SO WHAT IS FLEXIBILITY? TOWARD A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF ... · coaching, and post coaching. Findings were consistent with the proposition of the positive impact of executive coaching

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



8.4 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


Research Question 7: Does organisational control moderate the relationship between


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**


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


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


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


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


Cus

tom

er S

atis

fact

ion


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.


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)




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**


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


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 – Controls

Organisational Size .10t .11t .10 .10t .12t .11t

Demand Changes .54** .55** .55** .42** .42** .42**

R2 .30** .19**


Proactivity .02 .02 .02 .05

Adaptability .01 .00 -.08 -.08


Financial Resilience .02 -.01 .02 .02

Organisational Structure -.02 .41* -.02 .13

R2 .00 .00


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


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.).


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


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.


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)




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**


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


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 – Controls

Organisational Size .09t .08 .07 .11t .06 .05

Demand Changes .54** .55** .55** .42** .42** .42**

R2 .30** .19**


Proactivity .02 .02 .01 .01

Adaptability .00 .00 -.08 -.08


Financial Resilience .01 .04 .01 .03

Organisational Control .04 -.08 .13t .11

R2 .00 .02


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


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.).


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


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.


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)


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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?


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.


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?


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?


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

SO WHAT IS FLEXIBILITY? TOWARD A MULTI-LEVEL THEORY OF ... · coaching, and post coaching. Findings were consistent with the proposition of the positive impact of executive coaching

Documents