical, not random sampling
Crafting Instruments and Protocols Multiple data collection methods Qualitative and quantitative data combined Multiple investigators
Entering the field Overlap data collection and analysis, including field notes Flexible and opportunistic data collection methods
Analysing data Within-case analysis Cross-case pattern search using divergent techniques
Shaping Hypotheses Iterative tabulation of evidence for each construct Replication, not sampling, logic across cases Search evidence for ‘why’ behind relationships
Enfolding literature Comparison with conflicting literature Comparison to similar literature
Theoretical Closure Theoretical saturation when possible
5.2.0 Case Study Selection
Selection of this case study was based on theoretical sampling (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Cases selected using theoretical sampling may be chosen to replicate
previous cases or to extend the theory, to fill theoretical categories, or to provide
examples of polar types or unique situations (Eisenhardt, 1989). Similarly, Kalleberg,
Knoke, Marsden, and Spaeth’s (1996) suggested a research site should be selected
because it exhibits unusual characteristics that excite analytic curiosity or researchers
128
have special access to a site. In choosing the case study for this research, all of these
criteria were considered. As a result, this research was conducted at a site using
alliancing contracting where ‘flexibility’ is promoted as a characteristic that is
imperative to the success of the group and project outcomes, as well as an important
outcome of the project arrangement. Due to the recent introduction and use of alliancing
into the Australian construction industry, construction and government organisations
and clients are eager to understand the benefits, pitfalls, and challenges of alliancing.
Due to the interest in alliancing, a group of researchers were invited to study this
alliancing project. These researchers conducted research to identify the critical factors
that influence the success of alliancing, with an aim of enhancing understanding of
factors that facilitate or impede alliance contracting success.
5.2.1 Case Study Description
This research was conducted on an alliance project with a budget in excess of
$100 million. The project was initiated by a large commercialised business unit, which
is referred to as ‘Prentice,’ (for confidentiality reasons) within an Australian local
government council. Alliances are of particular interest in the Australian construction
industry where there is an increasing need to utilise alliances, given the size and
complexity of projects commonly undertaken. Well-understood projects such as house
building rarely require an alliance as they are easy to plan and execute. On the other
hand, innovative or unique public works, particularly those involving large capital
outlays such as this project, require a different approach to planning and execution, due
to the higher risk profile, aim for high quality, and a more diverse mix of expertise
(Walker, Hampson, & Peters, 2000). As such, flexibility has become critical to the
success of alliance contracting.
129
Prentice operates in a high risk, public utility arena. The purpose of the Prentice
project was to design, construct, commission, and undertake performance improving
upgrades to a major public utility at two different sites on opposite sides of a capital
city. Another critical factor making this case an excellent example of a situation where
flexibility is critical, is the fact that there was an agreement between Prentice’s alliance
partners to a ‘no litigation’ clause in the contract. This clause indicates that partners
could not take legal action against one another. This means that partners have an
obligation to work with one another to resolve obstacles to the completion of the
project. With the legal alternative closed, it was critical that alliance partners
demonstrate flexibility in a myriad of different ways to enable successful completion of
the project.
The project brief states that the alliance is focused on achieving flexibility in its
approach to design, construction, and the commissioning of upgrades to the public
utility. This document emphasised that this was to be an innovative project, not simple
rigid business as usual, for which the construction industry has a reputation.
After an intense tender and selection period for alliance partners, the resulting
project structure consists of seventy-two people on a full-time and part-time basis, from
more than ten organisations, working at three different sites. These organisations are
diverse in size, processes, and expertise, and have staff who specialise in design,
engineering, construction, commissioning, the environment, risk, and innovation as well
as experts from the council, suppliers, and end users. The structure of the alliance is
shown in Figure 5.0.
130
Environ-m ental Coord
Comm-unication
Coord
Alliance Project Board
Alliance Manager
Deputy Alliance Manager
Services Coordinator
Design Coordinator
R isk & Innovation Manager
Project Manager
Site 1
Project M anager Site 2&3
Alliance Management Team AMT
Site 1 construction
team
Site 2 construction
team
Site 3 construction
team
Services Team
Design Team
Estimators etc
Commissioning Coord
Safety Advisor
Safety Advisor
Figure 5.0
Prentice Alliance Project
The role of the Alliance Project Board, consisting of senior representatives from
the local government council, is to provide guidance, focus, and leadership to the
Alliance Management Team (AMT). The Alliance manager coordinates all three project
sites and is accountable for achieving the objectives of the alliance across the projects.
The AMT, consisting of senior personnel and key project and functional leaders,
provides overall management for all projects, and ensures effective integration into the
business unit’s operations. This group provides leadership and coordination to the wider
integrated project group. The AMT is comprised of people from diverse specialist
backgrounds, diverse personalities, and from a variety of organisations with different
methodologies, cultures, and procedures. Members were nominated by their
organisation and selected by the alliance as they were the ‘best for the job’ regardless of
which alliance partner organisation they belonged to.
This type of arrangement required a significant change and flexibility of attitude
and behaviour to that considered the norm in traditional hard dollar design and
131
construction contracts (Singh, 2001). In addition, the AMT as well as the wider
integrated group needed to be flexible in their work roles, decision making, and open to
ideas to successfully achieve alliance outcomes (Walker, et al., 2000). Outcomes
involve achieving objectives in the areas of safety, performance, quality, cost, time, risk,
environment, and stakeholders (Prentice Proposal document, 2002).
5.2.2 Data Collection Methods
To gain an understanding of group flexibility in the alliance context, multiple
methods of data collection were used, including interviews with key alliance members,
observations of group meetings, and the administration of a questionnaire. A
memorandum was sent out to all alliance members by the alliance manager informing
them of the role of the researchers, as well as the role of the alliance members in this
research. The alliance manager also expressed his commitment and support for the
research being undertaken.
5.2.3 Multiple Methods and Triangulation
This study used multiple methods, a mixture of qualitative and quantitative
styles of research and data (Burgess, 1982; Neuman, 2003). Qualitative and quantitative
methods differ in many ways, however, these methods complement each other,
especially when they are used sequentially. For this research, qualitative data collection
was undertaken (observation, interviews) first, followed by a questionnaire. Qualitative
data was collected to explore definitions of group flexibility to inform scale
development for subsequent quantitative research and to develop a research model for
future testing (see Brannen, 1992; Neuman, 2003; Scandura & Williams, 2000).
Figure 5.1 is a timeline of data collection showing the stages of project data that
was collected. Although data was collected at multiple points in time, this study is
132
cross-sectional in nature, as variables were only measured at one point in time. Each
data collection method is briefly outlined below.
MMIIDD 22000022 EENNDD 22000022 EEAARRLLYY 22000033 TTOO JJUUNNEE 22000033 TTOO MMIIDD 22000044 TTOO SSEEPPTT 22000055 OOCCTT 22000055
JAN 2004 FEB 2004 APRIL 2004 MAY 2004
Tendering Processes
Project Completion Hand-over
Case study research commenced
Announcement alliance partners &
selection of AMT
Total cost estimate, Environ’al Mgt,
Risk Mgt Schedule Develop’t
Design & Communication & Site Preparation
Interviews Behavioural Observations
Survey
Construction & Commissioning
Figure 5.1
Methods and Timeline of Data Collection and Project Milestones
5.3 Stage 1 Qualitative Data Collection
The first stage of empirical investigation involved the collection of qualitative
data through non-participant observation and interviews.
5.3.0 Non-Participant Observation
Observation of individuals in the alliance project was conducted in order to
examine in real time, the group’s level of flexibility, how flexibility is displayed in the
group setting, and how flexibility impacts on group processes. Direct observation
involved observing alliance management group meetings (Yin, 2003). Three meetings
were observed in an unobtrusive manner by two researchers and the meetings took place
once a week over a three week period. The meetings varied in length from fifty minutes
to one and a half hours. Neuman’s (2003, p. 381-386) advice for taking observational
notes was used, that is, verbatim statements were written down with double quotation
marks to distinguish these comments from paraphrases and accessories that were
recorded (non-verbal communication, tone, speed, gestures).
133
5.3.1 Interviews
There were several reasons for collecting interview data. First, interviews were
used to tap individuals’ perceptions of group flexibility, to inform the design and
development of a group flexibility measure for use in the survey. Second, interviews
were used to identify factors that facilitate or hinder group flexibility. Third, questions
in the interview related to identifying project and group effectiveness outcomes. Fourth,
the purpose of the interviews was to explore the relationship between group flexibility
and effectiveness using the outcomes defined by interviewees.
5.3.2 Participants
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 members of the alliance and
one individual peripheral to the alliance, an external facilitator. Table 5.1 shows the
alliance members who were interviewed. The interviewees were chosen based on
theoretical sampling, which meant establishing processes and criteria to pin-point the
most appropriate informants (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Carrero, Peiro, & Salanova,
2000). The criteria used for interviewee selection, included the selecting of polar types
to offer an understanding of the differing perspectives of group flexibility (Pettigrew,
1990). This meant selecting alliance members who represented very different
professions, and that were involved in different aspects of the project. Diversity was
addressed by choosing the alliance manager (who has a construction management
background), deputy alliance manager (government background), risk and innovation
manager (consulting background), design coordinator (from a top engineering
organisation), and superintendent (blue collar background). It was hoped that by
selecting such a diverse interviewee pool, it would allow the investigation and
documentation of diverse variations (Kuzel, 1992; Patton, 1990).
134
Table 5.1
Interview Participants, their Alliance Position, & Interview Duration
Interview No. Position Interview Duration
Interviewee 1 Alliance Manager 60 minutes
Interviewee 2 Innovation & Risk Manager 60 minutes
Interviewee 3 Deputy Alliance Manager 75 minutes
Interviewee 4 Personal Secretary to Alliance Manager 60 minutes
Interviewee 5 Services Manager 50 minutes
Interviewee 6 Design Coordinator 45 minutes
Interviewee 7 Design Leader 60 minutes
Interviewee 8 Project Manager (Site 1 - Construction) 35 minutes
Interviewee 9 Superintendent (Site 1) 55 minutes
Interviewee 10 Project Manager (Site 2 - Construction) 60 minutes
Interviewee 11 Schedule Manager/planner 60 minutes
Interviewee 12 External Facilitator 50 minutes
Further, it was important to get a non-biased, overarching perspective from
members of the alliance that are not entrenched in a particular professional background
and who oversee all parts of the project. Interviews were conducted with the alliance
manager’s personal secretary who attended all meetings; an external facilitator who had
been consulting on group development since the alliance’s conception; and the schedule
manager, who dealt with most alliance members on a weekly basis. It was expected that
these informants would provide intense, information rich data (Kuzel, 1992; Patton,
1990).
5.3.3 Procedure
The interviews took place on-site by one of the three researchers involved in the
research. The interviews were conducted in April 2004, at a crucial time in the project
when designs were being finalised and construction was due to start in the next month.
135
The AMT had been together for approximately eighteen months. An interview protocol
was used when conducting the interviews (see Appendix D), which outlined the key
issues to explore in addition to specific questions (Lee, 1999). This guide was open-
ended enough to let the interviewees introduce any ideas and thoughts they believed
were appropriate for the discussion, and the interviewers were able to freely pursue
emergent topics, and probe more deeply than the initially planned questions (Dukerich
& Ammeter, 1998; Lee, 1999). Interviews varied in length from 35 minutes to 75
minutes.
Each interview began by informing the interviewee that the interview would be
taped and they had the option of refusing (see Appendix E). From here, interviewees
were then asked general questions such as their position and role within the project and
their experience in working in alliances, with the purpose of establishing rapport and
easing into the more in-depth questions. Interviewees were asked to describe several
aspects of the alliance including the group’s culture, the unique initiatives used to
develop the team, skills they needed for the group to operate successfully in the alliance,
and how flexible the alliance was. Most interviewees mentioned flexibility or
adaptability as a group skill required in the alliance without prompting. If flexibility
wasn’t mentioned, specific questions were asked to address flexibility. In addition,
interviewees were asked to define the effectiveness criteria of the project and project
group and the impact of flexibility on these outcomes. The interview concluded with
questions about obstacles to flexibility. All interviews were transcribed verbatim (Yin,
1984).
5.3.4 Qualitative Data Methods: Reliability and Validity
Lincoln and Guba (1985) reject the terms ‘internal and external validity and
reliability’ suggesting that credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and
136
trustworthy are more appropriate methods to determine the quality and rigour of
qualitative research. These criteria were used to guide this research in combination with
practical guidelines offered by Miles and Huberman (1994) for establishing qualitative
research reliability and validity. Potential observation bias was addressed by attending
meetings over a three week period, to account for variation in member moods.
Appendix F provides details on how these criteria were addressed. Also, one researcher
attended informal barbeques and luncheons to allow members to become more
comfortable with her presence.
5.4 Stage 1 Qualitative Data Analysis
There are several analysis strategies outlined in the literature on qualitative
research, with each author providing their own design for stages of analyses (see
Appendix G). Marshall and Rossman’s (1999) six stages of a typical analytical
procedure was used for analysing the research data. Figure 5.2 illustrates the analysis
process which was used to guide the analysis of the observational and interview data.
The application of this analytical process will now be discussed for each type of
qualitative data, observation, and interviews.
5.4.0 Observations
Analysis of the meetings that were observed involved summarising what was
seen and heard in relation to participants’ action, what they said, and the circumstances
in which these actions and comments occurred (Lee, 1999). Summaries of the observed
meetings were written up and researchers compared summaries for similarity of
observations. Only minor additions were necessary.
137
Organising Data
Generating Categories, Themes, &
Patterns
Theoretical saturation Pattern Coding Open coding
Coding the Data Guide for coding Linking back to existing
In-depth coding (axial)
Testing Emergent Understandings
Searching for Alternative
Explanations
Emphasis on relationships & gaps
Rival explanation suggestions
Writing the Report
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Reconstruction interviews as written notes
Linking back to existing literature
(Source: adapted from Marshall & Rossman, 1999)
Figure 5.2
Analytical Process for Qualitative Data
5.4.1 Interviews
Study participants were assured that their comments would not be directly
shared with their organisation and that data would be documented in a manner that
would protect their anonymity. Before analysis of the interview transcripts, all
interviewees were forwarded their transcripts for verification and validation. Only
minor changes were necessary following this procedure. To assist in organising the data,
each interviewee was allocated a code, e.g. IntervieweeA1 – this interviewee has been
named A for confidentiality purposes (A-L), and 1 means the worksite where they work
138
(Work sites 1-3). Three stages of categorisation were performed which involved a
process of comparison, collapsing, and collating categories. A total of four overarching
categories resulted, each with subcategories, which are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2
Final Stage of Interview Categorisation
Category Subcategory Why it is important to an alliance Definitions Evidence of use
Group Flexibility
Development Measurement Comments aimed at individual behaviour
Communication Culture Team Building Leadership Style Dependency
Enhance or Inhibit Group Flexibility
Physical Distance Alliance Project effectiveness Alliance Team effectiveness Group Performance
Personal Satisfaction/ Expectation fulfilment
5.5 Stage 1 Qualitative Data Results
The following section will concentrate on examining the flexibility of groups by
presenting the results from the interview analyses and observations. The section will
unfold as follows. First, flexibility characteristics will be addressed by examining the
results of the interview data complimented by findings from observations. Second,
interviewees’ perceptions of indicators of effectiveness will be outlined, followed by the
link between flexibility and effectiveness. Third, discussions of the interview results of
the factors that facilitate and impede group flexibility are presented. Quotations will be
used significantly throughout this section. The quotations are lifted directly from the
transcribed interviews and interviewee codes will be used to protect anonymity and
ensure confidentiality.
139
5.5.0 Flexibility Characteristics
Interviewees were asked questions in relation to the flexibility of groups to
draw out their thoughts on the construct. In their discussions about the flexibility of
groups, the majority of interviewees did not hesitate in providing answers to these
questions. The flexibility of groups was described by interviewees with relative
consistency. Interviewees also made general statements about flexibility in the alliance
and provided critical incidents of when their group had acted flexibly. Observational
analyses complimented the interviewee findings by showing that AMT members
displayed the characteristics of flexibility as described in the interviews.
A theme that arose from the data was the focus on flexibility within groups
rather than on the group’s flexibility. When asked to describe group flexibility,
interviewees more often than not, made reference to group member behavioural acts
rather than how the group, as a whole, acted flexibly. Example comments are shown in
Table 5.4. Two interviewee comments include
“An individual’s ability to look at alternatives” Interviewee C2
“An individual’s willingness to learn something new” Interviewee B1
Table 5.3
Example Interviewee Comments focusing on Group Member Flexibility
Comment Source (Interviewee)
An individual’s ability to look at alternatives Interviewee C2
An individual’s willingness to learn something new Interviewee B1
It is about each individual asking him/herself how do I do outstanding Interviewee C2
If you are not prepared to change and realise that there is a bigger picture and bigger benefit it would be difficult, you would not enjoy it
Interviewee J3
In a job of this nature, you have to be able to deviate and do other things differently Interviewee F2
140
This finding has implications for the operationalisation of the flexibility of
groups. This result suggests that flexibility of groups should be measured as the
aggregation of group members’ level flexibility rather than the mean of individual
responses to items focused at the group level.
Towards the end of coding, contrasting, and comparing of interviewee
descriptions of the flexibility of groups, 10 apparent themes emerged. These themes are
listed in the first column of Table 5.3. The most frequently mentioned characteristic of
flexibility within groups was the willingness to change, followed by the willingness to
accommodate others, understanding others, willingness to listen, consider
options/alternatives, think in different ways, look at the big picture, continuous
improvement, comfort with uncertainty, and overcome hurdles. The second column of
Table 5.3 provides example comments for these themes. These 10 themes were further
analysed by comparing and collapsing categories, which resulted in four final categories
that summarise interviewee descriptions of flexibility within groups. These categories
include, adaptability, searching and considering alternatives, consideration of others,
and resilience. The final column in Table 5.3 shows how these dimensions were derived
from the earlier extracted 10 themes. Most interviewees mentioned more than one
characteristic of flexibility, some discussed all four characteristics.
141
Table 5.4
Emergent Themes of Flexibility Characteristics, Example Comments, and Final Categorisation
Early stages of categorisation (no. of comments) Example Comment Interviewee
(source)
Final stage of categorisation (no. of comments)
Willingness to change (9) “Flexibility includes the willingness to change something” Interviewee F2
Continuous improvement (2) “Always looking for better ways” Interviewee I1
Accommodating nature (6) “Accommodating other’s points of view” Interviewee B1
Adaptability (17)
Consider options/alternatives (3) “Flexibility is the ability to look at alternatives” Interviewee C2
Thinking in Different ways (3) “Flexibility is about thinking outside the square” Interviewee K1
Looking at the Big Picture (2) “Flexibility is about looking at the total picture” Interviewee C2
Searching and considering alternatives (8)
Willingness to Listen (3) “A member’s willingness to listen to others” Interviewee F2
Understanding others (4) “Being open to other member’s thoughts and suggestions” Interviewee C2
Consideration of others (7)
Overcoming Hurdles (1) “Here it has been about overcoming hurdles” Interviewee H1
Comfortable with Uncertainty (2) “We have gone down so many blind alleys, people have just gotten on with it” Interviewee f2
Resilience (3)
142
Observation of the Alliance Management Team (AMT) meetings revealed that
the members were part of a ‘flexible’ group according to their descriptions of the
construct. Members were open to sharing ideas about possible future events, and the
actions required to address these events. Even though these meetings were attended
by people from a variety of disciplines who are accustomed to having detailed
specifications, plans and routine processes, observations revealed that most members
were comfortable and dealt effectively with the uncertainty of project tasks.
Observations also suggested that members adapted well to the needs of other group
members and other disciplines.
In addition to providing a description of flexibility within groups,
interviewees also provided evidence of how they have acted flexibly in the past.
Differences in the ease at which different disciplines were able to act flexibly
became evident during this analysis. For example, members from construction
discussed how they were willing and able to include variations from the cost
estimate if it meant better delivery and scheduling and noted that plans always
change so they were happy to be flexible. However, interviewees from design
suggested that initially design did not act flexibly to challenges and were resistant
to make any changes. This resulted in frustration among the design group.
5.6 Group Flexibility and Effectiveness
Before investigating perceived links between flexibility and outcomes, it is
necessary to establish how effectiveness is defined by participants in the alliance
context, and the language that is used by members to describe effectiveness. Group
members were asked to describe what they consider to be effectiveness criteria for
the overall project. Effectiveness of the project was defined slightly differently to
effectiveness of the project group. There was an overlap in terms of stakeholder
143
satisfaction being important for both the project group and to the overall project.
Project effectiveness indicators included measures of quality, safety, cost, time, and
the satisfaction of stakeholders. Group effectiveness was defined as personal
outcomes including professional development and satisfaction.
5.6.0 Defining Project Effectiveness
Interviewees reported that the project is successful if the project meets 5
criteria. These criteria include coming in cheaper than the budget, the project is
ahead of time, the project produces a product with no defects, zero safety incidents,
and the community, clients, and operators are satisfied with the product. Four of
these five criteria relate to objective performance measures, indicating interviewees
are more likely to conceptualise project effectiveness based on concrete objective
measures than subjective measures.
5.6.1 Group Flexibility and Project Effectiveness
Interviewee comments addressing the impact of flexibility within groups on
project effectiveness were limited, however, some interviewees did discuss this
relationship. For example, one of the interviewees commented “flexibility is the
whole reason for having an alliance” (Interviewee C2). Further, other interviewees
discuss how the flexibility of an alliance gave them the opportunity to better meet
the client’s demands and accommodate all stakeholders as nothing is set in
concrete.
5.6.2 Defining Group Effectiveness
Interviewees discussed more subjective measures as criterion for group
effectiveness as opposed to project effectiveness. Three criteria for group
effectiveness were mentioned by the interviewees including, personal satisfaction,
144
professional development, and stakeholder satisfaction. Personal satisfaction as a
measure of group effectiveness was a strong theme in the interview data. At the
beginning of the project, the innovation and risk manager collated a list of each
alliance member’s expectations of the project. Toward the end of the interview, the
majority of interviewees referenced these expectations when talking about group
effectiveness. Two interviewees commented that their expectations had been
fulfilled up to this stage of the project. However, a feeling among a number of the
other interviewees was that their expectations, specifically relating to challenge on
the project, were not being satisfied. Furthermore, one of the members who
oversees the project commented,
“Members here seek challenge and thrive on it, at the moment their expectations
are not being met”
Interviewee H1
Individuals commented that the effectiveness of the group can be judged on
the development of individual skills and the extent to which they are provided with
opportunities to expand their technical and management horizons. Interviewees also
mentioned the satisfaction of clients and operators. In particular, interviewees were
concerned with operator satisfaction. They felt that the satisfaction of the people
who would have to work with the upgrades and new process, the operators, was
very important.
5.6.3 Group Flexibility and Group Effectiveness
There were a substantial number of interviewee comments to support the
suggestion that flexibility within groups positively impacts group effectiveness.
These interviewees discussed the positive impact that flexibility within groups had
145
on personal satisfaction, professional development, and stakeholder satisfaction.
Further, several interviewees talked about the consequences for group effectiveness
if members were lacking in flexibility. Analyses revealed that these interviewees
believed that an individual would not be suited to an alliance situation nor would
they function effectively if they weren’t flexible. For example, one of the
interviewees commented
“I think some people just would not be able to operate in an alliance, they are just
too set in their ways.” Interviewee J3
Interviewees suggested that if a group member was not prepared to change
and be flexible, the individual would find it difficult and unenjoyable to be part of
an alliance project such as Prentice. One interviewee made the comment “I think if
you had a very rigid mindset you would go crazy” (Interviewee G2). The impact of
inflexible members on group effectiveness was summed up by one member who
suggested
“To achieve outstanding results, Prentice members need to be flexible and change
the way they perform their tasks” Interviewee A1
5.7 Factors that Enhance or Inhibit Group Flexibility
Observation and interviewee analyses revealed there are a number of
processes, structures, and alliance characteristics that can enhance or hinder the
flexibility within groups. Findings indicate that most alliance systems and processes
were currently facilitating flexibility. However, rigidity of some procedures was
negatively impacting flexibility levels and creating frustration. Factors found to
facilitate flexibility include communication, alliance culture, leadership, and team
building activities. Factors detracting from flexibility include communication,
146
leadership style, dependency issues, and distance between sites. These factors and
supporting evidence are discussed in more detail below.
5.7.0 Communication
Communication was found to be a driver of flexibility within groups.
During interviews, members commented on the open communication channels that
existed between the alliance and the community, operators, and group members.
Interviewees also talked about the negative impact of lack of communication. One
interviewee commented:
“There is a lack of communication and it is impacting on group effectiveness”
Interviewee A1
The lack of communication was in reference to the inability to communicate and
liaise with the client when needed. Several other interviewees also expressed their
concern about the lack of communication with the client. This communication
deficit potentially affects group flexibility by limiting the opportunity the group has
to focus on improvement, and to consider and understand the client’s ideas.
5.7.1 Culture
Culture was discussed by several interviewees with all comments being
positive. Interviewees suggested they are satisfied with the alliance culture, due to
the support it provides, the team spirit, the “no-blame” philosophy, achievement
recognition, and trust. Interviewees also suggested that the culture makes the
project an enjoyable place to work for these same reasons. Some of these
interviewees made the connection between culture and flexibility. For example one
comment was,
147
“The creation of the alliance culture has a big impact upon people’s ability to become
and remain adaptable. It is difficult to separate the culture and flexibility, they go hand in
hand” Interviewee B1
5.7.2 Team Building
Due to the multi-organisation and multi-disciplinary nature of the project,
significant emphasis was placed on team development within the project. All of the
interviewees discussed team development activities and the majority believed these
were positive experiences. These interviewees talked about the different types of
team building exercises they have participated in, including, the Myers Briggs
personality assessment, facilitated sessions on understanding each other,
communication seminars, and the introduction of problem solving tools. The
external facilitator who ran the sessions and oversaw most aspects of the project
suggested that team building activities had enabled alliance members to increase
their understanding of other members and themselves. He stated,
“This increased learning directly feeds their level of flexibility” Interviewee L4
Another member suggested that the development activities made group
members more adaptable as all disciplines are together at the same location, in the
same room. Traditionally, members would have to adapt ideas in retrospect as in
more typical design and construction projects, members usually would not have
immediate access to other disciplines or have the ability to communicate with other
disciplines on a regular basis, so this kind of adaptation is different to the normal
design and construction interaction convention. Team activities helped members
become familiar and adapt to these new processes.
148
5.7.3 Leadership Style
Analysis of interview data revealed members believed that effective alliance
leadership involved providing support and monitoring employees. Interviewees’
comments regarding leadership support were positive. One interviewee stated
“There is a fair bit of interest in doing things differently and making sure that
people get the necessary support to actually deliver the project” Interviewee
G2
Members also talked about the importance of an authoritarian leadership style within
the alliance. For example,
“I’m a project manager, I’m ah supremo, just what I say goes” Interviewee H1
A number of interviewees talked about the issue of members reverting back to
business as usual, and disregarding alliance principles, in particular innovation and
flexibility. One interviewee comments that in relation to the absence of a strong
leader:
“Leaders have to make sure their workers’ energies are in the right place, you have to
watch people as they tend to revert back to their preferred way of doing business”
Interviewee I1
Although an authoritarian leadership style helped to ensure members are
implementing such alliance principles as flexibility, it also may act as an inhibitor of
flexibility with members not having the ‘room’ and opportunity to be flexible.
5.7.4 Dependency
Observation uncovered the issue of dependency which can hinder the group’s
ability to be flexible, by limiting the group members’ ability to proactively solve
problems as a group and develop resilience. The AMT seemed to struggle with
maintaining their level of flexibility and decision making capabilities when the
149
external facilitator was present, due to their heavy reliance on this person. When
issues were raised that the AMT felt they could not deal with, they would turn to the
facilitator for advice. When the facilitator was absent, the group would work together
to come up with solutions and deal with the uncertainty of the problem together.
5.7.5 Physical Distance
There are three sites for the Prentice project that are spread out over the city.
Members expressed concerns in interviews that this distance inhibited the ability of
group members to be flexible. Interviewees indicated that this is an aspect of the
project that cannot be changed. However, they did talk about processes that have been
put in place in an attempt to ease the negative impact of distance. For example, the
venue for management meetings is rotated between the three sites, and they have
invested in equipment to allow tele-conferencing and video conferencing.
5.7.6 Summary of Factors that Enhance or Inhibit Group Flexibility
By comparing and contrasting themes from the interviews and observations,
eight factors were identified that can positively or negatively impact upon group
flexibility at Prentice. Factors that were found to enhance flexibility include
communication channels, culture, leadership, and team building. Factors that were
found to limit flexibility include, aspects of communication, leadership style,
dependency on an external facilitator, and physical distance.
5.8 Stage 2 Questionnaires
Stage 2 of the exploration of the flexibility of groups involved the distribution
of a survey to alliance members. The purpose of this survey was to empirically
measure flexibility using items developed from interviewee perceptions of flexibility
within groups as well as from previous research concerning flexibility. The survey
150
also assessed effectiveness. The survey was distributed in May 2004, two weeks after
the interviews to 50 alliance team members via the internal mail system (see
Appendix H for the full survey). The survey was part of the broader research project
to examine employee perceptions on issues including group development,
communication, and leadership.
5.8.0 Measures
Survey questions were all based on previously validated scales, with the
exception of group flexibility. The full survey is shown in Appendix H.
Flexibility Measure. The measure of flexibility within groups was developed
based on the existing literature and existing scales (searching and scanning,
adaptability, and resilience) and items were designed to tap group member flexibility
with the aim of aggregating individual scores to the group level. This scale was
presented on a 7 point Likert scale where 7 referred to ‘strongly agree,’ 4 ‘neutral,’
and 1 ‘strongly disagree.’ An example searching and scanning item includes ‘In the
last month, to what extent did your work unit explore a variety of approaches to a
problem’. An example adaptability item is, ‘in the last month, to what extent did your
work unit hesitate about changing the way tasks are done’ (this item was reverse
coded). An example of a resilience item is ‘in the last month, to what extent did your
work unit adjust to uncertain situations with minimal stress.’ The full flexibility scale
is shown in Table 5.5.
An item was included in the survey to measure ‘global’ flexibility of the individual
for the purpose of testing convergent validity. The item asked, “Given our work
context, I would consider myself to be a flexible person.” This item was also
measured on a 7 point Likert scale where 7 referred to ‘strongly agree,’ 4 ‘neutral,’
and 1 ‘strongly disagree.’
151
Table 5.5
Group Member Flexibility Scale
This set of questions asks you to consider your experiences at work over the last month. To what extent have you: 1. Explored a wide variety of approaches to a problem ....................................................................
2. Planned ahead rather than reacted to a situation ...........................................................................
3. Created multiple courses of action during planning......................................................................
4. Adapted well to changes in your work role...................................................................................
5. Adjusted well to new equipment, process, or procedures in your tasks ........................................
6. Been able to adapt your personal approach to the situation at hand..............................................
7. Coped with stressful events effectively.........................................................................................
8. Maintained productivity in extremely challenging circumstances ................................................
9. Adapted to change with minimal stress.........................................................................................
10. Given our work context, I would consider myself to be a flexible person....................................p
Effectiveness Measures. The survey included several measures of group
effectiveness, including group confidence, group communication, group morale,
group affective commitment, and job satisfaction. Appendix H features the full scales
for each effectiveness measure. These scales were also presented on a 7 point Likert
scale, where 7 referred to ‘strongly agree,’ 4 ‘neutral,’ and 1 ‘strongly disagree.’
Demographic Characteristics. The survey also included the collection of
demographic details, such as project site, age (years), tenure in the project, and
professional occupation. Categories for professional occupation included
administration, design, construction, engineering, environment, finance, human
resources, procurement, project management and other.
5.8.1 Participants
Surveys were distributed to members at all three sites and participants were
given one month to complete and return the questionnaires. Thirty-two surveys were
152
returned from a possible 50 (a response rate of 64%). Forty-three percent of
respondents work at Site 1, 21.9 % at Site 2, and 31.3 % at Site 3.
5.8.2 Questionnaire Validity
At the core of validity is measurement validity, which involves testing the
goodness of the measure (Sekaran, 1992). Testing measurement validity becomes
particularly important to address when developing new items and scales (Schwab,
1980; Sekaran, 1992). Measurement validity was first examined via content validity
to ensure that the measure includes an adequate and representative set of items that
tap flexibility (Sekaran, 1992). To enhance content validity several issues were taken
into consideration during item development, including specifying the content in a
construct’s definition, sampling from all areas of the definition, and developing an
indicator that taps all parts of that definition (Neuman, 2003). For example, the group
flexibility literature review revealed that the flexibility of a group can be described as
planning ahead, being adaptable to changing tasks and processes, and being able to
bounce back from negativity and/or overcome challenges, so items were developed to
tap these characteristics. Further, the interview analyses revealed that flexibility of
groups should be measured as the aggregation of group members’ level flexibility to
represent a group’s level of flexibility. Items were developed to measure searching
and scanning, adaptability, and resilience at the individual level.
Convergent validity was also examined to judge the goodness of the measures
(Sekaran, 1992). Convergent validity is established when the score obtained by two
different instruments measuring the same concept are highly correlated (Sekaran,
1992). The outcome of this analysis is presented in the results section.
153
5.8.3 Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was performed on the nine individual flexibility measures to
investigate the underlying pattern of relationships among the items. Consistent with
Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), recommendations for testing the factorability of a set
of items, a correlation matrix of items was produced, and Bartlett’s (1954) test of
sphericity and Kaiser’s (1974) measure of sampling adequacy were performed. All
items were correlated above .35 (p < .05) (see Appendix I) which exceeds Tabachnick
and Fidell’s (1996) cut-off of .30. Significant results were found for Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (df = 36; p <.001), which indicates that factor analysis is an appropriate
tool (Field, 2000). Results of Kaiser’s measure of sampling adequacy showed the
sample size (n = 32) to be adequate for the factor analysis (.81).
The method of extraction employed was principal component analysis with an
oblique rotation (Direct Oblimin) on the entire sample. Based on theoretical grounds,
all items were expected to measure the same general construct (flexibility), so the
correlation between factors, presented no conceptual or interpretative difficulties
(Graetz, 1991). Appendix I displays the correlations among flexibility items.
The factor analysis results are as follows. One factor was extracted, on the
basis that it had an eigenvalue greater than one. This factor accounted for 63% of the
variance. All items loaded between .65 and .88 on this factor. A case has been made
that the flexibility of group members is a multi-dimensional construct, the results of
the factor analysis do not support this claim. Rather, the results indicate the possibility
that flexibility is a uni-dimensional construct. However, due to the small sample size,
the results of the factor analysis should be interpreted cautiously. The reliability
coefficient for the flexibility scale is high with a cronbach’s alpha score of .92. A
flexibility construct was created using the mean of the nine items.
154
5.9 Stage 2 Questionnaire Analysis
Summary demographic data on the respondents (e.g. gender, age, alliance
tenure, work site, profession, and work unit) is presented in Table 5.6. The majority of
the respondents were male which is indicative of the gender composition of the
project. The average age of respondents was 37 years (S.D. = 9.24) and the average
alliance tenure was 11 months (S.D. = 6.88). The respondents represented a number
of professions, including design (25%), administration (21.9%), project management
(15.6%) and construction (15.6%). The majority (59.4%) of respondents work in the
integrated project group and 37.5 % are part of the Alliance Management Team. For
analysis purposes, the plant operations and integrated project group will be reported
together as the ‘Other’ group (n = 20).
Several types of analyses were used to explore the survey data including,
descriptive statistics, ANOVAs to explore differences between groups, and
correlations to investigate the relationship between flexibility and outcomes. Due to
the nature of the constructs being included, within-group agreement calculations are
of particular importance and were also examined.
Table 5.6
Respondent Characteristics for survey
Category Frequency (n=32) Frequency (%) Gender
Male 25 78.0 Female 7 22.0
Age 20-29 9 30.4 30-39 9 30.4 40-49 8 26.7 50-59 4 12.5
Time in Alliance (months) <=6 months 12 37.5
155
7-12 months 6 18.8 13-18 months 13 40.6 19-24 months 1 3.0
Work Site Work Site 1 “0” 14 43.8 Work Site 2 – “SG” 10 31.3 Work Site 3 – “SR” 7 21.9 Other 1 3.1
Profession Administration 7 21.9 Design 8 25.0 Environmental concerns 3 9.4 Project Management 5 15.6 Construction 5 15.6 Engineering 3 9.4 Procurement 1 3.1
Work Unit Alliance Management Team 12 37.5 Integrated Alliance Team 19 59.4 Plant Operations 1 3.1
5.9.0 Construct Validity
This type of validity was evident by the fact that the flexibility variable
calculated from the nine flexibility items was highly correlated with the global
measure of individual flexibility, “Given our work context, I would consider myself to
be a flexible person” (r =.79, p < .01).
5.9.1 Within-Group Agreement Analyses
Before aggregating group member data to the group level, analysis of the level
of agreement or homogeneity among group members was calculated (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994, cited in Klein, et al., 2001). This
analysis determined whether individuals within the same group possess similar levels
of individual flexibility and therefore, whether it is statistically appropriate to
aggregate the individual level flexibility scores.
To assess within group agreement in individual levels of flexibility, the
156
average within-group standard deviation for each item in the individual flexibility
scale was calculated (Klein, et al., 2001). Results of this method are strongly
positively correlated with James, Demaree, & Wolf (1984) rwgj (within group
interrater reliability). It was not possible to use the more traditional method of
calculating within group agreement, the rwgj due to the small number of groups in this
sample (n = 2, AMT and Other).
To compute each group’s average standard deviation for the group member
flexibility scale, the standard deviation of group members’ responses to each item was
calculated, then the item standard deviations were averaged across the group, yielding
a standard deviation score for group flexibility for each group. The larger a group’s
average within-group standard deviation, the greater the variability in group
members’ responses to the items of the survey scale (Bliese & Halverson, 1998;
Klein, et al., 2001). For example, a high score would indicate higher variations of
flexibility levels amongst group members (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992).
Levels of within-group agreement using this method were calculated. Table
5.7 illustrates the results. The results demonstrate that both groups had a high level of
similarity in individual flexibility item scores. The responses only varied within one
rating point across items (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). The AMT scored .9993 on
average within-group variance and the ‘Other’ scored 1.176.
The results of this analysis mean that there is a very small degree of variability
in individual flexibility scores within each group. This finding addresses research
question two as results indicate that aggregation of individual flexibility scores to
represent group flexibility is appropriate.
157
Table 5.7
Within-Group Agreement Measures
Group N = Score
AMT 10 .9993 Within-Group Agreement (based on variance of individual flexibility scores within a group) Other 20 1.176
5.10 Stage 2 Questionnaire Results
Individual flexibility scores were calculated based on the mean score for the
nine individual flexibility items. To gain an understanding of the flexibility
composition of the alliance groups, these individual flexibility means were used to
produce descriptive statistics for the three alliance groups, one for the whole alliance,
one for AMT, and one for the ‘Other’ group. These statistics are shown in Table 5.8
and provide an indication of the number of individuals in each group that describe
themselves to be highly flexible, moderately flexible, or lacking in flexibility.
Table 5.8
Describing the Sample
Group Number of Responses
n =
Highly Flexible
Mean 6-7
Moderately Flexible
Mean 4-5
Low Flexibility Mean 1-3
Overall Alliance Project 32 43.7% 53.1% 3.1%
Alliance Management Team 10 70% 30% 0.0%
Other Group 20 25% 70% 5%
Table 5.8 shows that the majority of alliance respondents (53.1%) perceive
that they have moderate levels of flexibility by reporting a mean of 4 or 5 for
individual flexibility. Forty-three percent of alliance respondents report high levels of
flexibility (mean of 6 or 7) and just 3.1% of individuals report that they have low
158
levels of individual flexibility (mean of 1-3). These results show that the alliance is
mostly composed of individuals who consider they are somewhat flexible.
The data was broken down to describe the flexibility of the AMT and the
‘Other’ group. The AMT breakdown shows that 70% of respondents in that group
reported high levels of flexibility and 30% percent were found to be moderately
flexible. No members of the AMT reported having low levels of flexibility. From this
profile it would appear that the AMT is composed of group members who consider
they are highly flexible. The statistics describing the flexibility characteristics of the
‘Other’ group reveal the majority of these respondents are moderately flexible (70%).
One quarter of this group can be described as highly flexible and 5% as lacking in
flexibility.
5.10.0 Flexibility Differences Between Groups
To test for statistically significant differences in the flexibility characteristics
of the AMT and ‘Other’ group, multivariate analysis was performed using a one-way
ANOVA (Stevens, 1996; Vogt, 1999). The results indicate a significant difference
between the two groups on their levels of group member flexibility [F (1, 30) = 6.912,
p < .05] (see Table 5.9). That is, the AMT were significantly more flexible than the
‘Other’ group. These results are consistent with the descriptive statistics that revealed
a larger percentage of members in the AMT than the ‘Other’ group report high levels
of flexibility.
159
Table 5.9
Means and Standard Deviations of variance for Alliance Groups on Flexibility
Group N = Means Standard Deviation
AMT 10 5.72 .68 Individual Flexibility levels within the group*
Other 20 5.00 .85
* differences are between groups statistically significant (p < .05)
5.10.1 Group Flexibility and Group Effectiveness
Zero order correlations were calculated for several variables including
individual flexibility, group confidence, group communication, group morale, group
affective commitment, and job satisfaction. Results of the correlation analysis are
shown in Table 5.10.
In support of research question 3, flexibility within groups is related to all
outcome measures, except group communication (r = .33, n.s.). The higher the level
of group member flexibility within the group, the more likely the group will feel
confident (r = .57, p <.01), have high morale (r = .55, p < .01), have high levels of
emotional attachment to the group (r = .44, p <.05), and experience greater job
satisfaction (r = .81, p < .01). These results provide support for the notion that a group
made up of highly flexible individuals will be more likely to be satisfied and function
effectively than a group that is made up of individuals lacking flexibility. It is
recognised that the size of the sample in this case (n=32) has an impact on the
magnitude of the correlations obtained. It would be rare to see such large correlation
coefficients in samples of a greater size (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The same
correlations performed on a larger sample with more power, would see the correlation
coefficient cluster around zero. This should be considered when interpreting and
applying these results.
160
Table 5.10
Descriptive Data (Means and Standard Deviations) and Intercorrelations Among the Variables (scale reliabilities on diagonal) (n = 32)
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 37.10 9.24 - 2. Months with Project 11.19 6.88 .41* -
3. Work Site 1.88 .97 .26 .31 -
4. Profession 3.66 2.23 .17 -.03 .01 - 5. Individual Flexibility 5.27 .853 -.07 .33 .14 -.01 .92 6. Group Confidence 5.68 .658 -.29 .16 .40* -.15 .57** .67 7. Group Communication 5.20 .91 .24 .26 -.05 .28 .33 .01 .76
8. Group Morale 5.50 .66 -.12 .23 .28 -.19 .55** .55** .38* .85 9. Group Affective Commitment 5.43 1.11 .28 .60** .18 .18 .44* .17 .40* .17 .81 10. Job Satisfaction 5.67 1.23 -.08 .29 .03 -.01 .81** .62** .42** .48** .36** .92
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
5.10.2 Flexibility and Profession
The correlation matrix results show that group member flexibility is not
related to age (r = -.07, n.s.), months with the project (r = .33, n.s.), worksite (r = .14,
n.s.), or profession (r = -.01, n.s.) for this sample.
5.12 Discussion
5.12.0 Introduction
The current study tested an exploratory model of group flexibility which was
developed from an extensive review of the group flexibility literature. Several
research questions were proposed to seek a greater understanding of group flexibility,
how it impacts upon group effectiveness, and what contextual features impact group
161
flexibility. This research uncovered findings that make a significant contribution to
our conceptualisation of group flexibility and offer interesting avenues for future
research. The research findings also offer a practical guide to the measurement,
encouragement, and development of group flexibility for groups within alliances and
other risky and uncertain industries and projects. These issues are discussed in more
detail below.
5.12.1 Revised Research Model
Considering the findings of this research, Figure 5.3 displays the revised
Group Flexibility Model. As depicted in the model, group flexibility is conceptualised
as flexibility within groups and is measured by the aggregation of group members’
flexibility. Group member flexibility is the ability to be adaptable, search for and
consider alternatives, be considerate of others, and to display resilience. Flexibility
within groups is associated with a greater ability to satisfy stakeholders, satisfy
individual alliance members’ personal needs, and contribute to professional
development. The level of flexibility within the group is enhanced by open
communication channels with stakeholders, a leadership style that monitors
flexibility, a culture that encourages flexibility, and team building activities. The level
of flexibility within groups is potentially limited by a lack of communication,
particularly with the client, excessive monitoring of behaviour and processes by
leaders, dependency on external facilitators, and the degree of physical distance
between alliance members. The following section will discuss these results and the
revised model in more detail.
162
Figure 5.3
Group Flexibility
Factors hinder group flexibility
Communication Leadership style Dependency Financial Constraints Physical Distance
Factors Facilitate group flexibility
Communication Culture Leadership Team Building
-
+
Alliance Group Effectiveness
- Personal satisfaction - Professional
development
Alliance Effectiveness - Stakeholder satisfaction
+
+
Aggregation of individual flexibility
- considerate of others - searches & considers
alternatives - adaptability - resilience
Generic Group Outcomes- group confidence - group morale - emotional attachment - job satisfaction
+
Revised Group Flexibility Research Model
5.12.2 Research Question 1
The first research question involved examining the characteristics of flexible
groups in environments that are uncertain and/or novel. An initial literature review of
existing group flexibility conceptualisations and related constructs revealed flexible
groups are able to scan for problems, modify their behaviour and processes to meet
new challenges, and deal with changing circumstances. In the interviews, alliance
members were asked to describe group flexibility with results showing member
perceptions of group flexibility were focused on the flexibility within groups with
characteristics being described as similar to those in the literature. However, interview
analysis also revealed that members believe consideration of others to be an important
dimension of flexibility. Future research should consider the inclusion of these four
characteristics in theoretically and empirically examining flexibility within groups.
163
5.12.3 Research Question 2
The second research question related to the issue of the level of analysis to
assess group flexibility. The group level literature features a combination of
measurement techniques, such as aggregation of individual level scores, or measuring
the construct as an attribute of the group itself to be measured as an independent
variable. From the interview analysis, it became apparent that group flexibility should
be measured as the aggregation of the individual flexibility scores of member’s within
the group, as interviewees discussed individual behavioural acts when describing
group flexibility. As such, flexibility items in the survey measured group member
flexibility and within-group analysis revealed that individuals within each group
reported similar levels of flexibility. An important consideration for future research is
exploring this finding by calculating within-group agreement statistics for a larger
sample of groups and using this measure in multi-variate analysis to examine the
impact of variations in individual flexibility levels on group outcomes.
5.12.4 Research Question 3
The third research question addressed the relationship between group
flexibility and group effectiveness in uncertain and/or novel environments. The
literature suggested a positive relationship between group flexibility and effectiveness
in these environments (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). The
results of the research at Prentice provided partial support for this proposal.
Interviewees were asked to define project and group effectiveness and the
relationship between these outcomes and group flexibility. Project effectiveness was
defined by alliance members as reaching budget, time, quality, safety, environmental
targets, and stakeholder satisfaction. There was a lack of support in the interview
analysis for the relationship between flexibility within groups and the first five
164
objective outcome measures (budget, time, quality, safety, and environmental targets).
However, findings did highlight a positive relationship between flexibility within
groups and stakeholder satisfaction. According to the Department of Industry Science
Resources (1999), the primary objective of project alliancing is to achieve a win-win
outcome for a wider range of stakeholders than traditionally is the case. Authors have
stated that flexibility increases the likelihood of meeting stakeholders’ needs by
facilitating the interaction of design and construction processes and people (ACA,
1993). Meeting stakeholders’ needs is dependent upon the flexibility of the alliance
groups to enable them to consider stakeholders’ views, generate alternatives, be
accepting of changes, and overcome project hurdles effectively.
Group effectiveness was described by interviewees as encompassing
professional development and personal satisfaction. This is consistent with Hoegl and
Gemueden (2001), whose research on teams in innovation projects found
effectiveness criteria should include measures of personal success and satisfaction of
the team members. The data revealed relationships between flexibility and personal
satisfaction with the project, suggesting that members who are low on flexibility are
potentially less likely to enjoy the alliance experience. Further, interviewees held in
high esteem the learning and developing of new skills during their time with the
alliance. Flexibility is required for the learning process to enable individuals to learn
different skills in different areas. The theory suggests two common areas where
flexibility enables learning, including relational-orientated learning versus task-
orientated learning (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001).
Relationship orientated learning involves learning about group members, their
beliefs, preferences, and strengths (Druksat & Kayes, 2000). This type of learning
involves characteristics of flexibility such as the willingness to listen, be considerate,
165
and understand others. Task-orientated learning is the acquisition of technical and/or
process based knowledge (Druksat & Kayes, 2000). Task-orientated learning is
enhanced by flexibility characteristics such as sharing information, searching and
considering alternatives, and dealing with uncertainty. For the professional
development of members and overall success of the alliance, it is critical that they are
able to learn new skills in both of these areas. A direction for future research is to
investigate whether high levels of flexibility within groups will positively impact
relationship and task orientated learning, thereby increasing the likelihood of
professional development. Further, it is worth considering the relationship between
flexibility and learning could represent circular causality, such that flexibility enables
individuals and groups to learn faster, and that learning increases flexibility (see
Arnold, cited in Raudsepp, 1990, p. 7).
The survey results also showed a positive association between flexibility
within groups and group effectiveness. Findings showed the groups that are more
flexible are more likely to have high levels of group confidence, morale, emotional
attachment, and job satisfaction. An interesting avenue for further research is to
investigate the contribution of each of the flexibility components, ability to search for
and consider alternatives, the ability to adapt, show resilience, and be considerate of
others to the prediction of group based outcomes. This would require a much larger
sample of groups than the current study.
5.12.5 Research Question 4
Research question 4 addressed the issue of investigating factors that enhance
group flexibility and how these factors impact flexibility. Analysis revealed that
communication, culture, team building, and aspects of leadership style, act as
facilitators of flexibility. Consistent with previous research, the findings of this study
166
showed that communication can enhance group flexibility (Marks, et al., 2000). Open
communication channels and frequent communication with the community, operators,
and other members, facilitate group members’ ability to proactively examine
stakeholders’ needs, develop solutions collaboratively with the community and
operators, and adapt processes to suit stakeholders’ needs. Further, open
communication within the alliance group facilitates flexibility by allowing members
the opportunity to share knowledge and consider other ideas, and this communication
helps to facilitate innovative thinking and problem solving, and the general exchange
of ideas, views, and evaluations (Bender & Septelka, 2002; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt,
2002). This level of communication allowed the alliance groups to remain flexible in
dealing with operators, the community, and each other.
The alliance culture was found to be a facilitator of flexibility within groups
by encouraging flexibility of ideas and behaviours, promoting the scanning of issues
and raising concerns, and supporting members through uncertainty and challenges.
Culture is very important for encouraging and supporting behaviours such as
flexibility, as it involves the development of shared expectations about how members
ought to behave (Levine & Moreland, 1990). The culture that existed at this research
site is consistent with recommendations by the Australian Building and Construction
industry that the industry needs to create a culture that encourages and supports
flexibility and adaptability (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2002).
Team building activities were found to enhance flexibility levels by providing
members with the opportunity to interact with other disciplines, learn about the
personality and communication style of other members, and use this information to be
more considerate of others. Most of these exercises were foreign to members who had
to adapt to the new processes. This is a valuable contribution to the flexibility
167
literature, where empirical investigation of the development of flexibility by using
formal team development activities is limited. This finding supports the project group
literature that claims, due to environmental and task uncertainty in project group, that
it has become impossible to train groups firsthand in all potential events, so training
should be focused on developing flexibility through the teaching of underlying meta-
cognitive skills (Fraiger, Forst, & Salas, 1993). The content of such training includes
how to work better together, how to approach, diagnose, and then execute actions to
effectively respond to challenges never faced before (Marks, et al., 2000).
Results showed that aspects of authoritarian leadership can positively impact
the level of flexibility in a group. Leaders used this style to monitor employee
behaviour and their adherence to alliance principles, in particular the principles of
innovation and flexibility. This style has the potential to increase flexibility as
members are constantly made aware of the need to be flexible. This finding is
inconsistent with the results of Ziller’s (1958) study that found groups whose leaders
were high on authoritarianism were more likely to act more rigidly than groups whose
leaders were low in authoritarianism. As will be discussed later, results of this study
also exposed the potential negative aspects of this type of leadership for enhancing
flexibility.
The argument presented above suggests that flexibility within groups can be
enhanced and developed through appropriate contextual factors and training
programs. Although this is a positive discovery for theory and practice, the
timeframes and duration of the project and the time it takes to develop flexibility need
to be taken into consideration. For example, short-term project groups have limited
timeframes and tight deadlines for task completion. The longer it takes to develop
group flexibility, the greater the impact of flexibility deficiency on group and project
168
effectiveness. Therefore, selection processes for short-term groups should include
individual flexibility as a key criterion, instead of having it as an outcome of the
project experience (Prentice Strategy Document, 2003). Selection based on flexibility
has been made possible with the contributions of this study and the operationalisation
of the concept.
5.12.6 Research Question 5
Research question 5 addressed factors that hamper or restrain flexibility within
groups and how these factors impact on flexibility. These factors were found to be
aspects of communication, aspects of leadership style, dependency on an external
facilitator, and physical distance. Communication was found to be a hindrance to
group flexibility. Participants expressed concern about the lack of communication
with the client, which in turn hampered their efforts to be flexible in searching for
alternatives, adapting processes to suit the client, and dealing with uncertainty.
Keeping communication channels and information flowing between the group and all
stakeholders is an essential factor to allow groups to act flexibly (Ziller, 1958).
Another factor that can limit flexibility within groups is dependency on an
external facilitator, as when an external facilitator was present, members did not
attempt to develop solutions to uncertain tasks or adapt ideas. At the beginning of
project group formation, it is typical to find dependency on a facilitator, as at this
stage of the project a facilitator takes on the role that a leader would typically
perform. This role involves the provision of direction and support which can create
dependency of the followers on the leader/facilitator (Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996).
However, 18 months into the project, the dependency on the external facilitator was
unexpected as processes were in place, roles and structures were formed, norms had
been developed and goals and directions formulated. This finding has implications for
169
the use of external consultants during fixed term project and raises several questions
for future exploration, including should internal or external facilitators be used;
should different consultants be used at different phases of the project; and how much
involvement should external consultants have in general decision making?
As mentioned previously, there were potential negative effects of the
authoritarian type leadership on flexibility levels. Similar to Ziller’s (1958) research
findings, the results of this study recognised that the authoritarian style of leadership
could restrict a group’s ability to be flexible by placing too much pressure on the
group to be flexible, or by over monitoring the group and limiting their opportunities
to act flexibly. It is important to consider that leaders may have to adjust their
leadership behaviour to suit the encouragement of flexibility at different phases of the
project (Weinkauf & Hoegl, 2002). An area for future investigation is at what phase
of the project is authoritarian aspects of leadership conducive to enhancing flexibility,
and at what phase does this style of leadership hinder flexibility.
Finally, physical distance was found to limit flexibility as members did not
have the freedom to discuss ideas with each other or obtain other members’ opinions
whenever they needed or wished to. Physical proximity has been found to enhance
professional employees’ ability to communicate with one another about how and
when to accomplish tasks (Allen, 1977; Keller & Holland, 1983). For some projects
this is an unavoidable aspect of the project, so strategies to limit the effects of
physical distance on flexibility are important.
5.12.7 Additional Findings
The interview analyses revealed that during the early stages of the alliance
there were differences between professions in their flexibility levels. It became
evident that members from the design group were less likely to act flexibly compared
170
to members from construction, project management, and scheduling. However, results
from the survey done 18 months into the project revealed there was no relationship
between profession and level of flexibility. This result could be due to the
development of flexibility as a result of the open communication, team building
exercises, leadership style, and culture, which were found to enhance flexibility
levels. However, the relationship between profession and flexibility would be an
interesting avenue for further investigation.
An additional finding of this research that raises an interesting question for
future examination, is that it may be incorrect to presume that all types of groups need
the same level of flexibility. Research findings revealed differences in the level of
flexibility between the two groups investigated, the Alliance Management Team
(AMT) and the Other group, showing the AMT had significantly higher levels of
flexibility. The AMT is made up of senior management personnel from a variety of
disciplines, and the Other team was composed of non-managerial positions from
disciplines including, Human Resources, Administration, Design, and Construction.
Decision making regarding task and environmental issues are predominantly made at
the AMT level. Considering this, it is possible that the AMT required a higher level of
group flexibility to be effective, and that the Other group’s level of group flexibility
was sufficient. Future research should focus on examining the flexibility of group’s at
different levels within the organisation and the relationship between their level of
group flexibility and group effectiveness.
Further, this research revealed that interviewees in this case study described
group flexibility by talking about flexibility within groups. This means they focused
on the flexibility of group members as opposed to talking about flexibility as a
characteristic of the group itself. A possible reason for this finding is that due to the
171
short-term nature of the groups that were examined in the group flexibility empirical
study, the members of the group may not yet identify the group as having ‘group level
behaviours’. It is possible that under different circumstances individuals might have
described the group as a whole in terms of its flexibility. Further empirical research is
warranted to examine this proposition before any conclusion about the level of
measurement of group flexibility can be made.
5.13 Practical Implications
This study has contributed to practice by providing a description of flexibility
characteristics that can be used in selection criteria, as well as a measure that can be
used periodically during projects to gauge flexibility levels and identify
developmental areas. Future project tender processes that include ‘flexible teams’ as a
criteria, will benefit from the understanding that a flexibility within a group dealing
with uncertain and novel tasks, contains individuals who are willing to listen to and
understand others, are able to think in different ways and consider alternatives, are
willing to change and accommodate other issues, are able to overcome hurdles, and
able to deal with uncertainty.
The results identified issues to consider when designing policies, processes,
and structures for project groups to facilitate group flexibility. Open communication
channels are important for promoting interaction, sharing of information, and
evaluation of ideas and a culture that encourages and promotes flexibility is
invaluable. Leadership style is important and this study highlighted the importance of
leadership style for monitoring and supporting flexibility. Leaders may have to vary
their leadership style to coincide with different phases of the project and level of
flexibility associated with each phase.
172
Further, the exploration of effectiveness criteria has contributed to the
literature on the alliancing method and the construction industry, by offering an
insight into how members of alliance projects and construction industry employees
conceptualise effectiveness of their group and the project. The results showed
personal satisfaction with the project and professional development to be important to
the alliance members, with satisfaction of stakeholders to be a key indicator of project
effectiveness. These outcomes are enhanced by higher levels of group member
flexibility. The importance of group member flexibility for enjoyment in a project of
this type was found to be invaluable. This is an important finding for practice as it
highlights the potential individual and group implications of inflexible individuals.
5.14 Limitations
There are limitations of this study that are worth considering for future
empirical examination. The first is the failure to include all dimensions of flexibility
within groups in the operationalisation of the construct for the quantitative
investigation. Flexibility within groups was measured using a scale which was
developed based on the findings from the literature that flexibility encompasses the
ability scan issues, modify its structure, behaviour, processes, and roles to meet new
challenges and deal with changing circumstances. Interview analysis revealed that the
consideration of others is an important attribute of flexibility. Future empirical
research using the group flexibility scale should include all aspects of flexibility
within groups when operationalising the construct.
The second limitation is the small sample size. This research was only able to
identify two groups for analysis, due to the small sample size and response rate. This
limited the ability to apply traditional group level analytical procedures such as within
group interrater reliability and obtain sufficient statistical power for conducting multi-
173
variate analysis. Finally, this study explored flexibility within groups in a single
setting. Further investigation in multiple industries with different types of groups is
needed to gain a deeper understanding of the application of the group flexibility
research model.
5.15 Conclusion
The Prentice case study findings have contributed greatly to our knowledge of
group flexibility characteristics, measurement issues, and relationships between the
flexibility within groups, contextual factors, and effectiveness. Group flexibility has
developed from being an ill-defined construct to a construct that can be conceptually
described and empirically investigated. The exploration of group flexibility has
exposed several avenues for future research to further our understanding of the
construct and the role it plays in work group functioning and effectiveness. The
revised group flexibility model was developed to guide future empirical research into
the phenomena. Whilst offering a new model of group flexibility, this study has also
contributed knowledge to alliancing in practice and group development literature as
results contribute valuable information for the management of current and future
alliancing construction projects and the management of multi-disciplinary groups in
changing environments.
174
CHAPTER 6 Individual Flexibility
6.0 Introduction
This chapter is concerned with individual flexibility in the workplace. The
ability of employees to be flexible is important in order to ensure a quick response to
on-going changes in work practices, such as new technology, changing trends, and
shifts in customer orientation (Antonacopoulou, 1999). Despite this, little theoretical
or empirical research has focused on exploring and examining the construct of
individual flexibility. In the following chapter, I examine the existing literature on
individual flexibility, which includes reviewing related constructs such as adaptability
and work role transitions. Overall, the literature suggests that individual flexibility is a
multi-dimensional construct that encompasses more than just adapting or being able
to readily change roles. Such constructs only touch upon one aspect of individual
flexibility. To provide a more in-depth view of individual flexibility these constructs
along with other similar constructs will be discussed, indicating how these constructs
contribute and relate to conceptualisations of individual flexibility.
Further, this research focuses on managerial flexibility to explore the
significant amount of literature that claims flexibility is crucial for managerial
effectiveness (Ali & Camp, 1996; Volberda, 1998). This chapter, therefore, reviews
current descriptions of managerial flexibility and concludes that management
flexibility consists of similar characteristics to that derived from general individual
flexibility literature.
175
6.1 The Role of Individuals in Delivering Organisational and Group Flexibility
Gabor (1969) and Pasmore (1994) contend that flexibility is an individual
variable and that the individuals within an organisation create organisational
flexibility. Not only is individual flexibility important for group and organisational
flexibility, it is also fundamental to individual job and career success (Anell &
Wilson, 2000). The increased mobility of individuals within and between
organisations and careers has accentuated the importance of flexibility which is often
mentioned by employers as a desirable characteristic (Ali & Camp, 1996; Anell &
Wilson, 2000). Parker (2000) focused on changes in job roles within an organisation,
advocating that many organisations expect their employees to go from passively
carrying out narrowly defined tasks to proactively and flexibly engaging in broad and
emergent work roles.
6.2 Previous Conceptualisations of Individual Flexibility
Despite the emphasis on the importance of individual flexibility, relatively few
studies have defined this construct or empirically tested these assumptions. Anell and
Wilson (2000, p. 167) stated that “just as in the discussion of flexible organisations,
the concept of [individual] flexibility is often left unclear; what is meant by flexibility
of the individual is seldom clearly outlined”. That is, scholars have not tested
theoretical propositions concerning individual flexibility in organisations.
The majority of literature concerned with individual flexibility has adopted
vague and underdeveloped conceptualisations of the construct. However, two authors,
Raudsepp (1990) and Connor (1992) have developed definitions of individual
flexibility. According to Raudsepp (1990), flexible individuals in the workplace are
able to stay ‘loose’ and explore a wide variety of approaches to a problem without
loosing sight of their overall goal or purpose. Alternatively, less flexible individuals
176
tend to be obsessed with stability, order, and precision and are more likely to suffer
considerable anxiety and loss of control when confronted with changing
circumstances (Raudsepp, 1990). Inflexible individuals see changes or challenges in
the environment as a threat and not as an opportunity.
Raudsepp’s (1990) exploratory research on individual flexibility involved
interviewing senior managers and work psychologists to gain an understanding of
their conceptualisations of individual flexibility in the contemporary workplace. One
interviewee defined flexibility as “the ability to shift and to adapt, to deal with the
new, unexpected and the unforeseen” (Gough, 1990, cited in Raudsepp, 1990, p. 6).
Further, Raudsepp quotes another interviewee who defined flexibility as “lack of
rigidity and permeability of boundaries in concepts and perceptions… having a
tolerance of ambiguity” (Rogers, 1990, cited in Raudsepp, 1990, p. 6). For these
interviewees, individual flexibility is needed because no matter how much you plan in
the workplace, there are unexpected problems, and most of these problems cannot be
solved effectively in old, familiar ways. Raudsepp’s (1990) research identified a
flexible individual in the workplace as one who can explore a variety of approaches to
a problem, adapt to and deal with changes and unexpected situations, and have a
tolerance for ambiguity.
Connor (1992) suggests that a flexible employee feels empowered during
change, believes change to be a manageable process, modifies one’s own assumptions
or frame of reference, and only needs a short time to recover from adversity. A
comparison of flexibility definitions offered by Raudsepp (1990) and Connor (1992)
revealed some similarities. Both authors discussed adapting to and being comfortable
with change and exploring and modifying assumptions in response to different
situations.
177
6.3 Constructs Related to Individual Flexibility
A number of studies have examined a range of constructs that seem
conceptually similar to individual flexibility (e.g., Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Griffeth,
Gaertner, & Sager, 1999; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, &
Plamondon, 2000; Schroder, 1989; Schunn & Reder, 2001). These studies will be
briefly discussed to demonstrate the differences and similarities between these
constructs and flexibility as described in the studies above (Connor, 1992; Raudsepp,
1990). The main similarity between these constructs and flexibility is that they relate
to the ability to successfully respond to different situations or change. The main
distinction between these constructs and flexibility is their narrow, usually uni-
dimensional nature. According to the literature, flexibility encompasses multiple
characteristics which include more then just responding successfully to change.
Griffeth, Gaertner, and Sager (1999) developed a model known as the
‘Adaptive Response Model’ (ARM) that describes how employees adapt to
organisations following changes in policies that are perceived as dissatisfying. These
authors adopted Rosse and Hulin’s (1985, p.327) definition of adaptation, which
suggests that adaptation refers to “the process an individual enacts in altering attitudes
and behaviours relative to the organisation”. Griffeth et al. (1999) suggested that
individual flexibility means that employees must periodically alter their behaviour,
attitudes or perceptions to various events in order to adapt to the dynamic organisation
environment.
Parker, Wall, and Jackson’s (1997) research focused on the importance of
flexible work orientations for manufacturing organisations. These authors suggested
that flexibility is important in the manufacturing industry so as to enable organisations
to deal with the major changes taking place in their industry. Parker et al. describe
178
work orientations as the way people construe their work roles and their work
environment. Work orientations are not affective reactions or stable personal
dispositions, and thus work orientations can change and develop in response to
change in the external environment. Parker et al. make a link between flexible work
orientations and organisational flexibility. They suggest that accepting the principle of
altering work orientations by learning new and different tasks is important for
individual employees if an organisation has a strategy of increasing flexibility.
Ashforth and Saks (1995) focused their research on work-role transitions
theory. This theory proposes that entry into a new role induces personal and/or role
development by employees (Nicholson, 1984). Work-role transitions involve a
reorientation of goals, attitudes, identity, behavioural routines, informal networks, and
many other large and small changes, which predicts the degree to which an employee
will adjust to a new work situation. The ability to effectively achieve work role
transitions has a major impact on the effectiveness of the role, aspirations, and well-
being of the employee. The work-role transitions construct is similar to individual
flexibility in that both involve an ability that facilitates role changes ranging from
minor alterations in daily routines and habits, to major developments, and employees
need to be able to adapt to any situation (Nicholson & West, 1998, cited in Ashforth
& Saks, 1995, p. 158).
Schroder (1989) identified 11 competencies, which he suggests are the key to
excellence in management. These competencies have become known as the high
performance managerial competencies model (HPMC). One of the competencies is
conceptual flexibility. Individuals with high conceptual flexibility, are able to identify
feasible alternatives or multiple options in planning and decision making, hold
different options in focus simultaneously, and evaluate their pros and cons.
179
Conceptual flexibility specifically focuses on the aspect of individual flexibility which
is also highlighted by Raudsepp (1990), the ability to explore a variety of approaches
to a problem. Several other authors have since used this model and incorporated
conceptual flexibility into their research (see Cockerill, Hunt, & Schroder, 1993,
1995).
Schunn and Reder (2001) discuss the adaptiveness of individuals to situations,
and use the ‘strategy adaptivity approach’ for investigating whether there are
systematic differences among adults in their ability to adapt strategies. Schunn and
Reder used a simulation exercise with 57 undergraduate university students to
examine overall adaptivity and individual differences in adaptivity. They found that
individual differences in adaptivity were predictive of performance in the simulation
task. Schunn and Reder’s research touched on the ‘adapting’ component of flexibility
mentioned by Raudsepp (1990) and Connor (1992) and contributed empirical
evidence on the link between individual adaptation and task performance.
Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) investigated adaptability in
the workplace based on the notion that workers need to be increasingly adaptable,
flexible, versatile, and tolerant of uncertainty, yet they argue flexibility and versatility
are elusive concepts that have not been well defined. From their review of the
literature on adaptive performance and through conducting an empirical study to
investigate dimensions of adaptive performance, they offer a conceptual framework
for defining and understanding adaptive job performance that was not previously
available in the literature. They propose adaptive performance to be a
multidimensional construct consisting of eight dimensions. Included in these eight
dimensions are characteristics associated with flexibility, such as handling uncertain
situations, solving problems creatively, learning new work tasks, and adjusting to
180
change. Pulakos et al. (2000) also considered the fact that adaptive performance is
situational, in that the profile of a job’s adaptive performance requirements varies
along the eight dimensions identified in the model.
6.4 Conclusions from Previous Research
Despite the substantial literature on individual flexibility, there is currently no
definition or theoretical framework of individual flexibility that provides a
comprehensive view of the construct. Table 6.1 summarises the previous review of
the existing literature on flexibility and related concepts.
Table 6.1
Summary of Individual Flexibility and Related Literature
Source Concept Description
1. Raudsepp (1990)
Individual Flexibility - Explore a variety of approaches to a problem, - adapt to and deal with changes & unexpected
situations - have tolerance for ambiguity
2. Connor (1992)
Individual flexibility - Feels empowered during change, - believes change to be a manageable process, - modifies one’s own assumptions or frame of
reference - only needs short time to recover from
ambiguity 3. Griffeth, et al. (1999) & Rosse & Hulin, (1985)
Adaptive Response Model - process an individual enacts in altering attitudes and behaviours relative to the organisation
4. Parker, et al. (1997)
Flexible employee work orientations
- way people construe their work roles and work environment,
- they can change and develop in response to change in the external environment
5. Ashforth & Saks (1995)
Work-role transitions - reorientation of goals, attitudes, identity, behavioural routines, informal networks and many other large and small changes.
6. Schroder (1989)
Conceptual flexibility - able to identify feasible alternatives or multiple options in planning & decision making
- hold different options in focus simultaneously - evaluate pros and cons
7. Schunn & Reder (2001)
‘Strategy Adaptivity Approach’
- adaptiveness of individuals to different situations
- found individual differences in adaptivity were predictive of performance of task performance
8. Pulakos, et al. (2000) Adaptive Performance - Handling uncertain situations, solving problems
creatively, learning new tasks and adjusting to change
181
As Table 6.1 shows, descriptions and conceptualisations of flexibility and
related constructs depict flexibility as consisting of multiple components. An
examination of these descriptions revealed a number of overlaps between different
definitions. In particular, the review of the literature indicates that there are four
themes in definitions of individual flexibility, and I discuss each theme below.
The first theme identified focuses on the planning and future orientation of
flexible individuals. Authors have suggested that flexible individuals engage in
scenario planning and develop multiple choices of action in response to a situation
(e.g., Pulakos et al., 2000; Raudsepp, 1990; Schroeder, 1989). The second theme
identified on the basis of the literature review is the ability to adapt to different
situations and circumstances. Examples of adapting identified by authors include,
adapting one’s own behaviour and processes to different situations and organisational
change (Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Connor, 1992; Parker, et al., 1997; Pulakos, et al.,
2000; Raudsepp, 1990; Schunn & Reder, 2001). The third theme identified from the
literature is the ability to deal with uncertainty and diversity (Connor, 1992; Pulakos,
et al., 2000; Raudsepp, 1990). For example, authors have suggested a flexible
employee is capable of handling uncertain situations (Pulakos, et al., 2000) and only
needs a short time to recover from ambiguity (Connor, 1992; Raudsepp, 1990).
The final theme identified, is the relationship between individual flexibility
and task performance (Schunn & Reder, 2001). Each of the above mentioned
components of individual flexibility is important for employees to enable themselves
to respond successfully to changing circumstances and uncertainty and to increase the
effectiveness of task performance.
On the basis of the four elements of flexibility identified above, individual
flexibility is defined as a multi-component construct. Individual flexibility occurs
182
when an individual plans and explores a wide variety of approaches to a problem,
adapts their behaviour in response to change or different situations, and deals with
uncertainty and has the capacity to recover from adversity.
To establish a simpler definition of individual flexibility that allows for
consistent operationalisation and empirical investigation, I examined the flexibility
characteristics derived from the review of the flexibility literature and the literature on
related constructs and compared this to existing organisational behaviour constructs.
This analysis revealed these three characteristics map onto existing organisational
behaviour constructs of proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
The literature describes proactive behaviour as consisting of scanning for
change opportunities, set-effective change-orientated goals, and anticipating and
preventing problems (Bateman & Crant, 1999), which links into the individual
flexibility characteristic of individuals planning and exploring a wide variety of
approaches to a problem.
Adaptability is defined in the organisational behaviour literature as individuals
tailoring their behaviour to fit the demands of a particular environment (Ashford,
1986), which encompasses the flexibility characteristic of adaptability where
individuals adapt their behaviour in response to change or different situations.
The last two characteristics dealing with uncertainty and recovering from
adversity are described in the literature as resilience. The literature describes
individual resilience as an ability that allows an individual successful adaptation
despite threatening or uncertain circumstances, good outcomes despite high-risk
status, and bouncing back from trauma (Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990).
Consequently, the development of items to measure individual flexibility will involve
using and adapting existing measures of proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
183
Using the above definition of flexibility, I investigated the applicability of this
definition to different levels of seniority in the organisation. For example, are the
characteristics of senior management flexibility the same as characteristics of
flexibility for lower level employees? To address this question, the leadership and
managerial literature was reviewed for descriptions and definitions of managerial
flexibility. A limited amount of literature exists on managerial flexibility. These
papers offer descriptions of the construct and discuss the association between
managerial flexibility and managerial effectiveness.
6.5 Managerial Flexibility
In addition to flexibility being promoted as a desirable quality of employees, it
is argued to be one of the most valuable managerial capabilities (Ali & Camp, 1996;
Volberda, 1998). Volberda (1998) suggests managers need to possess a degree of
flexibility as it is their responsibility to create and maintain organisational flexibility.
Further, managerial flexibility is promoted as a crucial managerial capability (Tsui &
Ashford, 1994) in an external environment which is intensifying the complexity of
managerial work (Kanter, 1989). Managers are now held responsible for a wider array
of activities than before, including making rapid adjustments to external changes
(Tsui and Ashford, 1994). Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) suggest that managerial
effectiveness may now be reflected in the ability to perceive the needs and goals of
various stakeholders and adjust their personal approaches accordingly. Subsequently,
these authors recognised the importance of behavioural flexibility as a characteristic
of effective leaders (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983).
Given these changes, the need for managers with qualities of flexibility in
almost every industry is becoming a prerequisite for survival in management positions
(Ali & Masters, 1988; Peter, 1985). Ali and Camp (1996) reinforce the necessity for
184
managerial flexibility suggesting that flexibility is a universal prerequisite for
competent managers. In their research on qualities of managers needed for effective
competition, Ali and Camp argued that the skills to be an effective expatriate manager
are the same as those needed for domestic managers. Their findings indicate that
researchers should not limit qualities of adaptability, flexibility, receptivity, and
cultural awareness to expatriates, as these qualities have universal applicability and
are needed in all aspects of business.
Managers who score higher on flexibility perform better in jobs that are
demanding and complex as they are capable of balancing interpersonal and analytic
demands of the job (Mainemelis, Boyatziz, & Kolb, 2002). Black and Porter (1991)
note that in selection criteria for managerial positions, US based firms do not include
individual qualities such as flexibility. This possibly can be attributed to the fact that
up until now, academics and practitioners alike have not had access to a definition of
flexibility to allow the development of indicators and measurement of the concept.
Rhinesmith (1993) and Ronen (1989) provide a list of characteristics that
might typify a flexible manager. These include the ability to manage complexity and
uncertainty, adaptability, tolerance of ambiguity, anticipation of changes, openness,
empathy, and the willingness to acquire new behaviours and attitudes. Further, Iles, et
al. (1996) discuss the behavioural flexibility of managers, suggesting flexibility is the
ability to adjust behaviour, especially management and leadership styles to a variety
of situations and stakeholder groups.
These conceptalisations of managerial flexibility describe features of
individual flexibility previously discussed including proactivity (Rhinesmith, 1993;
Ronen, 1989), adaptability (Iles, et al., 1996; Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Rhinesmith,
1993; Ronen, 1989; Tsui & Ashford, 1994), and resilience (Rhinesmith, 1993; Ronen,
185
1989). Therefore, due to these similarities in definition, it is plausible to propose the
application of the individual flexibility definition presented earlier to the managerial
level, such that a flexible manager displays the ability to be proactive, adaptable, and
resilient.
6.6 Relationship to Existing Aspects of Managerial Performance
Recent managerial research has described the new demands facing managers
and the increasing emphasis of the importance of superior managerial performance for
organisational effectiveness (Klemp, 1980). Performance criteria used to assess
managers today include vision and foresight, the ability to undertake long term
planning, and the ability to identify future trends and situations (Thompson, Stuart, &
Lindsay, 1996). Managers with a degree of flexibility will perform well on this
criterion as they are able to anticipate future events and develop multiple courses of
actions in response to situations. Managers who use a variety of tactics according to
the needs of the situation tend to be more effective than those who consistently rely
on one tactic (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980).
Another area promoted as important for managerial performance is the speed
of a manager’s response to a situation and their comfort with internal and external
change (Iles, et al., 1996; Thompson, et al., 1996). A manager’s level of flexibility
can predict their speed of response to change as the adaptability component facilitates
an individual’s ability to change by adapting their work routines and personal
approaches when the need arises (Tsui & Ashford, 1994). Similarly, a manager’s level
of flexibility can predict a manager’s level of comfort with change as it allows them
to be more at ease with uncertainty and ambiguity (Rhinesmith, 1993; Ronen, 1989).
This review highlights the importance of managerial flexibility for managerial and
organisational performance.
186
6.7 Conclusion
The previous section examined existing definitions of individual flexibility
and defined individual flexibility as involving an individual’s ability to plan and
explore a wide variety of approaches to a problem, adapt their behaviour in response
to change or different situations, and to effectively respond to uncertainty and recover
from adversity. With these four characteristics mapping onto existing organisational
behaviour constructs, individual flexibility can be more simply defined as; proactivity,
adaptability, and resilience. A review of the management literature suggested
managerial flexibility is one of the most important competencies of today’s manager.
This review of the management literature also revealed similarities in descriptions of
managerial flexibility and individual flexibility, suggesting the application of the
individual flexibility definition to the managerial level, such that managerial
flexibility encompasses the ability to be proactive, adaptable, and resilient.
187
Chapter 7 Study 3 Individual Flexibility
7.0 Introduction
In this chapter, I explore the literature on the development of managerial
flexibility, specifically focusing on the benefits of executive coaching for developing
the flexibility of managers. This is followed by a description of the empirical
investigation which examined changes in managerial flexibility overtime with the use
of executive coaching. The chapter describes the research setting, research design and
participants, and the analyses procedures used. This chapter finishes with a discussion
of the findings, and the theoretical and practical contributions of this research.
7.1 Development of Managerial flexibility
The previous Chapter raised the idea that the degree of flexibility exhibited
will vary depending upon the characteristics of the situation by describing the
relationship between different flexibility characteristics and different managerial
outcomes. To further demonstrate this point, here are hypothetical examples of where
different situations demand a different mix of the flexibility characteristics,
proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. A situation involving strategic planning and
foresight should require greater use of proactivity, than the other flexibility
components being adaptability and resilience. A situation involving the introduction
of new technology, will involve a greater use of adaptability rather than proactivity
and resilience. Bouncing back from not achieving monthly targets would involve a
greater application of resilience more than adaptability and proactivity.
The degree of flexibility that needs to be displayed by an individual varies
depending upon the situation. The simple dichotomy of inflexible or flexible is not
188
appropriate when considering flexibility (Larson, Bussom, Vicars, Jaugh, 1986). That
is, individual flexibility is relative rather than absolute. Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny
(1991) suggest that the extent of flexibility required in a situation should be viewed as
an interaction of individual and situational determinants. In this respect, flexibility is
similar to Parker et al. (1997) concept of work orientations in that both are concepts
that are not stable personal dispositions, but rather they change and develop in
response to situations.
In addition, the extant literature advocates individual flexibility is not a fixed
individual trait (Hind, Frost, & Rowley, 1996) and recent literature has demonstrated
it can be learned (Coutu, 2002; Hind, et al., 1996). This suggests that flexibility is a
capability an individual possesses that can be developed and improved. Indeed, Iles et
al. (1996) advocate that executive development programs should aim to develop
greater behavioural flexibility. Similarly, Hilgert’s (1995) research on the
developmental outcomes of executive MBA programs revealed that these courses are
valuable for increasing individual flexibility. In the first phase of Hilgert’s study, open
ended comments on a survey of 121 executive MBA graduates showed increased
flexibility was frequently mentioned as a developmental outcome of the program.
Phase two of his study involved examination of 20 essays of personal changes that
resulted from executive MBA completion. Analysis of this information revealed
flexibility to be an area that students frequently mentioned.
Further, Raudsepp (1990) suggests that flexibility is helped by a broad
experience and knowledge base. According to Arnold (1990), “flexibility is obviously
facilitated by having a great many tricks in your bag, knowing lots of techniques, and
having broad experience (cited in Raudsepp, 1990, p. 7). In summary, the above
review suggests that managerial flexibility can be developed through various tools,
189
including executive development programs, MBA programs, exposure to a greater
number of different contexts, situations, and experiences, and learning new and
diverse leadership tools. Below, I explore executive coaching as a means of enhancing
managerial flexibility.
7.1.0 Executive Coaching
A number of authors have suggested that executive coaching is an ideal tool
for the development of flexibility. Zeus and Skiffington (2001) suggested that
coaching is about change and transformation, about the human ability to grow, alter
maladaptive behaviour and to generate new, adaptive actions. “As most of us know,
changing old patterns and habits can be difficult, even when we recognise that they
are disadvantaging us or holding us back” (Zeus & Skiffington, 2001, p. 3). Other
authors have suggested that coaching also helps individuals realise that one’s self is
not a fixed entity, therefore, it is possible to redevelop and continue to redevelop
behaviours and actions (Zeus & Skiffington, 2001).
In addition, executive coaching has also been promoted as a tool to help
managers more rapidly and effectively adapt to change (Diedrich, 1996). Hall, Otazo,
and Hollenbeck’s (1999) research shows that executive coaching produces short and
long term learning benefits, with adaptability being among the top two long-term
benefits. Executive coaching helps develop greater adaptability, a wider repertoire of
available behaviours, and greater managerial flexibility (Hall et al., 1999). This
discussion suggests that executive coaching is a valuable tool for developing
managerial flexibility. In response to this review, I propose to evaluate the
longitudinal effects of executive coaching on managerial flexibility, which is defined
as proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
190
7.2 Research Context
This section will present a ‘typical’ process that is used to develop and
implement executive coaching. The organisation discussed will be referred to as
‘Maxis’ for confidentiality reasons. Maxis was used as the research site for the
following empirical study on the effects of executive coaching on developing
managerial flexibility. Maxis is an integral component of a large state government
department that provides a diverse range of services to the public. Maxis has 1700
staff organised into three business units who have work groups located throughout the
whole state. Maxis’ organisational infrastructure “supports quality-certified delivery
of integrated services to diverse Australian and International clients” (Maxis
Capability Statement, 2003, p.1). Maxis has a number of private sector competitors
and in the last decade, competition from private enterprises has intensified. As a
result, organisational policies, structures, processes, and technology have changed
significantly at Maxis over the past ten years.
As part of the process to transform and improve the organisation, Maxis
entered into a collaborative research grant with Queensland University of Technology
(QUT) to investigate work effectiveness within the organisation. This project
commenced in 2000 and involved researchers from QUT and other Australian
Universities. So far, this research has provided the organisation with feedback on
employees’ well-being and the perceived performance of the organisation. This
information has been used in order to improve a range of areas within the
organisation.
Specifically, an organisational wide survey identified leadership to be a driver
of several organisational and individual level outcomes over consecutive surveys.
Consequently, Maxis focused on leadership development and in collaboration with
191
the researchers, a leadership effectiveness program (LEP) was developed and
implemented. The LEP program has been supported at the highest levels of the
organisation. For example, during a meeting with the strategic leaders of the
organisation, the Director-General of Maxis reinforced the survey findings
commenting “it is clearly about leadership, getting employees engaged.”
Senior leaders were invited to participate in the program which included
several stages. Lower level leaders that supervised staff were invited to submit an
expression of interest and these documents were reviewed to identify additional
participants. At the commencement of the LEP, 64 leaders were enrolled in the
program, however, there has been some attrition during the LEP.
7.2.0 An overview of the LEP
The LEP included several phases. The first phase involved a 360 degree
feedback processes. Research has confirmed that the use of 360 degree feedback is
one of the best methods to promote increased self-awareness of skill strengths and
deficiencies (Hagberg, 1996; Rosti & Shipper, 1998; Shipper & Dillard, 2000; Thach,
2002). Consistent with London and Smither’s (1995) recommendation, Maxis
implemented 360 degree feedback for developmental reasons as opposed to evaluative
reasons. This approach was also used to increase the response rate and acceptance of
360 degree feedback results. Maxis used the typical approach to 360 degree feedback,
which involved distributing and compiling survey data from a leader’s superior, peers,
subordinates, and self ratings. The survey included items measuring dimensions of
transactional leadership, specifically performance management and transformational
leadership, which consists of four behavioural components including idealised
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised
consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
192
Transactional leadership includes activities of planning, organising, staffing,
budgeting, problem-solving, and creating procedures and systems for maintaining
order and predictability (Kotter, 1990). Transformational leadership characteristics are
needed by leaders to deal with the complexity, turbulence, ambiguity and
unpredictability of today’s organisations (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998). Although empirical
research suggests that transformational leadership has a qualitatively greater impact
on followers, leaders need to possess both transactional and transformational skills
(Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998).
For the second phase, each leader participating in the LEP was provided with a
comprehensive feedback report on their 360 degree feedback ratings. This report
outlined individual strengths and developmental areas for transactional leadership and
transformational leadership. This stage of the process was aimed at increasing leader
self-awareness, which involves modifying one’s perceptions of oneself as a result of
receiving feedback from others (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998). It is also important to
provide advice on how to interpret 360 degree data due to its complexity. Participants
were provided with interpretive feedback on the 360 degree data. As recommended by
Diedrich (1996), the feedback provided was specific, accurately detailed, referred to
actual behaviours associated with transactional and transformational leadership.
Third, leaders involved in the LEP attended a workshop which discussed
characteristics of transactional and transformational leadership, how to interpret the
360 degree feedback report, and how to establish personal leadership goals in
response to the feedback. This workshop was run by the researchers involved in the
LEP and the workshop was well attended.
The fourth stage of the LEP involved voluntary participation in executive
coaching. The use of executive coaching was used as a complement to the 360 degree
193
feedback process (Thach, 2002). Here, the coach helps the leader to analyse the data,
to identify strengths and areas needing development (Thach & Heinselman, 1999).
Zeus and Skiffington (2001, p. 64) defined executive coaching as:
“Essentially a highly personalised form of assistance for learning. It entails
individually helping executives [leaders] to make the most of that learning in
order to bring about effective action, performance improvement, and/or
personal growth, as well as better business results for the organisation. It
involves understanding and capitalising on an individual’s strengths as well as
recognising and overcoming his or her weaknesses”.
7.2.1 Choosing Participants
The decision by employees to take up executive coaching was voluntary.
Maxis (2004) recognised the potential resistance and subsequent failure of coaching if
it was made mandatory. Mandatory coaching has the potential to result in a negative
experience for both the coach and the leader. Voluntary participation means taking
into consideration individual values and needs, and the personal, social, and meta-
skills of individuals (Antonacopoulou, 1999). There are also individual differences in
learning styles that need to be taken into account and coaching may not be the best
developmental technique for all individuals (Antonacopoulou, 1999; Honey &
Mumford, 1982).
7.2.2 Coaches
Five executive coaches were used in the coaching process and all coaches
were external to the organisation. External coaches are usually preferred by
organisations as they offer confidentiality to all involved in the process (Hall, et al.,
1999). One potential limitation of using external coaches is that they usually don’t
194
have the intimate knowledge of the company, its culture, history, and politics that an
internal consultant has (Hall, et al., 1999). To reduce this effect, all coaches were
briefed on Maxis’ strategy, culture, history, jargon, and politics by top management in
the organisation.
Further, the coaching and management literature emphasises the importance of
coaches being well qualified (Brotman, Liberi, & Wasylyshyn, 1998). According to
the International Coach Federation (ICF, 2003), a coach’s responsibility is to
discover, clarify, and align with what the leader wants to achieve, encourage leader
self-discovery, elicit leader-generated solutions and strategies, and hold the leader
responsible and accountable. Leaders were made aware of these responsibilities of
coaches through a coaching agreement. All of the coaches participating in the process
have backgrounds in human resource and psychology disciplines and received
specific executive coaching training based on ICF core coaching competencies.
7.2.3 Structure of Coaching Sessions
Leaders and coaches signed a coaching agreement, specifying the terms and
conditions of the relationship. Leaders in both groups agreed to have a total of six
coaching sessions, with one session of approximately one hour scheduled each
fortnight for three months. A seventh session, six months later, was also scheduled.
Sessions 1-3 involved establishing rapport and trust, developing goals (short, medium,
and long term), and formulating an action plan which lists specific steps to achieve
their developmental goal. In line with the organisation’s development goals, leaders’
goals were related to developing transformational leadership priorities as identified in
their 360 degree feedback, in conjunction with their personal leadership development
goals. Action items could include formal training courses (internal or external to
195
Maxis), individual actions at work, changes in behaviour, and/or changes to the
workplace.
Sessions 4-5 involved discussing the leader’s progress and obstacles to
achieving goals, and any modifications to the action plan that were seen to be
necessary to achieve these goals. Session 6 also discussed progress towards achieving
goals and action achievement. This session also focused on formulating an additional
short-term or medium-term goal that would aid in achieving the long-term goal. In
session 7, conversation focused on revisiting the leader’s original short and medium
team goals, discussing their satisfaction with achieving their goal/s and progress
towards the long-term goal.
7.3 Methodology
7.3.0 Research Participants
In total, 67 leaders volunteered to undertake executive coaching. For resource
purposes and to establish a control group for research, executive coaching participants
were split up into three groups, Group 1 (n = 12), Group 2 (n = 11), and Group 3 (n =
44). This research is focusing on Group 1 and 2 only. Leaders for Group 1 and 2 were
chosen through random assignment where possible, as work schedules had to be taken
into consideration. Group 1 (n = 12) commenced coaching soon after the feedback
workshop and Group 2 (n = 11) commenced coaching four months later. The 44
leaders in Group 3 are the control group and will commence coaching after the second
round of 360 degree feedback is implemented.
196
7.3.1 Data Collection Process
Data was collected at several points in time during the LEP. The data
collection stages are listed in Table 7.0, below.
Table 7.0
Data Collection Phases and Measures of the Leadership Effectiveness Program
When data was collected Respondents Method of Collection
Measures assessed in data collection
Immediately following workshop
All leaders participating in LEP
Survey distributed and collected at workshop
Survey measuring several variables for the larger research project (e.g. goal development, positive affect, learning and mastery, openness)
Short Flexibility Survey Leaders in Group 1
Completed by Group 1 leaders prior to session 1
Measure of Individual flexibility [see Table 6.3]
Pre Session 1 Survey2 Leaders in Group 2
Completed by Group 2 leaders prior to session 1
Shorter version of the post workshop survey and included individual flexibility items [see Table 6.3]
Post Session 3 Survey (6 weeks into coaching process)
Leaders in Group 1 & 2
Emailed to Group 1 & 2 Completed questionnaires faxed to coaches
Same survey as pre session 1 for Group 2 [see Table 6.3 for flexibility questions]
Post Session 6 Leaders in Group 1 & 2
Emailed to Group 1 & 2 Completed questionnaires faxed to coaches
Same survey as post session 3
Short Coaching Checkup – A. Group 1
Items asked verbally at the end of each session (6 points in time)
3 items measuring openness to new behaviours, commitment to development goals, and enthusiasm
Short Coaching Checkup – B 3 Group 2
Items asked verbally at the end of each session (6 points in time)
4 items measuring openness to new behaviours, commitment to development goals, enthusiasm, and flexibility in the workplace.
2 Due to the time lapse of four months between the workshop and leaders in Group 2 commencing coaching, Group 2 completed a similar survey to the post workshop survey prior to Session 1 to gain a more accurate reflection of perceptions and feelings pre coaching. 3 Flexibility in the workplace was added to the coaching check-up for Group 2. At the time of write up this thesis, only five leaders had responded to all six verbal items about flexibility in the workplace.
197
This table indicates that seven types of data collection efforts were undertaken
with the first taking place immediately after the workshop on interpreting 360 degree
feedback and being completed by all members of the LEP program (n = 67). This
survey was distributed by the external research team who collected responses to
several measures including goal development, positive affect, learning and mastery
and openness.
Prior to Session 1, leaders in Group 1 completed a short survey which
contained only the individual flexibility scale (10 items). This group then completed a
survey after Session 3 which was a shorter version of the post workshop survey with
the inclusion of the individual flexibility measure (10 items). After Session 6, Group 1
completed the same survey, again with the inclusion of the individual flexibility
measure (10 items). Group 1 also completed a three item verbal survey at the end of
each session with one item used to measure each of the following three variables:
openness to new behaviours, commitment to development goals, and enthusiasm,
Similar to Group 1, Group 2 completed the same post Session 3 and 6 surveys.
Due to the time that had lapsed between Group 2 completing the workshop survey and
the commencement of coaching, Group 2 completed a survey prior to Session 1 which
contained the same measures as the post Session 3 and 6 surveys. Group 2 also
completed a short verbal survey at the end of every session, however, for this group
the survey consisted of four items with one item measuring each of these variables:
openness to new behaviours, commitment to development goals, enthusiasm, and
individual flexibility.
7.3.2 Measures
Several variables were measured during the LEP process, however, only the
individual flexibility scale will be discussed more thoroughly. Flexibility
198
measurements were taken at several points in time, which resulted in repeated
measures, longitudinal data. The 10-item individual flexibility scale (measuring
proactivity, adaptability, resilience, and general flexibility) was measured at three
points in time; before coaching, during coaching, and post coaching. Items were
developed based on the descriptions of the three flexibility components (proactivity,
adaptability, and resilience) that were extracted from the literature and pre-existing
measures of these constructs. The scale consisted of 10 items including three items to
measure each of the flexibility components, and one item to act as a global measure of
individual flexibility. This item was added to act as a measure of convergent validity
such that high scores on the individual flexibility scale should be highly correlated
with scores on the global item.
Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing ‘strongly
disagree’ and 5 ‘strongly agree.’ Items had the prefix of ‘considering your experience
at work over the last month, to what extent...’ An example proactivity item is, ‘Have
you planned ahead rather than reacted to a situation.’ An example of an adaptability
item is, ‘Been able to adapt your personal approach to the situation at hand’, and an
example resilience item is ‘Maintained productivity in challenging circumstances.’
The global individual flexibility item was ‘Given my work context, I would consider
myself to be a flexible person.’ The full scale is shown in Table 7.1.
199
Table 7.1
Individual Flexibility Items
These questions are concerned with your experiences at work. Over the last MONTH, to what extent have you:
1 Explored a wide variety of approaches to a problem...........................................................................
2 Planned ahead rather than reacted to a situation..................................................................................
3 Created multiple courses of action during planning ............................................................................
4 Adapted well to changes in your work role .........................................................................................
5 Adjusted well to new equipment, process, or procedures in your tasks...............................................
6 Been able to adapt your personal approach to the situation at hand ....................................................
7 Coped with stressful events effectively ...............................................................................................
8 Maintained productivity in challenging circumstances .......................................................................
9 Adapted to change with minimal stress ...............................................................................................
10 Overall, given my work context, I would consider myself to be a flexible person..............................
7.4 Results
7.4.0 Preliminary Analysis
The final dataset was examined for missing data, which revealed a substantial
degree of missing data. Twenty-three leaders commenced the coaching (Group 1 = 12,
Group 2 = 11). Leaders were informed prior to coaching, and it was again specified in
the coaching contract, that participation in the LEP could involve completing surveys
over the course of the coaching. It was hoped that by informing leaders prior to
coaching of this participation and using the coach to forward and collect the surveys,
it would result in a greater response rate. Unfortunately, this was not completely
successful (see Table 7.2).
200
Table 7.2
Completed Questionnaires Frequency (n) Frequency (%) Measure
n = 23 n = 23 10 Item Flexibility Survey
Time 1 (Pre-coaching) 20 91 Time 2 (During coaching) 18 82 Time 3 (Post coaching) 14 59
Table 7.2 provides a breakdown of the number and percentage of leaders who
completed each questionnaire. During the coaching process there was some attrition
for various reasons including position changes, individual preferences, work
schedules, and ill health. Three individuals in Group 1 and two individuals in Group 2
withdrew from the study, leaving 18 individuals that completed all three flexibility
surveys. In addition to individuals who withdrew from the study, seven leaders did
not complete flexibility data at the three time points, leaving eleven leaders who
completed Time 1, 2, and 3 surveys. Due to the extent of missing data, it is important
to examine the data for bias through the comparison of respondents to non-
respondents.
7.4.1 Respondents versus Non-Respondents
A series of t-tests were performed to examine whether leaders who returned
questionnaires at the T1, T2, and T3 differed significantly from the leaders who failed
to complete the three surveys. In particular, analyses examined whether there were
differences on age, gender, section size, position tenure, and individual flexibility.
Results on demographic variable comparisons of respondents versus non-respondents
is shown in Table 7.3 with all t-tests results being non-significant; Age [(t (20) = 1.34,
201
n.s.)]; Gender [(t (19) = -.61, n.s.)]; Section Size [(t (20) = -.37, n.s.)], and Tenure [(t
(19) = .63, n.s.)].
Table 7.3
Demographic Variables - Comparison of Means Respondents versus Non-Respondents
Respondents T1, T2, T3 Frequency (%)
Non Respondents T1, T2, T3 (%) Category
n = 11 n=12 Gender
Male 82.0 64.0 Female 18.0 27.0 Unspecified 0.0 9.0
Age 30-39 0.0 8.4 40-49 55.0 58.3 50-59 45.0 33.3
Section Size (number of subordinates) 0-10 27.0 33.3 11-20 27.0 33.3 21-40 0.0 0 41-60 37.0 0 61-80 10.0 8.3 >80 25.1
Tenure in Current Position 1-3 years 50.0 58.3 4-7 years 20.0 25.0 8-12 years 20.0 16.7 13-15 years 10.0 0 Unspecified 1.0 0
Results of the t-tests for individual flexibility were also non-significant; [T1 (t (18) =
.88, n.s.); T2 (t (14) = -.29, n.s.); and T3 (t (11) = -1.51, n.s.)] (See Table 7.4).
202
Table 7.4
Flexibility - Comparison of Means Respondents versus Non-Respondents
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Flexibility (9 item scale) Time 1 Respondents
Non-Respondents Time 2 Respondents
Non-Respondents Time 3 Respondents
Non-Respondents
3.57 3.39 3.75 3.86 3.89 4.51
.508
.373
.634
.920
.623
.651
Results shown in Table 7.3 and Table 7.4 indicate that leaders who did not
return surveys did not differ from respondents in terms of gender, age, work group
size, tenure or flexibility. As a result, the sample used for subsequent analysis will be
those eleven leaders who completed and returned surveys at T1, T2, and T3.
7.4.2 Measurement Validity and Reliability
Construct validity was addressed during the development of the scale for the
investigation of flexibility in the Prentice study. Issues considered during development of
the flexibility scale include specifying the construct’s definition, sampling from all areas
of the definition, and developing an indicator that taps all parts of that definition
(Neuman, 2003). Convergent validity was also addressed. Convergent validity was tested
by examining the correlation between the two measures of individual flexibility, the mean
of the 9-item scale measuring the three components and the global one-item question.
Results revealed a weak correlation between these two measures at Time 1 (r = .41, p <
.07), however, high correlations were found at Time 2 (r = .68, p < .01) and Time 3 (r =
.64, p < .05).
203
At this stage of analysis, factor analysis would usually be performed to
examine how well the data fits the theory (Sekaran, 1992) and the independence of
the three measures (proactivity, adaptability, resilience). Such an analysis was not
possible in the current study because of the small sample (n = 10) (see Parker, et al.,
1997). Therefore, the flexibility scale was used as a uni-dimensional scale and
subsequent analyses were performed using the mean of the nine flexibility items.
Stability of the flexibility measure was investigated by looking at Cronbach’s
alpha over time (see Latham & Frayne, 1989). Due to the small variation in reliability
coefficients over time, analyses revealed the measure to be stable over time; Time 1
(α = .82), Time 2 (α = .88), and Time 3 (α = .92).
7.4.3 Hypothesis Testing
Analysis was performed to examine the benefits of executive coaching for the
development of managerial flexibility over time. Analysis used repeated measures
analysis of variance using the mean of the individual flexibility scale (9 items) and
time as the within-subjects factor. Results of these analyses are presented below.
7.4.4 Repeated Measures
This research features a repeated measures design. Repeated measures designs
are used to test differences in means over defined periods of time (Bergh, 1995). The
repeated design being used here was to test whether means [of flexibility] change for
a group of subjects [leaders] over the course of six sessions of executive coaching
(Bergh, 1995). A significant benefit of using repeated measures for this research is
that each subject has his/her own control, so repeated measures designs require fewer
subjects than design with non-repeated measures (McCall & Appelbaum, 1973).
204
In repeated measures analyses, we can calculate the individual variability of
participant flexibility scores as the same leaders have taken part in each condition (n =
11). This increases the power of the analysis (Norusis, 2002). The within-subjects
factor was a time factor based on leader flexibility at three time periods (pre-during-
post). Results showed there was no relationship between flexibility and time (F (1, 2)
= 2.56, n.s.). Inspection of the within-subjects contrasts revealed a significant linear
trend, which suggests the mean for T3 is larger than T2 which is larger than T1 (F (1,
2) = 4.82, p <.07). This indicates there is a tendency for flexibility to increase as time
increases. This trend is depicted in Figure 7.0.
Time
321
imat
Est
ed M
argi
nal F
lexi
bilit
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.5
y M
eans
3.8
Figure 7.0
Flexibility Means over Time –Linear Trend
In summary, analyses revea re no differences in the
demogr
cores
led that there we
aphic characteristics or flexibility of the eleven leaders who responded to
surveys at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 and those leaders who did not. Analysis
explored the within-subjects effects using repeated measures tests and found no
significant differences. This analysis did reveal a linear trend with flexibility s
increasing gradually over time in a linear direction.
205
7.5 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of the const
individual flexibility, in particular managerial flexibility. Compiling
ruct of
and comparing
aptability,
ty
ese
re
t of
al flexibility.
aching
program where individual flexibility was measured at T1 (pre-coaching), T2 (during
coaching), and T3 (post-coaching). Repeated measures analysis revealed a significant
linear trend in the data, with flexibility scores increasing as time increased during
existing descriptions and definitions of individual flexibility revealed individual
flexibility is multi-dimensional. The dimensions identified map onto existing
constructs in the organisational behaviour literature, namely proactivity, ad
and resilience. That is, a flexible individual is able to plan and explore a wide varie
of approaches to a problem, adapt their behaviour and processes in response to
change, and can deal with uncertainty and recover from adversity.
This study focused on managerial flexibility, and, in particular, on how to
develop managerial flexibility. Previous literature has demonstrated that individuals’
level of flexibility can be developed using training tools such as executive
development programs, MBA programs, experience with a diversity of situations,
executive coaching, and by learning leadership tools. The popularity of one of th
programs, executive coaching, has increased over the last five years with the literatu
suggesting that coaching has many advantages for leader development. The literature
suggested that executive coaching is an ideal tool for developing flexibility and it was
proposed that executive coaching would have a positive impact on the developmen
managerial flexibility. As such, an empirical examination was undertaken to examine
the impact of executive coaching on the development of manageri
Data analyses focused on leaders who participated in an executive co
206
executive coaching. These results suggest that executive coaching is a developmental
tool that can positively improve a manager’s level of flexibility.
7.5.0 Theoretical Implications
This study has taken the first step in developing an understanding of individual
flexibility and has provided significant insight into individual flexibility development
for managers. Results of this investigation have made significant and timely
contributions to the flexibility, executive coaching, and managerial development
literature. Research findings were consistent with previous literature as analyses
demonstrated a positive increase in the flexibility of leaders from pre-coaching to
post-coaching. This is an important finding for both individual flexibility and
executive coaching theory and practice.
Findings support research by Hall, et al. (1999) whose results demonstrated
that the ing in business media and the continued
growth
h a
earch.
7.5.1 Future Research Directions
positive image of executive coach
of the practice are supported by client experience. In their study, the coaching
process was seen to produce added value, in that executives acquired new skills,
abilities, and perspectives such as increased adaptability, more able to proactively
identify issues, more able to scan and read situations, and act more flexibly, wit
wider repertoire of available behaviours (Hall, et al., 1999). The results of the current
study have also provided several topics for discussion and avenues for future res
Inspection of the variation in the range of responses over time (see Table 7.5)
revealed a gradual increase in the range of responses to the individual flexibility scale
at each time period. A possible reason for this increase in range is different aspects of
flexibility were improved more than others. For example, several leaders were
207
focusin
ed to
dropped
2, and then increased again at T3 to a level above T1. A possible
explana
th
, all
an
may impact upon the ability of some leaders to be
flexible
h is
rs who
g on goals that developed their levels of proactivity and innovation, which are
measures of the transformational leadership dimension, intellectual stimulation
(Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). It is possible that these leaders were
scoring higher on the proactivity component of flexibility, but their levels of
adaptability and resilience only increased marginally. Future research is warrant
examine the components of flexibility and the potential differences in their rate of
development, which will demand a larger sample.
Inspection of the maximum response scores indicated these increased at each
time point consistent with the point above, however, the minimum scores
between T1 and T
tion for this decrease in the minimal scores could be linked to the stages of
executive coaching. The first three sessions of executive coaching can be quite
demanding on leaders. During these sessions, leaders are still coming to terms wi
their feedback from the 360 degree process, the process of coaching, and their coach.
During such time, leaders are also formulating developmental goals and actions
whilst completing the tasks associated with their position and leadership
responsibilities.
In addition, depending upon how accepting the leaders are to their feedback
and the coaching process, the time and anxiety involved in the first three sessions c
vary (Thach, 2002). The degree of newness and anxiety and the number of tasks
involved in the first three sessions,
in their work environment and leadership tasks. During the final three
sessions of coaching, a leader’s knowledge of the coaching process and their coac
more advanced and they have a plan with specific tasks, reducing the ambiguity of
their responsibilities. This may potentially increase the opportunity for leade
208
reported a decrease in flexibility to be more flexible. This should be an important
consideration for future executive coaching programs and research on the structu
and impact of executive coaching.
In addition, similar to the proclaimed flow on effects of transformational
leadership on followers (Avolio, et al., 1991), it is anticipated that an increase in
flexibility in leaders would have a positive impact on follower levels of flexibility.
Flexible leaders increasing their ability to search for, develop, and consider
alternatives, would usually involve the participation of their subordinates in th
process. Similarly, when a leader displays adaptation to the introduction of n
employees or modified technology, it is anticipated this wo
re
is
ew
uld directly affect the
attitude of subordinates to the new situation. This is similar to the impact that top
leadership support for change implementation has on the acceptance of the change by
subordinates (Chandler, 1992). Finally, a leader who is able to remain positive during
tough times, and bounce back from adversity will more likely create a more positive
energy which will have a trickle-down effect (Goleman, 1998). The effect of
increased individual flexibility at the upper echelons of the organisation on
subordinates is an interesting avenue for future research.
7.5.2 Practical Contributions
This chapter has made several important contributions to practice. It ha
the awareness of the importance of flexibility for individual effectiveness, in
particular manag
s raised
erial effectiveness. Also, this research identified a measurement tool
for individual flexibility which provides practitioners with a greater understanding of
individual flexibility characteristics and the ability to quantify and assess flexibility
for application in recruitment and selection processes. Further, the results of this
research demonstrated that training and development tools can be used to improve
209
individual flexibility levels. Finally, this research supports existing anecdotal
evidence of the value of executive coaching for the development of leadership
compet
7.5.3 Limitations
encies.
This research has made a number of significant contributions to the flexibility
literature at the individual level, and managerial psychology and development
literature and practice. There are a few limitations of this study that could be
improved on for future research.
The main limitation of this empirical work is the reliance on self-report data.
The exclusive reliance on self reports raises questions about common method
variance, the accuracy of participants’ perceptions, and their willingness to respond
honestly (Wanous & Colella, 1989). The honesty of responses is particularly
concerning with constructs such as flexibility, as individuals may over-report actions
undertaken at their own initiative (Ashford, 1986). A longitudinal research design
using three separate questionnaires was used to assist in reducing method variance
and reliance on recall (Ashforth & Saks, 1995) and to increase the validity of the
findings. Future research should supplement self-report measures with data from
alternate sources such as peers, supervisors, subordinates, documents, and critical
incidents to gain a possibly less biased measure of flexibility.
Limitations of studying executive coaching using a similar research design
have been discussed by Thach (2002) in her research on the impact of executive
coaching and 360 degree feedback on leadership effectiveness. Thach (2002)
discusses the difficulty in separating the impact of the 360 degree feedback from the
executive coaching. Similarly, in the current study, it is necessary to consider the
impact of executive coaching on flexibility versus the impact of training courses on
210
flexibility. Several leaders attended some type of course during executive coaching
where it was directly linked to achieving their developmental goal.
g
the
ull benefits of executive coaching and
likewise, if they are not implementing their developmental plan, their opportunity to
develop flexibility their level of flexibility is limited. Thach’s (2002) research showed
that not all leaders that complete the executive coaching sessions actually implement
their development plan which is the main impetus of executive coaching. Future
research should consider the inclusion of these variables to assess the impact they
have on the development of flexibility.
It is not possible to isolate the effects of these training courses as there was no
record taken of which leaders attended courses and at what time during the coachin
process. Future investigations on the impact of executive coaching on flexibility
should take this point into consideration when designing the research to include
collection of data on course attendance and completion and comparing changes in
flexibility of members who didn’t complete courses to those who did.
In addition, this research did not collect data on variables that would have the
potential to negatively affect flexibility development and success of the coaching
process. Such variables include: leader opinions of the process, leader satisfaction
with the process, the leader-coach relationship, and the extent to which leaders
achieved their developmental outcomes. For example, if leaders are having issues
with their coach, they may not reap the f
7.6 Conclusion
This chapter has addressed theoretical concerns about the definition and
measurement of individual flexibility. The theoretical examination presented at the
beginning of this chapter has contributed to literature and practice, a description of
individual flexibility and its associated characteristics. The review has also enhanced
211
our knowledge and understanding of the importance of individual flexibility at the
managerial level of the organisation. From here, this chapter offered a measurement
ol for individual flexibility research. Evidence produced from the subsequent
empirical work using this scale to measure managerial flexibility, provided support
for the research question that leader flexibility can be developed over time with the
use of the popular executive developmental tool, executive coaching. This research
has uncovered and proposed some exciting areas for future study.
to
212
CHAPTER 8 Discussion
8.0 Introduction
The purpose of this research was to develop a multi-level framework for the
construct of flexibility. I conducted theoretical and empirical explorations of
flexibility at three levels of analysis, organisation, group, and individual. The
exploratory approach taken to studying flexibility was necessary to firstly more
clearly understand the construct and the nature of its relationships with other
variables, and secondly to formulate questions and directions for future empirical
research. Testing the multi-level framework of flexibility involved addressing three
broad research questions at the three levels of analysis, organisation, group, and
individual. The first research question aimed at identifying the characteristics of
flexibility at each level of analysis. The second research question addressed the
relationship between flexibility and performance at the organisation, group, and
individual levels. The final question proposed was to obtain a greater understanding
of the factors that impact flexibility at each level of analysis and how these factors
impact on flexibility at these levels.
Initial exploration of the literature at each level of analysis, enabled the
development of more specific research questions for empirical testing. Empirical
explorations of the flexibility construct were conducted at each of the three levels of
analysis, using a variety of research designs and approaches. The findings of these
research approaches have enhanced our knowledge of organisational, group, and
individual flexibility. Further, this research has provided significant contributions to
both literature and practice, and has presented interesting areas for future
investigation.
213
This chapter summarises the most significant research findings for each
research question at each level of analysis, followed by a discussion of theoretical
contributions which presents the revised multi-level framework of flexibility. The
practical contributions of this thesis are then discussed, and the chapter concludes
with the research limitations and directions for future research.
8.1 Research Question 1
The purpose of Research Question 1 was to generate a systematic and
generalisable definition of flexibility to overcome the limitations apparent in the
existing literature. The aim of this question was also to enable a better understanding
of how to conceptualise and operationalise flexibility. The definition of flexibility was
investigated in slightly different ways at each level of analysis. However, the
definition was relatively consistent across all levels. That is, research findings suggest
that flexibility is an organisation’s, group’s, and individual’s ability to plan and create
scenarios for future events, adapt to changing circumstances and different situations,
and be resilient, bouncing back from change and adversity.
Although this research identified that the characteristics of flexibility are very
similar at each level, the way they are manifested and subsequently operationalised at
each level differs (see Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). To illustrate, an
organisation is adaptable when it changes it structure, processes, and technology in
response to a situation. However, a group is adaptable if the group changes their
approach to a problem or the composition of the group. Further an individual is
adaptable when behaviour and skills are changed to meet the demands of the situation.
Results for each level, organisation, group, and individual are discussed below.
214
8.1.0 Organisational Flexibility
At the organisational level of analysis, an abundance of literature examined
different types of organisational flexibility and advocated the benefits of flexibility.
However, a consistent definition of the construct was not available. Analysis of the
organisational literature identified three broad commonalities in existing
conceptualisations of organisational flexibility. First, a flexible organisation is
proactive in engaging in the exploration of alternative decisions and scenarios.
Second, it is adaptable in terms of adjusting structures, routines, and processes to
respond to change. Third, a flexible organisation is resilient in terms of minimising
the stress when reacting to scenarios and recovering from change.
The available literature also suggested that each of these flexibility
components would be equally important for organisational effectiveness. This is an
important proposition for the practical management of organisations where it is likely
that all components of flexibility are not equally recognised and developed during
strategic planning and day to day operations of the business. To assist organisations in
developing all components of flexibility, indicators of these flexibility components
were identified from the literature. These indicators include external scanning,
scenario planning, an organisational structure that can be manipulated, technology
that can be modified and tailored to the environment, financial slack, and durable
communication processes.
The definition of organisational flexibility developed in this thesis will support
further research in this area by providing a generalisable framework that can be
applied consistently across different studies. The identification of indicators
associated with the components of flexibility can be used to guide the
215
operationalisation of organisational flexibility and the development of an
organisational flexibility measure for use in future empirical research.
8.1.1 Group Flexibility
A two stage approach was taken to the exploration of a definition of group
flexibility. The first stage involved a review of the current group flexibility literature
to identify existing conceptualisations of the construct. The second stage involved
qualitative data collection and analysis to explore employee perceptions of group
flexibility. Findings from the literature review identified group flexibility as a multi-
dimensional construct which encompasses a group’s ability to search and consider
alternatives, modify structure, behaviours, and roles to adapt to change, and deal
effectively with challenging and uncertain circumstances. The empirical analysis
suggested group flexibility can be conceptualised as the flexibility within groups,
which means aggregating group member flexibility to represent group flexibility.
However, there was relative consistency in the descriptions of flexibility
characteristics within a group. The empirical analysis also revealed that consideration
of others is an important component of flexibility within groups. Due to the departure
of this finding from the existing literature, it is important for future research to
examine the generalisability of this component of flexibility.
Furthermore, the results of the exploratory empirical study suggested that
group flexibility might be operationalised as an aggregation of individual flexibility,
as opposed to a measurement of the flexibility of the group as a whole. A possible
reason for this finding was discussed which is that due to the short-term nature of the
groups that were examined in the group flexibility empirical study, the members of
the group may not yet identify the group as having ‘group level behaviours’. Further
216
empirical research is warranted to examine this proposition before any conclusion
about the level of measurement of group flexibility can be made.
8.1.2 Individual Flexibility
Similar to the existing literature on organisational and group flexibility, there
was no consistent definition or theoretical framework of individual flexibility in
organisations in the literature that provides a comprehensive view of the construct.
However, a review of the existing literature identified commonalties in descriptions of
individual flexibility, which suggests individual flexibility occurs when an individual
plans and explores a wide variety of approaches to a problem, adapts their behaviour
in response to changing situations, deals with uncertainty, and has the capacity to
recover from adversity. A comparison of these characteristics of flexibility to existing
organisational behaviour constructs revealed these three characteristics map onto
existing constructs, suggesting a simpler definition of individual flexibility as
proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
Furthermore, the applicability of this definition to different levels of seniority
within the organisation was investigated by reviewing the managerial flexibility
literature. This investigation revealed synergies in definition of flexibility between the
individual and managerial flexibility literature, providing theoretical justification for
the application of the individual flexibility framework to more senior level employees.
8.1.3 Integration of Research Question 1 Findings
In summary, this thesis has greatly enhanced our understanding of the
construct of flexibility. As a result of these research findings, flexibility at the
organisation, group, and individual level of analysis has a tangible definition for a
construct that has, up until now, been used as an abstract term and/or inconsistently
217
conceptualised. Consistency of findings in definition across the three levels provides
support for a multi-level conceptualisation of flexibility, which is an organisation’s,
group’s, and individual’s ability to plan and create scenarios for future events, adapt
to changing circumstances and different situations, and be resilient, bouncing back
from change and adversity.
8.2 Research Question 2
Previous literature claimed that flexibility was positively associated with the
performance of organisations, groups, and individuals. Due to the limited empirical
work investigating this relationship, the second aim of this research was to examine
the relationship between flexibility and performance outcomes. Specific research
questions at each level of analysis were formulated based on the existing literature.
For example, the organisational literature claims flexibility is important for financial,
market, and human resource related outcomes. Group flexibility literature associated
the construct with increased effectiveness in the completion of tasks and suggested
individuals who are flexible are likely to feel less stressed and more satisfied. These
specific research questions were investigated using a variety of approaches. Overall,
similar results were found. Organisational flexibility was found to be positively
associated with organisational level outcomes, flexible groups were more likely to
satisfy stakeholders and experienced more successful project outcomes, and flexible
individuals were more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction.
8.2.0 Organisational Flexibility
At the organisation level of analysis, organisations with higher levels of
proactivity, adaptability, and resilience were more likely to show improvement in
several aspects of performance including internal outcomes and external outcomes.
218
Internally, flexible organisations were more likely to show improvements in
developmental processes, product and service quality, and employee retention.
Externally, flexible organisations were more likely to show improvements in market
share and customer satisfaction. However, organisational flexibility was found to be
unrelated to financial performance outcomes of improvements in sales and
profitability.
An additional finding from this analysis suggests that flexibility components
impact outcomes differently. This theory was first proposed by Weiss (2001) who
proposed that different dimensions of flexibility may be related to different
performance outcomes. This finding is consistent with contingency theories that
propose organisations need to engage in one set of behaviours when confronted with
one set of conditions, but engage in a different set of behaviours under an alternative
set of conditions (see Moon, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, West, Ellis, & Porter,
2002; Smith & Nichols, 1981). For example, adaptability is associated with customer
satisfaction and market share, whereas resilience is related to quality, developmental
processes, and customer satisfaction. This emphasises the importance of recognising
all aspects of flexibility in the management of organisations, as a focus on developing
only one or two aspects of flexibility to enhance performance, may be detrimental to
performance in other areas.
8.2.1 Group Flexibility
At the group level of analysis, positive results were found for the relationship
between group flexibility and group effectiveness. Results from the qualitative
exploration of group flexibility suggested that flexibility can enhance the opportunity
to better meet client demands and satisfy stakeholders. This analysis also revealed a
positive association between group flexibility and employee satisfaction, professional
219
development, and stakeholder satisfaction. Further, the results from the interviews
revealed the potential for negative outcomes when an individual lacks flexibility, such
that if an employee working in an uncertain or dynamic environment was lacking in
flexibility, results suggest the individual would likely find it difficult to cope and find
the project unenjoyable. These findings suggest that not only is flexibility more likely
to increase effectiveness, a lack of flexibility is likely to produce negative results.
Results from the quantitative data on group flexibility supported these
findings. Survey analysis revealed that group flexibility was positively associated
with group confidence, group morale, emotional attachment to the group, and job
satisfaction. In combination, the findings from the qualitative and quantitative
investigation of group flexibility and group effectiveness suggest that similar to
organisational flexibility, group flexibility is associated with a variety of outcomes
including externally based outcomes of stakeholder satisfaction and internally based
outcomes such as morale and satisfaction.
8.2.2 Individual Flexibility
The empirical work on individual flexibility was focused on examining
managerial flexibility as the literature review revealed synergies in the characteristics
used to describe flexibility at individual and management levels. A review of the
managerial flexibility literature suggested that managerial flexibility is positively
associated with managerial performance criteria such as vision and foresight, ability
to undertake long term planning, the ability to identify trends, their speed of response
and comfort with change, and their performance during adverse situations. Although
these relationships were not empirically investigated in this research, the study of
individual flexibility that was conducted, makes a significant contribution to our
understanding of managerial flexibility and performance.
220
First, the study involved the development of a measure of individual flexibility
that has potential for use in 360 degree feedback systems, management development
programs, and even organisational health surveys to identify flexibility development
needs and identify the specific components of individual flexibility that need to be
developed. Second, results from this study found that managerial flexibility can be
developed over time with the use of a development tool such as executive coaching.
This is a very positive finding for organisations and managers themselves as the
results suggest that flexibility is not a fixed individual trait that managers either have
it or they don’t, rather it is an ability that can be developed.
8.2.3 Integration of Research Question 2 Findings
The theoretical and empirical research conducted on the relationship between
flexibility and performance at multiple levels of analysis has provided evidence
suggesting flexibility is positively associated to performance for organisations,
groups, and individuals. The empirical study at the organisational unit of analysis was
the only study that was able to investigate the influence of various flexibility
components on indicators of organisational performance. Owing to the limited sample
at the group and individual level of analysis, this was not possible. Due to the
differences found at the organisational level of analysis, future research should focus
on investigating the impact of each flexibility component at the group and individual
level of analysis on associated performance outcomes.
8.3 Research Question 3
The third and final component of the proposed multi-level framework of
flexibility involved investigating factors that may influence the importance of
flexibility. Similar to the investigation of Research Question 2, to examine this
221
research question, more specific research questions were formulated at each level of
analysis. Due to the significant amount of literature at the organisational level,
specific research questions were developed which investigated the impact of structure,
control, and the environment on organisational flexibility. At the group level, a
different approach was taken and qualitative data collection and analyses were used to
explore the factors that potentially affect group flexibility. At the individual level, a
different approach again was taken, at this level the impact of a specific
developmental tool on individual flexibility was investigated. A discussion of the
results of each of these studies is discussed below.
8.3.0 Organisational Flexibility
Previous theoretical and empirical work on organisational flexibility had
identified structure, control, and the environment as important factors to consider
when investigating flexibility. These authors (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001; Reed &
Blunsdon, 1998) suggested that higher levels of functional structure and high levels of
formal control were associated with lower levels of organisational flexibility. In
addition, these authors suggested that the more dynamic an organisation’s external
environment, the more likely it is for the organisation to possess flexibility
dimensions. The findings were inconsistent with these suggestions. The results of the
empirical investigation at the organisational level of analysis revealed organisational
flexibility is positively associated with functional structures, formal control, and only
financial resilience was associated with competition change.
Although the results were inconsistent to the expectations in the literature,
these results have provided empirical substance to the literature on the relationship
between organisational flexibility and these contextual variables. Empirical
investigations in the literature incorporating these constructs are rare, and most of the
222
research that does exist was undertaken in the previous decade. These findings
deserve further theoretical and empirical attention before any real conclusions should
be made.
An additional contribution of the research conducted at the organisational
level of analysis is the results of the interaction analysis that examined the impact of
structure, control, and competition on the relationship between organisational
flexibility and performance. Findings suggested that competition changes have the
potential to moderate the relationship between flexibility and outcomes of employee
retention and customer satisfaction. Also, analyses suggested structure moderates the
relationship between flexibility and sales. Results suggested control has no influence
on the flexibility and performance relationship.
8.3.1 Group Flexibility
The qualitative exploration of group flexibility included the examination of
factors that enhance or inhibit group flexibility. Analysis of this data revealed factors
that facilitate group flexibility include communication, alliance culture, leadership,
and team building. The results suggested factors that detract from group flexibility
include; communication, leadership style, dependency on external facilitators, and the
distance between project sites.
Open communication channels were identified as a potential driver of group
flexibility by providing members with the opportunity to communicate with the
community, operators, and other group members. The inability of the group to
communicate with the client had the effect of limiting the group’s ability to be
flexible. The culture of the workplace was a major contributor to the group’s
flexibility levels, indicating a supportive culture that encourages a team spirit,
recognition, and trust, can enhance group flexibility. Further, the development of a
223
culture that encourages flexibility as a shared expectation about how members are to
perform is also likely to enhance group flexibility. This study also identified the
positive impact of team building activities as a developmental tool for group
flexibility, which is consistent with recent literature on group training that suggests
teaching groups how to work better together and how to approach tasks, is likely to
increase group flexibility levels (Marks, et al., 2000).
Further, the results indicated a leadership style that monitors the group’s
behaviour and the group’s adherence to principles of flexibility is likely to enhance
flexibility. The results also indicated that this type of leadership could place too much
pressure on the group to be flexible by over monitoring or limiting the group’s
opportunities. The literature suggests the type of leadership style used may need to
change to match different stages and levels of flexibility needed (Weinkauf & Hoegl,
2002). A finding from this study that raises several questions for future theoretical and
empirical examination, is the impact of dependency of an external facilitator on a
group’s level of flexibility. The group in this study was over reliant on the facilitator
which limited their attempt at developing solutions to uncertain tasks themselves or
adapting their ideas. This raises questions about the role of external facilitators. For
example, should different consultants be used at different phases of a project? How
much involvement should these facilitators have in decision making? Finally,
consistent with the existing literature, physical distance was found to be negatively
associated with group flexibility (Allen, 1997; Keller & Holland, 1983). Results
showed that it is possible to implement strategies to limit the effect of physical
distance on group flexibility.
This exploration of the factors that impact group flexibility has provided
guidance for future research in this area. In addition to the factors discussed above,
224
analysis of the qualitative data revealed additional considerations warranting further
exploration. These include the differences in flexibility between professions and
differences in flexibility between different types of groups (i.e. management groups
versus project groups). The question about how to develop flexibility in short-term
project groups versus long-term project groups also surfaced from the analyses.
8.3.2 Individual Flexibility
The study of factors that enhance or inhibit flexibility at the individual level
examined the impact of executive coaching on managerial flexibility levels over time.
Based on the literature that suggests executive coaching is an ideal tool to enhance
individual levels of flexibility and empirical research that has shown executive
coaching develops greater adaptability, a wider repertoire of available behaviours, and
great managerial flexibility (Hall et al., 1999), this research expected to find
improvements in managerial flexibility with the use of executive coaching. The
findings from the current research supported this theory. Results showed that for the
11 leaders undertaking an executive coaching program, there was a tendency for their
flexibility scores to increase as time increased, showing significantly higher levels of
flexibility post coaching to pre coaching.
For the literature on individual flexibility and executive coaching to progress,
there are several issues warranting further investigation. For example, does the
executive coaching process develop one or two components more than other
components of flexibility? In this study, the small sample meant that factor analysis
was not appropriate, so analysis of specific components and their associated
development levels was not possible. Future research could explore this question.
Further, are different components of flexibility developed at different stages of the
coaching process? Research into this second question would be valuable for
225
practitioners implementing executive coaching, as results of this research found that
minimum levels of flexibility decreased during the middle stage of the coaching
program. This could be the result of several factors, for example, participants are
overwhelmed with the increased responsibility and workload associated with the early
stages of executive coaching, decreasing their resilience levels or the number of tasks
involved in the first few sessions of coaching may impact upon the ability of some
leaders to be flexible in their work environment. The most significant contribution of
this study is that the results demonstrated that training and development tools can
enhance individual flexibility levels.
8.3.3 Integration of Research Question 3 Findings
The empirical research conducted on the factors that enhance or inhibit
flexibility for organisations, groups, or individuals has extended our understanding of
how flexibility is affected by contextual factors. Structure, control, and changes in the
environment are positively associated with organisational flexibility, open
communication channels, appropriate leadership styles, supportive culture, and team
building activities are likely to facilitate group flexibility, and training and
development tools can enhance individual flexibility. Although this is not an
exhaustive lists of all possible contextual variables that have the possibility to enhance
flexibility, it provides researchers with direction for further empirical work, and
provides practitioners with a greater understanding of how factors in their
organisation can affect flexibility at multi-levels of the organisation.
8.4 Theoretical Contributions: A Multi-Level Framework of Flexibility
The purpose of this research was to develop a multi-level framework for
which to consider flexibility. Table 8.0 displays the findings of this study presented as
226
a multi-level framework of flexibility. The theoretical and empirical research
conducted in this thesis has revealed similarities in conceptualisations of flexibility
across the three levels of analysis, organisation, group, and individual.
As shown in Table 8.0, at each level, flexibility is conceptualised as a multi-
component construct, encompassing the ability to be proactive, adaptable, and
resilience.
This multi-level framework offers a systematic, comprehensive, and tangible
definition of flexibility at each level of analysis. For researchers at the organisation,
group, and individual levels of analysis, this framework offers an operationalisable
definition of flexibility to guide future empirical research on the flexibility construct.
This will hopefully encourage further research on flexibility to advance our
knowledge of organisational, group, and individual flexibility and the relationship
between flexibility, performance, and contextual factors.
227
Table 8.0 Multi-level Model of Flexibility Level of Analysis Definition of Flexibility Source of
Definition Empirical Findings Relationship with Performance
Empirical Findings Moderating Variables
Organisation
Proactivity – engages in exploration of alternatives & scenarios Adaptability – able to adjust structures, routines, and processes to respond to change Resilience – able to minimise stress when reacting to a situation, and is able to recover when negatively affected.
Literature review
Developmental Processes Product and Service Quality Customer Satisfaction Market Share
Structure Control Environmental changes
Group
Proactivity – searches and considers alternatives Adaptability – able to modify structure, behaviour, processes, & roles Resilience – able to deal with challenges and overcome hurdles Considerate –considerate of others
Literature review and exploratory empirical research
Stakeholder Satisfaction Employee Satisfaction Professional Development Group Confidence Group Morale Group Affective Commitment Job Satisfaction
Communication Leadership styles Team building activities Culture Dependency on facilitators Physical distance from each other
Individual / Managerial
Proactivity – explore wide variety of approaches to a problem Adaptability – able to adapt their behaviour in response to change Resilience – able to deal with uncertainty and has the capacity to recover from adversity
Literature review Executive coaching program
228
One of the most important contributions of the development of this multi-level
framework is that it makes possible research on cross-level flexibility effects. Studying
cross-level effects means recognising that group and organisational factors are context
for individual behaviours and should be incorporated into meaningful models of
organisational behaviour (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Previous theoretical research has
suggested cross-level effects such that the level of organisational flexibility may affect
the level of group and individual flexibility (Pasmore, 1994; Koornhof, 2001). Using
this framework and associated operationalisations of flexibility at each level of analysis,
researchers will be able to explore these cross-levels relationships. Future research
could investigate such questions as: what is the impact of organisational flexibility on
the flexibility of group and the flexibility of individual employees? What is the impact
of the flexibility of a group on individuals’ flexibility within the group?
This multi-level model for which to consider flexibility also includes
performance indicators at each level of analysis that the current empirical research has
demonstrated are likely to be enhanced where flexibility is present (see Table 8.0,
column 4). These results provide a greater understanding of how flexibility affects
different outcomes, which further establishes the importance of flexibility for effective
performance of organisations, groups, and individuals in the current business
environment. Future research could use these findings for investigating these
relationships in other settings, using larger samples, or may use this research to guide
the investigation of other factors that may be enhanced or limited by flexibility.
The final purpose of this research was to provide researchers with suggestions of
how to proceed with research into factors that affect flexibility at each level of analysis.
This research explored these factors which are presented in the multi-level model to
path the way for more explanatory research to be conducted in this area.
8.5 Practical Contributions
External pressures and changes are forcing corporations to adopt new flexible
strategies and structures for their organisations. In addition, the changing nature of
business and the environment have forced the application of creativity and flexibility
into the workplace setting (Kanter, 1989). The multi-dimensional aspects of flexibility
are often not recognised by practitioners and with conflicting definitions of flexibility
attempts by management to introduce flexibility into their organisations are usually
based on ad hoc approaches rather than organised and structured approaches (Koornhof,
2001). These ad hoc approaches are often limited to a few well-tried methods and the
creation of flexibility has tended to only focus on areas such as manufacturing,
financing (Aaker & Mascarenhas, 1984) and human resources (Atkinson, 1984).
This research and the development of a framework for which to consider
flexibility provides practitioners with the knowledge that flexibility does consist of
multiple dimensions and that these dimensions are proactivity, adaptability, and
resilience. Also, at the group level, consideration of others may also a characteristic of
flexibility. In addition, the model offers rich descriptions for each of these dimensions at
the organisation, group, and individual flexibility levels. These descriptions provide
practitioners with indicators of organisational, group, and individual flexibility to
encourage evaluation of existing flexibility levels and the identification of
developmental opportunities.
Further, this research provides empirical evidence of the benefits of flexibility.
Instead of promoting the flexibility of individuals and groups within the organisation
based on anecdotal evidence, management and practitioners are now armed with an
understanding of the tangible benefits flexible individuals and groups can offer the
organisation. This provides legitimacy for the inclusion of flexibility in criteria for
230
employee recruitment and selection, group tender processes, and employee and group
training and development.
Focusing on organisational flexibility, results of this research suggest aspects of
flexibility that can be developed to improve specific organisational outcomes. For
example, to improve an organisation’s developmental processes, the organisation would
benefit from enhancing the firm’s level of adaptability and financial resilience. Again,
these results provide legitimacy for focusing on flexibility during strategic planning and
organisational development activities.
The multi-level model allows practitioners to be more focused in the
developmental efforts for organisation, group, and individual flexibility. This research
provides management and practitioners with an insight into how their organisation’s
internal and external environment can impact upon the ability of flexibility to positively
enhance performance. For example, for organisations in environments where
competition is dynamic, labour resilience is positively associated with employee
retention, however, adaptability will likely result in poorer employee retention. This
research suggests aspects of an organisation’s structure, policies, and procedures that
should be focused on to enhance group flexibility, and provides empirical evidence for
the benefits of executive coaching for enhancing individual flexibility.
8.6 Limitations and Future Research Directions
This research makes some very important contributions to theory and practice,
however, there are limitations that are worth considering for future empirical research at
each level of analysis.
231
8.6.0 Organisational Flexibility
The major limitation at the organisational level of analysis was the use of
secondary data. Specific measures have since been developed to measure each
component of organisational flexibility for use in future empirical examinations. Further
empirical work is still needed in this area to enhance our understanding of the
relationship between contextual variables and organisational flexibility, which would
benefit from using specifically developed measures of flexibility and context as opposed
to secondary data. In addition, the results obtained in this study are based on analysis of
data from private organisations only. Although it is not possible to generalise the
specific results to government and non-profit organisations due to the nature of the
outcome variables, it would be valuable due to the significant amount of literature that
claims flexibility is not beneficial in stable environment, to examine the same general
research questions in these sectors using appropriate outcome measures.
8.6.1 Group Flexibility
A limitation of the research at the group level that hindered more extensive
analysis of group flexibility was the small sample size. Future empirical work should
seek to test these findings on a larger sample. A larger sample would also enable the
testing of preliminary findings of potential differences in flexibility between profession
and group types. Also, a limitation of this study was that only the characteristics of
flexibility identified in the literature were used to measure group flexibility. Future
empirical research should include all components of group flexibility, as identified in
the qualitative research findings, in the measurement of group flexibility, proactivity,
adaptability, resilience, and consideration of others.
232
8.6.2 Individual Flexibility
The main limitation of the empirical work at the individual level was the
reliance on self-report data as a measure of flexibility. With constructs such as
flexibility, due to the initiative involved with the construct, individuals may tend to
over-report their abilities (Ashford, 1986). Future research could address this limitation
by including flexibility measures in 360 degree feedback surveys to obtain a measure of
individual flexibility from a leader’s peers, subordinates, and managers.
Furthermore, the empirical study on individual flexibility examined
developments of individual flexibility with the intervention of executive coaching. The
results of this study contributed significantly to both the individual flexibility and
executive coaching literature, however, this study did not specifically address the
relationship between individual flexibility and individual performance. Even though
there is theoretical research that suggests this relationship exists, future research should
empirically examine the nature of this relationship. In addition, the literature offers
suggestions on variables that have potential to negatively affect individual flexibility
during the executive coaching process. These could be incorporated in future research to
provide a greater understanding of factors associated with the executive coaching
process that may hinder individual flexibility development. Finally, the research on
individual flexibility has focused specifically on managerial level employees. It would
be interesting to research lower level employees, compare their flexibility scores to
managerial level employees, and examine any differences in the relationship between
flexibility and performance of non-managerial employees and managerial employees.
8.7 Conclusion
The goal of this research was to develop a multi-level framework for
understanding flexibility. The first step to achieving this goal was resolving the
233
confusion about the meaning of flexibility by synthesising and extending prior research
on the flexibility construct at the organisation, group, and individual level of analysis.
This step revealed the definition of flexibility is relatively consistent across the three
levels, suggesting that flexibility is an organisation’s, group’s, and individual’s ability
to plan and create scenarios for future events, adapt to changing circumstances and
different situations, and be resilient, bouncing back from adversity. The second step
examined the relationships between flexibility and performance at each level of
analysis. This process revealed flexibility is positively associated with performance at
each level of analysis. The final step in developing the multi-level framework of
flexibility examined contextual variable that impact organisational, group, and
individual flexibility levels. The integration of these results produced a multi-level
framework for considering flexibility.
The current research has greatly enhanced our theoretical understanding of
flexibility, which I hope will encourage further research on the construct. The
limitations of the exploratory research conducted at each level were discussed, as well
as methods to overcome these limitations to improve empirical research on flexibility.
For managers and practitioners, this research provides advice on how and where to
focus their attention to develop organisational, group, and individual flexibility to
capitalise on the benefits of flexibility. This advice can be incorporated into all areas of
the business, including strategic planning, organisational design, group design,
recruitment and selection, and training and development. Researchers and practitioners
alike are now equipped with a tangible definition of flexibility and greater knowledge of
how flexibility can benefit several aspects of the organisation.
234
REFERENCES
Australian Construction Association, A. C. A. (1999). Relationship Contracting –
Optimising Project Outcomes. Sydney: ACA.
Abselson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American
Psychologist, 36, 715-929.
Ackoff, R. (1977). Towards Flexible Organizations: A Multidimensional Design.
OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, 5(6), 649-662.
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. California: Sage Publications.
Alder, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A Case
study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization
Science, 10(1), 43-67.
Ali, A. J. C., R.C. (1996). Global Managers: Qualities for Effective Competition.
International Journal of Manpower, 17(6/7), 5-18.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360º feedback and leadership development. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(1), 35-44.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and
dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Allison, P. (2002). Missing Data. California: Sage Publications.
Allworth, E. A., & Hesketh, B. (1996). Construct-based biodata and the prediction of
adaptive performance. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St Louis.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
Anderson, L. (1994). Effectiveness and Efficiency in Inner-city Public Schools:
Charting School Resilience. In M. Wang, & Gordon, E. (Ed.), Educational
Resilience In Inner-City America (pp. 141-149). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Anell, B., & Wilson, T.L. (2000). The Flexible Firm and Flexible Coworker. Journal of
Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 12(4), 165-170.
Ang, S., & Straub, D. (1998). Production and Transaction Economies and IS
Outsourcing. MIS Quarterly, December, 535-552.
235
Ansoff, H. I. (1968). Corporate Strategy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Antonacopoulou, E. (1999). Training does not imply learning: The individual's
perspective. International Journal of Training and Development, 3(1), 14-32.
Antonacopoulou, E., & Gabriel, Y. (2001). Emotion, Learning & Organizational
Change: Towards an Integration of Psycho-analytic and Other Perspectives.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(5), 435-451.
Aragon-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural
Environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556.
Argote, L., & McGrath, J. (1993). Group Processes in Organizations: Continuity and
Change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8,
333 - 389.
Ashford, S. (1986). The Role of Feedback Seeking in Individual Adaptation: A
Resource Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465-487.
Ashforth, B., Saks, A. (1995). Work-role transitions: A longitudinal examination of the
Nicholson Model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68,
157-175.
Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organisations. Personnel
Management, August.
Avolio, B., Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four Is
of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15, 9-
16.
Bahrami, H. (1992). The Emerging Flexible Organization: Perspectives from Silicon
Valley. California Management Review, Summer, 33-52.
Bahrami, H., & Evans, E. (1989). Emerging Organizational Regimes in High
Technology Firms. Human Resource Management Journal, Spring.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., & Mount, M.K. (1998). Relating
member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
Bass, B., & Avolio, J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. London: Sage.
Bateman, T. A., & Crant, M.J. (1999). Proactive Behaviour: Meaning, Impact,
Recommendations. Business Horizons, May-June.
Bender, W., & Septelka, D. (2002). Team Building in the Construction Industry. AACE
International Transactions, 13.11-13.13.
236
Benjaafar, S., Morin, T.L., & Talavage, J.J. (1995). The Strategic Value of Flexibility in
Sequential Decision Making. European Journal of Operational Research, 82,
438-457.
Bergh, D. D. (1995). Problems with repeated measures analysis: Demonstration with
a study of the diversification and performance relationship. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 1692-1708.
Betton, J., & Dess, G. (1985). The Application of Population Ecology Models to the
Study of Organizations. Academy of Management Review, Oct, 750-757.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R.R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well
being: A large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563-580.
Bloom, M., & Michel, J. (2002). The relationships among organizational context, pay
dispersion, and among managerial turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
45(1).
Boguslaw, R., & Porter, E. (1962). Team Functions and Training. In R. Gagne (Ed.),
Psychological Principles in System Development (pp. 387-416). New York:
Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
Bonder, S. (1976). Versatility: an objective for military planning. Paper presented at the
37th Military Operations Research Symposium, Fort Bliss (Texas).
Bourgeois, L. r. (1985). Strategic Goals, Perceived Uncertainty and Economic
Performance in Volatile Environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3),
548-573.
Boynton, A., & Victor, B. (1991). Beyond Flexibility: Building and Managing the
Dynamically Stable Organisation. California Management Review, 34(1), 53-66.
Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Hants,
England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Brotman, L. E., Liberi, W.P., & Wasylyshyn, K.M. (1998). Executive Coaching: The
need for standards of competence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &
Research, Winter(40-45).
Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking
Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1-34.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R., Lee, G., O'Rourke, T., Reihorn, A., Shinzuka, M.,
237
Tierney, K., Wallace, W., & von Winterfelt, D. (2002). A Framework to
Quantitatively Assess and Enhance Seismic Resilience of Communities.
Unpublished manuscript, Buffalo.
Burgess, R. G. (1982). Multiple strategies in field research. London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Burns, T., Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural
evolution. In H. R. Barringer, Blanksten, G.I., & Mack, R. (Ed.), Social Change
in Developing Are
Carney, T. F. (1990). Collaborative inquiry methodology. Ontario: University of
Windsor, Division for Instructional Development.
Carrero, V., Peiro, J., & Salanova, M. (2000). Studying radical organizational
innovation through grounded theory. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 489-514.
Carroll, G., & Hannan, M. (1989). Density Delay in Evolution of Organizational
Populations: A Model and Five Empirical Tests. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34, 411-430.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a
changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.
Chakravarthy, B. (1982). Adaptation: A Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management.
Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 35-44.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at
different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W., Miller, C., & Huber, G. (1999). Determinants of
executive beliefs: comparing functional conditioning and social influence.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), 763-789.
Child, J., & McGrath, R.G. (2001). Organizations unfetted: Organizational form in an
information intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135-
1146.
Chow, I. (1998). The impact of rules and regulations on workforce flexibility in Hong
Kong. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3), 494.
Cockerill, A. P., Hunt, J.W., & Schroder, H.M. (1993). Validation Study into the High
238
Performance Managerial Competencies. Unpublished manuscript, London
Business School.
Cockerill, A. P., Hunt, J.W., & Schroder, H.M. (1995). Managerial Competencies:
Fact of Fiction. Business Strategy Review, 6(3).
Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness
Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management,
23(3), 239-290.
Collingridge, D. (1983). Two Ways of Choosing Under Ignorance. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 161-172.
Connor, D. R. (1992). Managing at the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers
Succeed and Prosper where Others Fail. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Coutu, D. L. (2002). How Resilience Works. Harvard Business Review, May, 2-7.
Cowton, C. (1998). The Use of Secondary Data in Business Ethics Research. Journal of
Business Ethics, 17(4), 423-434.
Crant, M. J. (2000). Proactive Behaviour in Organisations. Journal of Management,
26(3), 435-462.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood
Cliffs (New Jersey): Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R., L. (2001). Organizational Theory and Design. Ohio: South-Western
Publishing.
Dastmalchian, A., & Blyton, P. (1998). Organizational Flexibility in cross-national
perspective: an introduction. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 9(3), 437.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J.P., & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.
Diedrich, R. C. (1996). An interative approach to executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 61-66.
DeLeeuw, A., & Volberda, H.W. (1996). On the Concept of Flexibility: A Dual Control
Perspective. OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, 24(2),
131-139.
DeGroote, X. (1994). The Flexibility of Production Process: A General Framework.
Management Science, 40, 933-945.
Department of Industry Science Resources (1999). Building for Growth - An analysis of
239
the Australian Building and Construction Industries. Canberra: National
Building and Construction Committee.
Devine, D., Clayton, L., Philips, J., Dunford, B., & Melner, S. (1999). Teams in
Organizations: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Effectiveness. Small Group
Research, 30(6), 678-711.
Druskat, V., & Kayes, C. (2000). Learning versus Performance in Short-Term Project
Teams. Small Group Research, 31(3), 328-353.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (1999). Developmental peer appraisals in self
managing work groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 58-74.
Dukerich, J. M., & Ammeter, A.P. (1998). Identifying Success Factors for High
Performance Project Teams. Austin: Construction Industry Institute.
Duncan, R. (1979). What is the right Organization Structure? Decision Tree Analysis
Provides the Answer. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 429.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Englehardt, C. S., & Simmons, P.R. (2002). Organizational Flexibility for a Changing
World. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 113-121.
Eppink, J. (1978). Planning for Strategic Flexibility. Long Range Planning, 11, 9-15.
Evans, S. (1991). Strategic Flexibility for High Technology Manoeuvrers. Journal of
Management Studies, 28(1), 69-89.
Ferber, R. (1966). Item Nonresponse in consumer survey. Public Opinion Quarterly,
30, 399-415.
Fernandas, M. F., & Randall, D.M. (1992). The Nature of Social Desirability Response
Effects in Ethics Research. Business Ethics, 2(2), 183-205.
Fiering, M. (1982). A screening model to quantify resilience. Water Resources
Research, 18(1), 27-32.
Fisher, S. G., Hunter, T.A., & Macrosson, K. W.D. (1997). Team or Group? Managers'
Perceptions of the Differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(4), 232-
242.
Fox-Wolfgramm, S., Boal, K., & Hunt, J. (1988). Organizational Adaptation to
Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change in Prospector
and Defender Banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 87-126.
Francis, J. D., & Busch, L. (1975). What we don't know about the "I don't
know". Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 207-218.
240
Gabor, D. (1969). Open-Ended Planning. In E. Jantsch (Ed.), Perspectives of Planning.
Paris: OECD.
Galbreath, J., & Galvin, P. (2004). Which Resources Matter? A Fine-grained Test of
the Resource Based View of the Firm. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Conference, New Orleans.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group
development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
Gersick, C., & Hackman, J. (1990). Habitual Routines in Task-performing Groups.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.
Gilbert, J. A., & Shultz, K.S. (1998-1999). MultiLevel Modelling in Industrial and
Personnel Psychology. Current Psychology, 17(4), 287-301.
Gilley, O., & Leone, R.P. (1991). A Two-Stage Imputation Procedure for Item Non
response in Surveys. Journal of Business Research, 22, 281-291.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York:
Aldine.
Golden, W., & Powell, P. (2000). Towards a Definition of Flexibility: In Search of the
Holy Grail? OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, 28,
373-384.
Goldthorpe, J. (1984). The end of convergence: corporatist and pluralist tendencies in
modern western societies. In J. Goldthorpe (Ed.), Order and Conflict in
Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenly, G., & Oktemgil, M. (1998). A Comparison of Slack Resources in High and
Low Performing British Companies. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3),
377.
Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building Organizational Capabilities for Managing
Economic Crisis: The Role of Market Orientation and Strategic Flexibility.
Journal of Marketing, 65(April), 67-80.
Griffeth, R., Gaertner, S., & Sager, J. (1999). Taxonomic Model of Withdrawal
Behaviors: The Adaptive Response Model. Human Resource Management
Review, 9(4), 577-590.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Grumm, H. (1976). Definitions of Resilience. Vienna: International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis.
Grumm, H., & Breitenecker, M. (1981). Economic Evolutions and Their Resilience: A
241
Model. Vienna: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Gustavsson, S. (1984). Flexibility and Productivity in complex production processes.
International Journal of Production Research, 22(5), 801-808.
Hagberg, R. (1996). Identify and help executives in trouble. HR Magazine, 41(8), 88
92.
Hall, D. T., Otazo, K., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999). Behind Closed Doors: What really
happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 39-52.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management teams. In L. L. C. B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research
in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 171-213). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C., & D'Aveni, R. (1988). Corporate Failure as a Downward
Spiral. Administrative Science Quarterly, April, 1-23.
Hambrick, D., & Snow, C. (1977). A contextual model of strategic decision making in
organizations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R.K. (1998). Marketing Orientation and
Organizational Performance: Is Innovation the Missing Link. Journal of
Marketing, 62(October), 30-45.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J.H. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. The
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
Hilgert, A. (1995). Developmental Outcomes of an Executive MBA Programme.
Journal of Management Development, 14(10), 64-76.
Hind, P., Frost, M., & Rowley, S. (1996). The Resilience Audit and the Psychological
Contract. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(7), 18-29.
Hitt, M., Keats, B.W., & DeMarie, S.M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive
landscape: Building Strategic Flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st
century. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 22-42.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of
innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization
Science, 12(4), 435-449.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead, UK:
Honey.
Iles, P., Forster, A., & Tinline, G. (1996). The Changing Relationships between Work
Commitment, Personal Flexibility and Employability: An Evaluation of a Field
242
Experiment in Executive Development. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
11(8), 18-34.
Ilgen, D., & Pulakos, E. (1999). The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for
Staffing, Motivation and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R.H., Dardis, G.J., & Graetz, K.A. (1990).
Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68-89.
Isenberg, D. J. (1981). Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision
making accuracy in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 27, 246-282.
James, K. (1999). Re-Thinking Organisational Stress: The transition to the New
Employment Age. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(7/8), 545-577.
James, L. R., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
Reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(1), 85-98.
Jankowicz, D. (2000). From 'Learning Organization' to 'Adaptive Organization'.
Management Learning, 31(4), 471-490.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohi, A.K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and
Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 53-70.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P.P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An
examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.
Jones, R. A., & Harding, S. (2003). Casualisation of core jobs in Australian
Organisations: It is not all good news for employers. Paper presented at the
Developing Networks for Business PhD Students, Brisbane.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2001). Organizing Flexibility: The Flexible Firm in a New Century.
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(4), 479-504.
Kalleberg, A. L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P., & Speath, J. (1996). Organizations in
America: Analysing their structures and human resource practices. California:
Sage Publications.
Kalleberg, A. L., Marsden, P., Aldich, H., Cassell, J. (1990). Comparing Organizational
Sampling Frames. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 658-688.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). The Measurement of Organizational Effectiveness, Productivity,
Performance, and Success: Issues and dilemmas in service and non-profit
243
organisations. Unpublished manuscript, Connecticut.
Kanter, R. M. (1982). The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Kanter, R. M. (1989). The New Managerial Work. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec,
85-92.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Katz, J. (1992). Secondary Analysis in Entrepreneurship: An introduction to databases
and data management. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(2), 74 - 86.
Katz, R., & Allen, T. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in
the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 67-87.
Keller, R. T., & Holland, W.E. (1983). Communicators and Innovators in research
and development organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 742-749.
Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(678), 678-685.
Kimble, G., Garmezy, N., Zigler, E. (1984). Principles of Psychology (6 ed.). Toronto:
John Wiley & Sons.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, L. (1980). Intraorganizational influence
tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,
440-452.
Klein, K., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. (1994). Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data
Collection, and Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A., Smith, D.B, & Sorra, J. (2001). Is Everyone In Agreement? An
exploration of Within-Group Agreement in Employee Perceptions of the Work
Environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 3-16.
Klemp, G. (1980). The Assessment of Occupational Competence. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.
Koberg, C., Chesley, J., & Heppart, K. (2000). Adaptive Latitude: Environment,
Organization, and Individual Influences. Journal of Business Research, 50, 259-
272.
Koornhof, C. (2001). Developing a Framework for Flexibility within Organisations.
South African Journal of Business Management, 32(4), 21-29.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change How Leadership Differs from Management.
London: Collier-Macmillan.
244
Kozlowski, S., Gully, S., Nason, E. & Smith, E. (1999). Developing Adaptive Teams: A
theory of Compilation and Performance Across Levels and Time. In D. Ilgen, &
Pulakos, E. (Ed.), The Nature of Changing Performance, Implications for
Staffing, Motivation, And Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group
agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(2), 161-167.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A Multi-level Approach to Theory and
Research in Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and Emergent Processes,
Multi-Level Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Krijnen, H. G. (1979). The Flexible Firm. Long Range Planning, 12(April), 63-75.
Kuzel, A. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In W. L. M. B.F. Crabtree
(Ed.), Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.
Larson, L., Bussom, R.S., Vicars, W., & Jaugh, L. (1986). Proactive Versus Reactive
Manager: Is the Dichotomy Realistic. Journal of Management Studies, 23(4),
385-400.
Lawrence, P. R., & Dyer, D. (1983). Renewing American Industry. New York: Free
Press.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1969). Organization and Environment. Homewood:
Irwin.
Le Pine, J. (2003). Team Adaptation and Post Change Performance: Effects of Team
Composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27-39.
Le Pine, J., Colquitt, J., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts:
effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to
experience. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 563.
Le Pine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of
Individual differences in the performance on hierarchical decision
making teams: much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803-811.
Lee, T. (1999). Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. California:
Sage Publications.
Lepak, D., Takeuchi, R., & Snell, S. (2003). Employment Flexibility and Firm
245
Performance: Examining the Interaction Effects of Employment Mode,
Environmental Dynamism, and Technological Uncertainty. Journal of
Management, 29(5), 681-703.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41(585-634).
Lin, Z., and Carley, K.M. (1997). Organizational Response: The Cost Performance
Tradeoff. Management Science, 43(2), 217-234.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA.:
Sage.
Lodewijkx, H., Wildschut, T., Syroit, J., Visser, L., & Rabbie, J. (1999). Competition
Between Individuals and Groups: Do Incentives Matter, A Group Adaptiveness
Perspective. Small Group Research, 30(4), 387-404.
London, M., & Smither, J. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of
goal accomplishment, self, evaluations, and performance related outcomes?
Theory based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology,
48, 803-839.
Lord, R. G., & Kernan, M.C. (1987). Scripts as determinants of purposeful behaviour in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 265-277.
Lund, R. (1998). Organizational and innovative flexibility mechanisms and their impact
upon organizational effectiveness, Unpublished manuscript.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatziz, R., & Kolb, D. (2002). Learning Styles and Adaptive
Flexibility:
Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5-33.
Mallak, L. (1998). Putting Organizational Resilience to Work. Industrial Management,
Nov-Dec, 8-13.
Marks, M., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance Implications of Leader
Briefings and Team-Interaction training for team adaptation to novel
environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 971-986.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research (3 ed.).
California: Sage Publications.
Masten, A. S., Best, K.M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and Development:
Contributions from the study of children who overcame adversity. Development
and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.
McCall, R. B., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1973). Bias in the analysis of repeated
246
measures designs: Some alternative approaches. Child Development, 44, 401-
415.
McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook - Qualitative Data
Analysis (2 ed. Vol. 2). California: Sage Publications.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1989). Strategy, organization design, and human resource
management. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C.C. (1994). Fit, Failure, & The Hall of Fame: How companies
succeed or fail. New York: The Free Press.
Miller, D. (1997). The future Organization: A Chameleon in all its glory. In F.
Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The Organization of the
Future. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishers.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link.
Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221-235.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mills, D. E., & Schumann, L. (1985). Industry structure with fluctuating demand.
American Economic Review, 75, 758-767.
Molleman, E., & Slomp, J. (1999). Functional Flexibility and Team Performance.
International Journal of Production Research, 37(8), 1837-1858.
Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Ilgen, D.R., West, B., Ellis, A.P., &
Porter, C.O. (2004). Asymmetric Adaptability: Dynamic Team Structures as
one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 681-695.
Mott, P. E. (1972). The Characteristics of Effective Organization. New York: Harper &
Row.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods - Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Ng, I., & Dastmalchian, A. (1998). Organizational flexibility in Canada: a study of
control and safeguard rules. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 9(3), 445.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A Theory of Work Role Transitions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 29, 172-191.
247
Nicholson, N. W. (1988). Managerial Job Change: Men and Women in Transition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norusis, M. (2002). SPSS 11.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Okhuysen, G. A. (2001). Structuring change: familiarity and formal interventions in
problem-solving groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 794-808.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Waller, M.J. (2002). Focusing on midpoint transitions: an analysis
of boundary conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1056-1065.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How
formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370-386.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee Creativity: Personal and
Contextual Factors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-635.
Ozsomer, A., Calantone, R., Benedetto, A. (1997). What Makes Firms More
Innovative? A Look at Organizational and Environmental Factors. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 12(6), 400-416.
Parker, S., Wall, T., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). That's not my Job: developing flexible
employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 899-929.
Pasmore, W. A. (1994). Creating Strategic Change, designing the flexible high
performance organisation. New York: John Wiley.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Peterson, R. A., Leone, R.P., & Sabertehrani, M.M. (1980, October).
Investigating Income Refusals in a Telephone Survey by means of Logit
Analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Association for Consumer
Research.
Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2002). Innovation in the Australian Building and
Construction Industry - Survey Report. Manuka: Australian Construction
Industry Forum.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. (1976). Organizational Structure in its Context: The Asian
Programme. Farnborough: Gower.
Pulakos, E., Arad, S., Donovan, M., & Plamondon, K. (2000). Adaptability in the
248
Workplace: Development of a Taxonomy of Adaptive Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624.
Pye, R. (1978). A Formal, Decision-Theoretic Approach to Flexibility and Robustness.
Journal of Operational Research Society, 29(3), 215-227.
Randall, D. M., & Ferandes, M.F. (1991). The Social Desirability Response Bias in
Ethics Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805-817.
Randolph, W. A., & Posner, B. (1992). Getting the Job Done! : Managing project teams
and task forces for success. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Raudsepp, E. (1990). Are you Flexible Enough to Succeed? Manage, 42(2), 6.
Reed, K., & Blunsdon, B. (1998). Organizational Flexibility in Australia. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3), 457-444.
Rhinesmith, S. (1993). A Managers' Guide to Globalisation. Homewood: Irwin.
Ronen, S. (1989). Training the International Assignee. In I. Goldstein (Ed.), Training
and Development in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roti, R. T., Jr., & Shipper, F. (1998). A study of the impact of training in a
management development program on 360 feedback. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 12, 77-89.
Rousse, J. G., & Hulin, C.L. (1985). Adaptation at work: An analysis of employee
health, withdrawal, and change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 16, 324-347.
Rousseau, D. (1985). Issues of Level in Organizational Research: Multi-level and Cross
Level Perspectives. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 7, 1-37.
Roy, D. F. (1959). Banana time: job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human
Organization, 18, 158-168.
Ryan, S. D. (2001). Caregivers of children infected and/or affected by HIV/AIDS.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, Case Western Reserve University.
Sampson, E. E. (1989). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of
individuals and their role in personal and societal functioning. American
Psychologist, 43(15-22).
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic Flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management
Journal, 16, 135-159.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E.A. (2000). Research Methodology in
Management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248-1264.
249
Schaubroek, J., & Merritt, D.E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with
work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal,
40(3), 738-754.as. Cambridge, M.A.: Schenkman.
Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and
intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. In M. H. W. Stroebe. (Ed.),
European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121-151). New York: John
Wiley.
Schroder, H. M. (1989). Managerial Competence: The key to Excellence - A new
Strategy for management development in the information age. Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L.M. (2001). Another Source of Individual Differences:
Strategy Adaptivity to Changing Rates of Success. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 130(1), 59-76.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct Validity in Organizational Behavior. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 2, 03-43.
Scott, W. (1977). Effectiveness of Organizational Effectiveness Studies. In P.
Goodman, & Pennings, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Organisational
Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group Dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods for Business. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons,
inc.
Shipper, F., & Dillard, J.E. Jr. (2000). A study of impending derailment and recovery
of middle managers across career stages. Human Resource Management,
39(4), 331-345.
Singh, H. (2001). Alliance Contracting: An Innovative Procurement System.
Unpublished Master of Project Management, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.
Smits, N., Mellenbergh, D., & Vorst, H. (2002). Alternative Missing Data Techniques to
Grade Point Average: Imputing Unavailable Grades. Unpublished manuscript.
Snow, C. (1976). The role of managerial perceptions in organizational adaptation:
an exploratory study. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Proceedings.
Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination of the causal logic of rent
250
generation: Contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the
resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 907-934.
Staw, B., Sandelands, L., & Dutton, J. (1981). Threat-Rigidity Effects in Organizational
Behaviour: A Multi-level Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-
524.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. New
Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Stigler, G. J. (1939). Production and Distribution in the Short-Run. Journal of Political
Economy, 47, 305-327.
Steiner, L. D. (1986). Paradigms and groups. In L. Berkowitz. (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 19). Orlando, FL.: Academic Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd Ed ed.).
New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in
autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52,
899-926.
Tetenbeum, T. J. (2002). Shifting Paradigms: From Newton to Chaos. Organizational
Dynamics, Spring, 21-32.
Thach, E. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership
effectiveness. Leadership and Organizational Development, 23(3), 205-213.
Thach, E., & Heinselman, T. (1999). Executive Coaching Defined. Training and
Development Journal, 53(3), 34-39.
Thompson, J. E., Stuart, R., & Lindsay, P.R. (1996). The Competence of Top Team
Members: A Framework for Successful Performance. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 11(3), 48-66.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (??). Hypernetwork Organizational Sampling: Creating a
Sampling List for a General Population of Organizations. Unpublished
manuscript.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organizational Survey Non
Response. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 439-457.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., & Harding, S. (2003a). In Search of Socially
Embedded Labour Processes. Paper presented at the Emerging Future of the
Workplace Symposium, Sydney.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., & Harding, S. (2003b). What do Markets Really
251
Look like? Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, Atlanta.
Tomlinson, R. (1976). OR, Organisational Design and Adaptivity. OMEGA, The
International Journal of Management Science, 4(5), 527-537.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S.J. (1994). Adaptive Self-Regulation : A Process View of
managerial Effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93-121.
Tushman, M. L., & Rosenkopf, L. (1996). Executive succession, strategic
reorientation and performance growth: A longitudinal study in the U.S. cement
industry. Management Science, 42, 939-853.
Vogt, W. (1999). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide
for the Social Science, California, Sage Publications.
Volberda, H. (1996). Toward the Flexible Form: How to remain vital in
hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359-374.
Volberda, H. (1997). Building Flexible Organizations for Fast-Moving Markets. Long
Range Planning, 30(2), 169-183.
Volberda, H. (1999). Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, D., Hampson, K., & Peters, R. (2000). Relationship-Based Procurement
Strategies for the 21st Century. Canberra: AusInfo.
Waller, M. (1999). The Timing of Adaptive Group Responses to Non-Routine Events.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 127-137.
Wang, C., & Ahmed, P. (2003). Structure and Structural Dimensions for knowledge
based organizations. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), 51-62.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Sociology of Organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, M.A.: Addison
Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1982). Management of Organizational Change among loosely coupled
elements. In G. P. Huber, & Glick, W.H. (Ed.), Organizational Change and
Redesign. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weinkauf, K., & Hoegl, M. (2002). Team Leadership activities in different project
phases. Team Performance Management, 8(7/8), 171-182.
Weiss, C. (2001). On Flexibility. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 46,
347-356.
Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation Studies of the Group Development
Questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27(1), 143-170.
252
Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for Safety. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Worline, M., Dutton, J., Frost, P., Kanov, J. & Maitlis, S. (2002). Creating Fertile Soil:
The Organizing Dynamics of Resilience. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3 ed. Vol. 5). California:
Sage Publications.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R., J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-Monitoring and Trait-Based
Variance in Leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple
group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308-315.
Zeus, P., & Skiffington, S. (2000). The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work.
Roseville, McGraw-Hill.
Ziller, R. C. (1958). Communication restraints, group flexibility, and group confidence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 346-352.
253
APPENDICES
254
Appendix A: Organisational Flexibility Literature Summary
Source Description Flexibility Component
Bahrami (1992) - Can absorb shocks and withstand perturbations - Can bounce back from the brink of disaster without permanent scars
Resilience Resilience
Coutu (2000) - Can bounce back from hardship Resilience
Crant (2000) - External opportunity scanning Proactivity
Cyert & March (1963) - Generates surplus contributions over inducements Resilience
Englehardt & Simmons (2002) - Maintain portfolio of alternative options - Maintaining a portfolio of alternative options for future events Proactivity
Eppink (1978) - The organisation has a buffer against the environment Resilience
Golden & Powell (2000) - Plan a configuration of alternatives for future action Proactivity
Grewal & Tansuhaj (2001) - Build excess and liquid resources to mitigate loss Resilience
Jankowicz (2000) - Ability to change to resolve environmental problems Adaptability
Kriijnen (1979) - Anticipates changes by means of planning Proactivity
Lawrence & Dyer (1983) - Continually adapt by modifying organisational structures and processes to align with the environment Adaptability
Mallak (1998) - Can expeditiously react to changes, while enduring minimal stress Resilience
Mott (1972) - Adapt and cope with both unpredictable changes and continuous dynamic changes Adaptability
Raudsepp (1990) - Explore a variety of approaches to a problem, - adapt to and deal with changes & unexpected situations - have tolerance for ambiguity
Proactivity Adaptability Resilience
Sanchez (1997) - undertake planning to pursue alternative scenarios for different levels of uncertainty Proactivity
Volberda (1997) - Ability to take on new values and norms Adaptability
Weick (2001) - Retain a sufficient pool of novel responses to accommodate environmental changes Resilience
Worline, et al., (2002) - Are able to absorb strain, retain coherence, and minimal stress when reacting to change Resilience
255
Appendix B: Advantages & Considerations in Using Secondary Data
Advantages Capitalising on Advantages
Practically secondary data minimises resource expenditure (Cowton, 1998)
Less expensive then primary data (Cowton, 1998)
Ideal for exploratory analysis to allow researchers to get a handle on the phenomena before undertaking lengthy primary data collection (Cowton, 1998)
Secondary data help in dealing with social desirability bias (Fernandes & Randal, 1992; Randall & Fernandes, 1991)
Good for research in areas where is relatively small amount of empirical research (Cowton, 1998)
An over-reliance on published research for providing ideas for new studies can lead to an undesirably narrow development of the literature (Cowton, 1998)
Concerns Addressing Concerns
Researcher may not understand the data (Cowton, 1998)
Spent several months familiarizing myself with the survey questions, responses
Researcher may not have proper appreciation of underlying methods (Cowton, 1998)
Full access to information about survey, how it was assembled, distribution, & coding.
Data is likely to map only approximately onto researcher’s ideal research questions (Cowton, 1998)
Purpose of the study was initial exploration to guide future research & data collection
256
Appendix C: Organisational Flexibility Face Validity Exercise Instructions: • The following document contains statements relating to dimensions of organisational flexibility • The definition of each flexibility dimension is provided in the coloured boxes • Please read through these definitions carefully. • Then there are a set of hypothetical statements • Each statement relates to ONE of these dimensions • Please match the statement to the flexibility dimension you think it best describes (you can go back
to the definitions at any time) • Please type your answer in the box on the right.
Statement Which Flexibility Dimension
When faced with a crisis, your organisation is able to pull through without going out of business, taking out a loan, or claiming insurance
• Proactivity • Adaptability • Resilience
Your organisation actively consults outside sources for information about different activities; such as technology, product & service development, government relations, marketing, new market opportunities, research & development, training, finance, and product and service delivery
• Proactivity • Adaptability • Resilience
In the last two years, in response to the environment, your organisation has started producing new products or services, discontinued some products or services, and outsourced the production of some goods or services?
• Proactivity • Adaptability • Resilience
Your organisation has forums of employees and managers set up to deal with and share knowledge on several core activities such as; implementation of new technology, quality control, other problems in product/service delivery, and health and safety and work conditions.
• Proactivity • Adaptability • Resilience
Your organisation is thinking about making a big change in its organisational activities and could expect to lose money for a few months with a gradual move to higher profits after that, do you think that your organisation could afford to make that big change?
• Proactivity • Adaptability • Resilience
Over the last two years, your organisation has made developments or modifications in the following areas; new products/services, better products and services, changed work methods, more efficient product/service delivery, and more efficient task organisation?
• Proactivity • Adaptability • Resilience
Please save this document with your initials after the file name. Thank you for participating.
Proactivity: Ability of an organisation to scan for opportunities and threats, and plan and develop alternative scenarios for future events.
Adaptability: Ability of an organisation to adjust structures, routines, and processes to fit the demands of a particular environment or situation
Resilience: The ability of an organisation to minimize strain and disturbance when reacting to change and bouncing back when negatively affected by a situation.
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
257
258
Appendix D: Interview Protocol Prentice Project
Interview Protocol The purpose of this interview is to gain an insight into your experience with the alliance process, the team’s culture, and the complexity that you are dealing with in the alliance. As the consent form points out, our interview discussion will be taped, and I will forward the interview transcript to you afterwards for verification. Is this ok with you? I am interested today in your opinion of alliance processes. There are no right or wrong answers, so please talk freely and frankly. I will start by asking you a few general questions, then I will move to more specific questions. When I refer to team, I would like you to answer the question in relation to the team you spend most of your time with. 1. Could you please tell me about your position and role on the Alliance Project? Probe:
• How long have you been working with the project for? • Where do you perform most of your work? • Is this your first time in such as alliance?
2A. If yes to working on an alliance before, could you describe how this alliance
project is different to ones you have previously been involved in Probe
• Do you think this project uses any initiatives that you think make your team special, and could you describe them
• What about the alliance culture? • How do you think each of these initiatives impact upon your team? • Do you think one of these has had more impact and why? • Are there any skills that you think you have obtained as a result of these
initiatives?
259
2B. If No, could you describe how this project is different to projects you have been
involved in the past Probe
• Do you think this project uses any initiatives that you think make your team special, and could you describe them
• What about the alliance culture? • How do you think each of these initiatives impact upon your team? • Do you think one of these has had more impact and why? • Are there any skills that you think you have obtained as a result of these
initiatives?
3. Are there any challenges/obstacles that your team has faced throughout the
project, could you describe them? Probe
• How did your team deal with these obstacles? • Did your team anticipate these obstacles and have plans in place to deal with
them? • Was your team flexible in dealing with these changes? How so? • Did your team experience high levels of stress as a result?
4. I would now like to ask you a few more specific questions about innovation and flexibility
In the context of this project, what would a team do to be seen as acting flexibly? Probe:
• By this definition, would you consider your team to be flexible? Why?
260
• Can you provide me with an example of when your team has acted flexibly? • Do you think it is important for your team to be flexible, and why? • Have any of the initiatives you mentioned earlier developed your team’s
flexibility? • How so?
5. Within the Alliance context, what gets in the way of being flexible? Probe:
• How so?
6. Finally, I would like to ask you about the effectiveness of the Alliance Team
How would you define success of the alliance team?
Probe:
• Based on this definition, so far would you consider the alliance team to be successful?
• Is this different to how you would define success of the project, if so how?
261
Appendix E: Interview Consent Form
Consent / Information form
Study Title: QUT Case Study on Group Dynamics in an Alliance Investigators: Dr Roland Simons, Dr Alannah Rafferty, and Renae Jones School of Management Faculty of Business You are invited to participate in a research project that is investigating group dynamics in Alliances. If you agree to participate, the interview will consist of questions asking you about the complexity of the alliance, the team’s culture, and your experience in the alliance process. The interviews will last approximately 40-60 minutes and will be recorded on tape, unless you wish not to do so. The researcher will ensure confidentiality and anonymity. No record will be kept of your name after your research component is completed. No individual names will be used in papers deriving from this research. All research material will be kept on the QUT campus. Your participation is voluntary and you are able to discontinue your involvement in this study at anytime without explanation or penalty. Your confidentiality will be preserved and no identifying information will be made public. Any personal information disclosed during the interview will remain confidential and will be used for aggregating purposes only. Copies of the research reports will be available if you are interested. You may contact any of the researchers during the study if any matter of concern arises. Dr Roland Simons phone: 3864 2539 [email protected]
Dr Alannah Rafferty phone: 3864 1758 [email protected] Renae Jones phone: 3864 9392 [email protected] I, (Name) consent to participate in the research described above. I have read the information provided above, I understand the procedures involved, and I have had the opportunity to ask questions. I also understand that I am able to withdraw from this study at any time without explanation, and that any information I provide is treated as confidential. __________________________ ______________ Signature of Alliance member Date
__________________________ ___________________________ _________ Researchers Name Signature of Researcher Date
Thank you for your consideration of participation in this case study.
Appendix F: Qualitative Data Methods: Reliability and Validity Credibility is the equivalent of internal validity and is also referred to as
authenticity (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The goal of credibility is to demonstrate that
the inquiry was conducted in such a manner as to ensure that the subject was accurately
identified and described (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Consistent with Miles and
Huberman (1994), boundaries were set early on with the establishment of research
objectives, theoretical sampling criterion, and the creation of an interview protocol.
Interview transcripts and case findings were forwarded to participants upon completion
for verification and comment.
Transferability is the equivalent of external validity (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Here the researcher is to address how findings will be useful to others in similar
situations, with similar research questions. This research addressed transferability is two
ways. First, multiple methods were employed to measure the same phenomena, which
can greatly strengthen the usefulness and generalisablity of the findings to other settings
(Marshall & Rossman, 1994). Second, an aim of this study was to include informants
who were diverse in profession, background, hierarchy, and involvement in the project.
This approach helps to create broader applicability and more thick description (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
Dependability is the equivalent of reliability and is also known as auditability
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The underlying issue here is whether the process of study is
consistent, reasonably stable over time, and across researchers and methods. Miles and
Huberman’s (1994) suggestions for addressing dependability were used. In particular,
all researchers involved in data collection followed the same protocol, interview
process, questioning, and recording. Researchers met after each had conducted their first
262
interview to discuss their interview experiences. At this meeting, tapes were also
exchanged so that they could compare interview styles and quality.
Confirmability captures the traditional concept of objectivity (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999). Confirmability is present when another set of researchers could use the
same data and come to a similar conclusion. The most appropriate way to address
criterion of confirmability is to build into the research, strategies for limiting bias in
interpretation. Of the three researchers involved in the collection of data, two of which
played ‘devil’s advocate’ due to their more advanced research experience but also
because of their lack of association with the flexibility topic, they provided objectivity.
Two researchers took observation notes at the meetings, which were compared for
similarity and differences.
263
Appendix G: Comparison of Analytical Techniques and Strategies
Source Analytical Technique or Strategy Aspects incorporated in this case study analysis.
Typical analytical Procedure 6 stages
1. organising data
2. generating categories, themes, patterns
3. coding the data
4. testing the emergent understandings
5. searching for alternative explanations
Marshall & Rossman (1999)
6. writing the report
These six stages were used to guide the analysis process
Constant Comparison 4 stages
1. incidents in data are coded into categories, different incidents that have been grouped together can be compared
Use at Step two to assist in pattern generation among categories
2. involves the integration of categories and their properties
3. Is represented by theoretical saturation – in which no new properties of categories appear and exhausted all such possibilities.
Use at Step two as a guide to the number of iterations
Strauss & Glaser (1967)
4. writing the theory and case study Use Step six for theory generation
Early Steps in Analysis 8 main methods
1. Contact Summary Sheet
2. Codes and Coding
Use at Step three of analysis - guidance for types of coding, creating codes and the structure of codes
3. Pattern Coding Use in Step two of analysis to assist in identifying themes and patterns
4. Memoing
5. Case Analysis Meeting
6. Interim Case Study
7. Vignettes
8. Pre-structured Case
Miles and Huberman (1994)
9. Sequential Analyses 1. Reconstruction of interview tapes as written notes – synopsis of each interview
Use at Step one to organise the data Carney (1990)
2. Coding of data – linking to various frameworks of interpretation
Use in Step two of analysis – link themes back to existing literature
264
3. searching for relationships in the data findings emphasis and gaps in data
Use at Step four testing emergent understandings
4. cross-checking
5. synthesis – integrating the data into one explanatory framework
3 general analytical strategies
1. relying on theoretical propositions
2. thinking about rival explanations Use at Step five of analysis – guidance of types of rival explanations
Yin (2003)
3. Developing a case description
3 different ways of coding the data
1. Open Coding naming & categorising through close examination of the data
Use at Step 2 & 3 of the analysis process to categorise the data
2. Axial Coding intensive work with a single category
Use at Step three of the process to provide more in-depth coding to major categories
Strauss & Corbin (1990)
3. Selective Coding when fully fledged theory emerges
265
266
Appendix H: Study 2 Survey
Survey conducted in collaboration with:
THE WORK EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH PROGRAM in The School of Management Queensland University of Technology
PRENTICE STAFF SURVEY
2004
PART I - Background Information 1. Gender ' Male ' Female
2. Your age ______ Years
3. How long have you been working in the Prentice alliance for? ______ Months _________Years
5. Please indicate the work site where you perform most of your work:
' Work Site 1 ' Work Site 3
' Work Site 2 ' Other (please specify:__
Please indicate what profession you most closely associate yourself with
' Administration ' Construction
' Design ' Engineering
' Environmental Concerns ' Finance
' Human Resources ' Procurement
' Project Management ' Other (please specify ___________________________
Please indicate what work unit you belong to:
' PAB ' Plant Operations
' Alliance Management Team
' Integrated Project Team
' External partner
' Other (please specify ___________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II – Your Work Unit In this section of the survey we would like you to think about your attitudes
towards your work unit. Your work unit is the group of people with whom you
undertake your day-to-day work.
267
A. The first set of questions asks you to think about your work unit manager. Please
indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
My work unit manager:
1. Has a clear understanding of where our work unit is heading in the future ................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Expresses a clear direction for the future of the unit ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Creates an exciting and attractive image of where the work unit is going ................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Encourages me to question my assumptions about work ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Stimulates me to rethink the way I perform my job .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Instils a sense of pride in our unit by focusing on what we do well ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. Inspires confidence by saying positive things about the work unit .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. Encourages staff to believe in themselves and in the unit ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B. The next set of questions concerns the composition and effectiveness of your work unit. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
C. The next set of questions concern the quality of the teamwork that you experience in your work unit. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
1. My work unit often reviews its goals and targets .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The methods used by my work unit to get the job done are often
discussed.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. We regularly discuss whether the unit is working well together ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. My work unit is enthusiastic.................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. My work unit is positive.......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. My work unit has a lot of energy............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. The members of my work unit vary widely in their expertise ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The members of my work unit have a variety of different backgrounds ............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The members of my work unit have skills and abilities that complement each
other.................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Members of my work unit have great confidence that the team can perform effectively ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. My work unit can take on nearly any task and complete it................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. My work unit has a lot of team spirit .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I would consider my work unit to be flexible ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Given our work context, I would consider myself to be a flexible person.......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
268
D. The next questions are concerned with your work unit processes. In the last month, to what extent did your work unit:
1. Explore a variety of approaches to a problem.................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Act reactively rather than proactively when faced with changing situations ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Undertake scenario planning for future events................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Hesitate about changing the way tasks are done ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Adjust work processes to accommodate other work units or individuals .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Effectively deal with changes (e.g. a new member, new equipment) ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Adjust to changes without depleting resources (e.g. financial, human
resource)............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Experience poor performance due to change ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Adjust to uncertain situations with minimal stress............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E. These next questions are concerned with the tasks that are performed in your work unit. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1. Most of our work can be predicted well in advance........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Our work demands are fairly stable ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. We can anticipate most of the problems we encounter in our work .................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. We often have to deal with changes to our work ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. We often need to modify how we do things to keep up to date ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. This is a place in which things are constantly changing .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F. The following questions are concerned with how you feel about your work unit. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
1. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my work unit............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I really feel as if this work unit’s problems are my own..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I feel emotionally attached to my work unit ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Overall, I am satisfied with the kind of work I do ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Overall, I am satisfied with the work unit in which I work. .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Overall, I am satisfied with my job ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
G. This set of questions asks you to consider your experiences at work over the last month. To what extent have you:
1. Explored a wide variety of approaches to a problem ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Planned ahead rather than reacted to a situation ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Created multiple courses of action during planning........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Adapted well to changes in your work role........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Adjusted well to new equipment, process, or procedures in your tasks ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Been able to adapt your personal approach to the situation at hand................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Coped with stressful events effectively.............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. Maintained productivity in extremely challenging circumstances ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. Adapted to change with minimal stress.............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
269
Part III – The Alliance Project In this section of the survey, we would like you to think about the Prentice Alliance Project as a whole. Please respond to the following questions keeping in mind your experience with the overall Prentice Alliance Project. A. The following questions ask you to consider the systems and procedures in the Prentice Alliance. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1. There are a lot of systems in place to enhance the ease of conducting
cross-unit projects............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. We experience good coordination with allied work units................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Different work units work well together as part of a broader team ................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B. The next set of questions asks you to think about the culture and the behaviour of the managers in the Prentice Alliance. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1. The people I report to keep me informed........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Sharing of knowledge is encouraged by this work unit in action and not only
in words.............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. We are continuously encouraged to bring new knowledge into this project...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Employees in this alliance project are encouraged to say what we think even
if it means disagreeing with the people we report to.......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Open communication is a characteristic of this alliance project as a whole ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. The next set of questions asks you to think about the managers of the Prentice Alliance Project. Please indicate the extent to which these managers:
1. Encourage me to come up with innovative solutions to work-related
problems.............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Organise regular meetings to share information ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Keep me informed.............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Encourage open communication ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Encourages by actions and not just words knowledge sharing .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D. The next set of questions asks you to think about your own attitude to sharing “know-how” with other members of the Prentice Alliance Project. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following;
1. I learn a lot from other staff in this project ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. In this project, information sharing has increased my knowledge ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. A great deal of the expertise I need in this project has developed as a result
of working with and sharing knowledge with members of the alliance............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. In this project, sharing information translates to deeper knowledge.................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Combining knowledge amongst staff has resulted in many new ideas and
solutions for this project..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
270
E. The next set of questions asks you to think about your interaction with members of the Prentice Alliance Project. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1. There is much I could learn from the members of the alliance project .............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. There are people in the alliance team who prefer to work on their own ............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. We often share work experiences informally in this project.............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Members of the alliance project help each other to learn the skills we need ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. We keep all alliance members up to date with current information and work
trends.................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F. The next set of questions asks you to think about the practices that have been established in the Prentice Alliance. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1. I am satisfied that work practices in this project are sufficiently flexible to
recognise my family and personal commitments ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I am satisfied that the workplace is supported by appropriate staff amenities and professional support service ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I am satisfied that the workplace is free from harassment/discrimination ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. I am satisfied that the Alliance is active in promoting the well-being and
overall health of employees ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
G. The final set of questions asks you to consider the Prentice Alliance Project work conditions. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
1. Overall, I am satisfied with the workplace environment and working
conditions........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Compared to my situation pre-alliance, there has been an improvement in my personal working conditions ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I understand the Alliance’s lifestyle objectives and their link to the achievement of the overall Prentice objectives .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Prentice managers demonstrate their understanding of strategies for achieving the objectives of the lifestyle program............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for participating in this survey. A summary of the above results will be used to help assess the advantages and disadvantages of working in an Alliance culture. It will also be used as an interim Health Check Report after the
start of site works. A report on these results will be given to the team.
271
Appendix I: Correlations Among Individual Flexibility Items Variables Proact1 Proact2 Proact3 Adapt1 Adapt2 Adapt3 Resi1 Resil2 Resil3
Proactivity 1 1 .50** .61** .48** .48** .48** .37* .52** .36* Proactivity 2 .50* 1 .60** .68** .35* .51** .48** .47** .39** Proactivity 3 .62** .60** 1 .51* .78** .66** .74** .45** .58** Adaptability 1 .48** .68** .51** 1 .78** .66** .74** .75** .57** Adaptability 2 .48** .57** .35* .78** 1 .62** .71** .72** .48** Adaptability 3 .48** .59** .51** .66** .62** 1 .68** .63** .65** Resilience 1 .37* .57** .46** .74** .71** .68** 1 .65** .85** Resilience 2 .52** .47** .45** .75** .72** .63** .65** 1 .58** Resilience 3 .40* .39* .58** .57** .48** .65** .85** .58** 1
t p < .1 ; *p < .05 ; **p < .01.
272