Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Process as Antecedent of Managerial Flexibility

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Resource flexibility view describes the scope that resources can be deployed alternatively, instantly and extensively. Likewise, managerial flexibility reflects the switching ability of human cadre during reengineering and reorganization. Managerial flexibility is an important entrepreneurial endeavor and helps in mitigating the changing challenges of the growing business. Managerial flexibility also enables an organization to thrive competitiveness during volatility. Organizational process (OP) provides a guiding framework for behavior within organizational sphere. Often, managerial flexibility considered as an ingredient of managerial behavior. Therefore, present paper examines the relationship of OP and managerial flexibility considering OP as an antecedent of the managerial flexibility. For this purpose teamwork, communication and collaborative decision-making, work place for creativity and performance management system were taken as sub-dimensions of OP. Initially, based on extant and relevant literature survey a conceptual model was hypothesized. Subsequently, hierarchical regression was employed to obtain the empirical findings of the conceptual model. The empirical findings elucidated that teamwork, communication and collaborative decision-making and work place support for creativity dimensions of OP significantly predicts managerial flexibility, whereas performance management system did not show any significant predictory relationship with managerial flexibility. In conclusion, based on the extant literature as well as on the empirical findings of the study, it is obvious to suggest that organization must adopt such kind of OPs that nurtures the managerial flexibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Analoui, F. (1999). Eight Parameters of Managerial Effectiveness: a Study of Senior Managers in Ghana. Journal of Management Development, 18(40), 362–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appel-Meulenbroek, H. (2006) A Physical work environment for knowledge sharing in organizations. In M. Torkkeli & R. S. C. Zutshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVII ISPIM Annual Conference Networks for Innovation, Athens, Greece, 11–14 June 2006. ISPIM.

  • Atkinson, J. (1985) Flexibility, Uncertainty and Manpower Management. Brighton: Institute of Manpower Studies. (IMS Report No. 89).

  • Atkinson, J., & Gregory, D. (1986). A flexible future: Britain’s dual labour force. Marxism Today, 30(4), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamel, U., Rangnekar, S. and Rastogi, R. (2011) Do Gender, Position, and Organization Shape Human Resource Flexibility? Glogift 11, paper code GLO 26.

  • Borghini, S. (2005). Organizational creativity: Breaking equilibrium and order to innovate. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, W., & Selker, T. (2002). Creativity and interface. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 89–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, V. S., Dhar, U., & Pathak, R. D. (2005). Factorial constitution of managerial effectiveness: Re-examining an instrument in indian context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 164–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinquini, L., & Mitchell, F. (2005). Success in management accounting: Lessons from the activity-based costing/management experience. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 1(1), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. (1998). Organization theory and design. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. (2009). Principles of management. New Delhi: Cengage learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalpati, A., Rangnekar, S., & Birasnav, M. (2010). Knowledge management and supply chain flexibility performance in indian manufacturing industry: An Empirical Study. Global Journal of e-Business and Knowledge Management, 6(1), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership for the future: Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., & van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teamwork on the Fly. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R., & Goodnight, J. (2005). Managing for creativity. Harvard Business Review, 83(7–8), 124–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, M. P., Sahu, G. P., & Gauri, S. (2006). Assessing impact of mobile communications on organizations: A flexibility analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(3–4), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haner, E. U. (2005). Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 288–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, F. M., & Townshend, M. (1993). Elements in participation, teamwork and flexibility in South Africa. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(4), 917–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joy III, L. W. (1996) Innovative appraisal/reward strategy for high-performance teams, Annual International Conference Proceedings-American Production and Inventory Control Society, (code 45441, pp. 108–111).

  • Kramar, R. (1999). Policies for managing people in Australia: What has changed in the 1990s? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource, 37(2), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfield-Smith, K., Thorne, H., & Hilton, R. (2009). Management accounting: An Australian perspective (6th ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford, V. (1979). Managerial effectiveness: A review of literature. In M. Broide & R. Bennett (Eds.), Perspective of managerial effectiveness. Thorne: Thames Valley Regional Management Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansbury, R. D. (1995). Workplace Europe: New forms of bargaining and participation’. New Technology Work and Employment, 10(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. S. M. (1999). Critical factors for achieving manufacturing flexibility. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(30), 328–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, R., Kochan, T., & Piore, M. (1995). Employment relations in a changing world. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui, S. S., Ngo, H. Y., & Tsang, A. W. N. (2001). Interrole conflict as a predictor of job satisfaction and propensity to leave: A study of professional accountants. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(6), 469–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerison, C. (1981). Where’d you learn to be a manager? Supervisory Management, 26(2), 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: Instrumental and symbolic support for creativity. Facilities, 29(1–2), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mital, K. M. (2011) Productivity and Flexible Labour Management: An Indian Perspective, Glogift 2011, paper code GLO 15/2011.

  • Mott, E. P. (1971). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. and Pandey, S.K. (2006) Creating desirable organizational characteristics: How organizations create a focus on results and managerial authority, Working Paper Series La Follette School, Working Paper No. 2005-027, 1-36.

  • Naim, K., & Vener, G. (2011). Collaborative decision-making in emergency and disaster management. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(6), 366–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, S., & Rangnekar, S. (2009). Organizational culture and job involvement as predictors of managerial effectiveness: An empirical study of power sector in India. Indian Journal of Training and Development, 39(3), 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, S., & Rangnekar, S. (2011). An Empirical Study of Managerial Effectiveness and its Flexibility and Adaptability Components in Indian Organizations. In Proceedings of 11th Global Conference on Flexible Systems and Management (IIMK-Glogift 11) (paper code GLO 16/2011). Indian Institute of Management Kozikode, Gift Society Publications

  • Pethe, S., Chaudhari, S., & Dhar, U. (2001). Manual for organizational climate scale. Agra: National Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P. A., & Wright, C. (2009). E-business’s impact on organizational flexibility. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1071–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffaella, V., Sarah, W., Frank, M., & Chris, S. (2012). The practice of teamwork in health industry call centres. Employee Relations, 34(3), 288–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangenekar, S. (1999) A Study of Locus of Control and Learned Helplessness as Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness, Unpublished Thesis, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore.

  • Rankin, G. D., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Effective performance appraisal. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 88(1/2), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, M. H. (2001). Small group communication and performance: Do cognitive flexibility and context matter? Management Decision, 39(4), 323–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, A. M., & Perez, M. P. (2003). Flexibility in new product development: A survey of practices and its relationship with the product’s technological complexity. Technovation, 23(2), 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seguy, A., Noyes, D., & Clermont, P. (2010). Characterization of collaborative decision making processes. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(11), 1046–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, N. (2011) Flexmark: Scale for Testing Flexibility in the Marketing System, Glogift 2011, paper code GLO7/2011.

  • Sommer, R. A. (2003). Business process flexibility: A driver for outsourcing. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 103(3), 177–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A Three-facet Model of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press (pp. 125–147). NY: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. (2007) Robert Sternberg on Creativity, Lecture at University of Tilburg, November 15, 2007 from www.uvt.nl/diensten/bu/bo/eredoctoraten/2007/ sternberg/.

  • Sushil, (2001). Demythifying Flexibility. Management Decision, 39(10), 860–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2005). A flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 1(1), 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2010). Flexible strategy game-card. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11(1–2), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • TenDam, H. W. (1987). Managerial flexibility: A strategic asset. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 8(2), 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallas, S. P. (2006). Theorizing teamwork under contemporary capitalism. Research in the Sociology of Work, 16, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdu′-Jover, A. J., Go′mez-Gras, J. M., & Llore′ns-Montes, F. J. (2008). Exploring managerial flexibility: Determinants and performance implications. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 108(1), 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wannapa, W., Supol, D., & Pakpachong, V. (2012). The factors of innovative organization: Some evidence in Thailand. Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings, 7(1), 531–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiser, J. R. (2000). Organizational alignment: Are we heading in the same direction? The Kansas Banker, 90(1), 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolin, R., Kuckertz, A., & Kautonen, T. (2011). Human resource flexibility and strong ties in entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1097–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, 247667, Uttarakhand, India

    Umesh Kumar Bamel, Santosh Rangnekar & Suman Kumar

  2. Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, 247667, Uttarakhand, India

    Renu Rastogi

Authors
  1. Umesh Kumar Bamel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Santosh Rangnekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renu Rastogi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suman Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umesh Kumar Bamel.

Appendix: Instrument for Data Collection

Appendix: Instrument for Data Collection

Part 1 Organizational Process Measures

  1. 1

    Team work

    • People in this organization help each other in their jobs. (statement 1)

    • People in this organization share pleasing relations.

    • Problems are shared with others in this organization.

    • People in this organization trust each other’s ability.

  2. 2

    Communication and Collaborative decision making

    • Superiors develop friendly relations with their subordinates.

    • All people affected by a problem are consulted before taking decision.

    • The communication channels are open for people working in different functional areas in this organization.

  3. 3

    Workplace Support for Creativity

    • Constructive criticism is encouraged in this organization.

    • New ideas are encouraged from people at all levels in the organization.

    • For doing new tasks people are encouraged and supported.

    • Creative climate is allowed to sustain in the organization.

  4. 4

    Performance management system

    • Hard work is rewarded in this organization.

    • The performance of people in this organization is recognized.

    • People in this organization are evaluated by the results they achieved.

    • Merit is rewarded in this organization.

    • Individual development is encouraged along with team development.

    • Feedback is regularly provided to people on the basis of systematic performance appraisal.

Part 2 Managerial Flexibility Measures

  • How good a job is done by the peop1e in your division in anticipating problems that may come up in the future and preventing them from occurring or minimizing their effects?

  • From time to time newer ways are discovered to organise work and newer equipment and techniques are found with which to do the work. How good a job do the people in your division do in keeping up with these changes that could affect the way they do their work?

  • When changes are made in the routines or in the equipment, how quickly do the people in your division accept and adjust to these changes?

  • What proportion of the people in your division readily accept and adjust to these changes quickly?

  • From time to time emergencies arise, such as crash programmes, schedules moved ahead, or a breakdown in the flow of work occurs. When these emergencies occur, they cause work overloads for many people. Some work groups cope with these emergencies more readily and successfully than others. How good a job do the people in your division do in coping with these situations?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S., Rastogi, R. et al. Organizational Process as Antecedent of Managerial Flexibility. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 14, 3–15 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0026-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0026-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation