المرونة في نظرية الادارة

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098111

Flexibility in Management Theory:

Towards Clarification of an Elusive Concept1.

Martin R. Fellenz

School of Business

Trinity College Dublin

Dublin 2

Ireland

Phone +353-1-896-2630

Email [email protected]

2000

Abstract

The notion of flexibility is frequently used throughout the academic and applied

management literature. However, specific flexibility constructs are often ill-defined,

and the frequent use of such constructs has propagated conceptual confusion rather

than leading to clarification of the meaning of the underlying concept. This paper

reviews and discusses the use of flexibility in three areas of the management literature

(organization theory, strategic management, and operations management) and

establishes that the underlying conceptions of flexibility used in these areas are

remarkably similar. Based on this review, the paper presents a general definition of the

concept of flexibility as an object’s capacity for variability of one or more of its

characteristics. After concluding that much of the conceptual confusion originates not

in the concept itself, but in its use in specific flexibility constructs, it proposes a set of

steps aimed at clarifying the nature of flexibility constructs in management theory and

research. Finally, the paper discusses directions for future management research on

flexibility. The paper distinguishes between the general concept of flexibility and

specific flexibility constructs. Thus, the presented argument serves also as an example,

a reminder, and a call for definitional discipline and conceptual explicitness in

organizational and management research.

1 I am grateful to Geoffrey MacKechnie, John Murray, and John Fahy for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098111

Fellenz - Flexibility in Management Theory – page 2

The notion of flexibility is extensively used by organizational researchers and

practitioners from all disciplines. It is applied in many different ways to many different

aspects of, or phenomena in, management and organizations. Explicitly or implicitly,

flexibility is central to many contemporary descriptive and prescriptive theories of managing

and organizing. However, despite its wide use, there exists no generally accepted definition of

flexibility (Adler, 1988; Beckmann, 1990; Evans, 1991; Fellenz, 1997; Hill & Chambers,

1991; Meilich, 1997; Parthasarthy & Sethi, 1993; Slack, 1997; Suárez, Cusumano, & Fine,

1991; Swamidass, 1988; Volberda, 1998). Moreover, specific constructs developed from the

general concept of flexibility are frequently employed without clear definitions, so that the

meanings of specific uses of flexibility -- which often differ markedly -- must be gleaned

from the particular context and thus are frequently determined by the eye of the beholder.

The absence of a clear and accepted definition of flexibility potentially gives rise to

problems at two levels. First, at a general level where the term flexibility is used as a concept

(i.e., used to refer to common properties among a range of possible phenomena, see

Singleton, Straits & Straits, 1993), the lack of cohesion in meaning creates and propagates

misunderstandings and communication problems. This is particularly true for terms that are

part of everyday language because the multitude of connotations associated with such terms

as flexibility (or learning, intelligence, trust, change, performance, etc.) invites different

interpretations based on preconceived notions of the term. (see Calder, 1977) This in turn

affects the ability of researchers within an area to work collaboratively, and also impedes

cross -disciplinary work, because more effort needs to be spent on clarifying key terms such

as flexibility. Without consensus about the meaning of central terms, and a common

understanding and interpretation of key theories describing the relevant phenomena,

theoretical contributions will remain incompatible and empirical findings will diverge and

create inconsistencies that remain unresolvable until conceptual clarification is achieved

(Webster & Starbuck, 1988; Zammuto & Connolly, 1984).

Second, at the more specific level where the concept of flexibility is applied to

particular phenomena to devise specific constructs (i.e., used to create explanatory variables;

see Kerlinger, 1986; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991), a lack of explication can limit the utility of

such constructs. . For theory development, inadequate construct explication1 substantially

reduces the value of any explanation or prediction derived from the theory because the exact

nature and -- more importantly -- the actual role of the construct in question remain unclear.

Moreover, in empirical research, inadequate construct explication prevents the appropriate

operationalization of the construct, thus making proper measurement all but impossible and


preventing construct and content validation (see Cook & Campbell, 1979; Miner, 1980, 1982;

Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardner, & Lankau, 1993).

There are several related reasons why management theorists and practitioners frequently

use the notion of flexibility despite these potential shortcomings. First, flexibility is easily and

intuitively understood. The high ‘pre-understanding’ of the term has reduced the perceived or

imposed need to clarify the meaning of the term in explicit definitions. Second, flexibility is a

positively laden term and has become one of organizational theory’s ‘warm fuzzies’. It is seen

by both researchers and practitioners as generally positive, valuable, and advantageous to

have. Thus, the use of the term has benefited from the often uncritically positive associations

with it and the resulting high intuitive appeal. A third reason for the frequent use of the

concept is the perceived importance of flexibility to issues such as change and adaptation in

and of organizations. Specifically, flexibility is widely seen as a capability that affords value

in uncertain and changing environments (e.g., Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998; Snow & Snell,

1993; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), and as a result is often used in descriptive and

prescriptive ways even without the provision of an explicit link between flexibility and

desired outcomes.2 Finally, and maybe most importantly, the absence both of a commonly

accepted definition of the flexibility concept in management theory and practice, and of more

emphatic and stringent definitional requirements for the use of flexibility constructs,

contributes to the proliferation of, and variety in, its use. In other words, these factors allow

the term to be used in many different ways – which in turn enables its users to take advantage

of the widely shared notions regarding flexibility, such as positive associations and perceived

importance, mentioned above.

In this essay, I attempt to address the problems that have arisen from the ill-defined and

equivocal uses of the term flexibility in the management literature. First, I review the use of

flexibility in three important areas of the management literature: organization theory, strategic

management, and production and operations management. I discuss contributions from these

literatures to extract the commonalties and differences in the particular uses of the concept.

This discussion then serves as the basis from which I derive a general working definition of

the flexibility concept. I then propose ways of employing the concept of flexibility in

management research that can help to avoid the perpetuation of the current conceptual

uncertainty and confusion, and discuss directions for further research.

Throughout this paper, I make a clear distinction between the general concept (where

‘concept’ refers to a notion specifying the common properties among a range of possible

phenomena, see Singleton, Straits & Straits, 1993) of flexibility, and specific flexibility


constructs (where ‘construct’ refers to the application of a concept in a particular context to

create explanatory variables; see Kerlinger, 1986; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Thus, in

addition to reviewing the use of flexibility and trying to clarify its meaning across these two

levels of abstraction, the presented argument serves also as an example, a reminder, and a call

for definitional discipline and conceptual explicitness in organizational and management

research.

The Concept of Flexibility in Three Management Literatures

To clarify the ways in which the notion of flexibility has been conceptualized and

applied, I provide examples of the use of flexibility from different areas of management

literature. The areas I have chosen as examples are organization theory, strategic

management, and production and operations management. These three form distinct bodies of

knowledge characterized by different concerns, focal content, contributing disciplines,

historical roots, and predominant research methodologies. Nevertheless, they are closely

related and share both key concerns and contributions informed by, and relevant for, this

investigation of flexibility.3

Flexibility in Organization Theory

The concept of flexibility is used extensively in organization theory. Most frequently

it has been utilized at the organizational level of analysis aimed at organizational structure

(e.g., Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, Macdonald, Turner, & Lupton, 1963), design (e.g., Bahrami,

1992; Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996), or form (e.g., Volberda, 1996, 1998). In organization

studies, the use of flexibility generally focuses on individual, sub-unit, or organizational

adaptation to intra- and extra-organizational circumstances. As such, the use of the concept of

flexibility is closely wedded to systems thinking in its various forms because any kind of

system responsiveness to environmental change, and thus any kind of system-environment

interaction, requires the ability to change system properties or behaviors.

The notion of organizational flexibility has not always been prominent in organization

theory. Early contributors to Scientific Management (e.g., Gilbreth & Gilbreth, 1917; Taylor,

1911) and classical administrative theory (e.g., Fayol, 1949; Gulick & Urwick, 1937) implicitly

or explicitly assumed the analyzability, specifiability, and predictability of tasks and subtasks

which can be coordinated by plans and schedules and, where necessary, buffers. Because they

assume stable organizational goals and task environments, they "leave out of account the

dynamics of program elaboration--the processes of developing new activities and programs of


activities where these have not existed before." (March & Simon, 1958, p. 29) Few classical

authors discuss the gap between the rationality assumptions underlying this stable view of

organizations and actual organizational realities. Exceptions are some more practitioner-oriented

contributions which argue for the necessity for organizations to adapt to environmental

conditions (e.g., Koontz & O'Donnell, 1955), as well as the work of Mary Parker Follett that is

recently again receiving considerable attention (Graham, 1995).

Organization theorists from the late 1950’s on increasingly addressed organization-

environment interactions and the resulting necessity for organizational change and adaptation

(e.g., Burns & Stalker, 1961; Cyert & March, 1963; Emery & Trist, 1965; Lawrence & Lorsch,

1967; March & Simon, 1958; Perrow, 1967; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Terreberry, 1968;

Thompson, 1967). One of the early formal definitions of organizational flexibility describes it as

expressing change in organizational structure (Pugh et al., 1963) Pugh and colleagues distinguish

three main features of organizational flexibility: amount, speed, and acceleration. Amount refers

to both the nature and importance of structural change. Speed represents the amount of change in

a specified time period, while acceleration refers to the onset of structural change. They also

point out the organization's receptivity for ideas in the environment, and its willingness and

ability to absorb them, as another important dimension of organizational flexibility. This early

conceptualization effectively equates flexibility with change, and specifically excludes the

question “whether an organization could have changed if its circumstances had required it to

change” (p. 307) as too hypothetical.

The majority of subsequent contributions in organization theory, however, takes a

different approach to flexibility and treats it as related to, or even synonymous with, the capacity

for organizational change. This reflects Bateson's (1972) view of (system) flexibility as

"uncommitted potentiality for change." (1972, p. 497) this conceptualization is closely related to

a fundamental dilemma in organization theory, namely the simultaneous needs for both abilities

to adapt and innovate on the one hand (i.e., organizational flexibility), and the need for

organization (coordination, control, structure, stability, identity, continuity, predictability, etc.)

on the other. This balance between capacity for change and stability -- by some seen as a tradeoff

or even a paradox -- has been recognized and discussed by many organization theorists (e.g.,

Burns & Stalker, 1961; Katz & Kahn, 1978; March & Simon, 1958; Meilich, 1997; Volberda,

1996, 1998; Weick, 1979, 1982; Weick & Westley, 1996). Weick (1979) for example points out

the ambivalent nature of both organizational flexibility and stability. "Flexibility is required so

that current practices can be modified in the interest of adapting to nontransient changes in the

environment. ... The trouble with total flexibility is that the organization can't over time retain a


sense of identity and continuity. Any social unit is defined in part by its history, by what it has

done and by what it has chosen repeatedly. Chronic flexibility destroys identity." (p. 215)4 and

"Stability provides an economical means to handle new contingencies ... However, chronic

stability is dysfunctional because more economical ways of responding might never be

discovered." (p. 215) He points to organizations’ simultaneous needs for both flexibility and

stability and argues--similar to Grochla (1978)--that they can successfully fulfill these needs

either sequentially in the whole system or simultaneously in different parts of the system (Weick,

1979).

Meilich (1997) discusses various contributions that address the flexibility/stability issue,

which he frames in flexibility and efficiency terms. He identifies three general approaches to

solving the contradiction named choosing, balancing, and alleviating. The choosing approach

assumes that the contradiction between stability and flexibility cannot be resolved and proposes

that a choice between these competing principles is more useful than attempts to balance or

resolve the conflicting orientations. The distinction between the other two approaches, balancing

and alleviating, appears less clear as a successful balancing of the contradictory forces can be

interpreted in effect as alleviating the contradiction.

Volberda (1996) reviews the issue by arguing that flexibility is a function of the

interaction of managerial capabilities to respond to environmental change on the one hand

(“managerial task”, 1996, p. 361), and organizational capabilities to implement timely change

(“organizational design task”, 1996, p. 361) on the other. The firm is under control, and the

contradiction between flexibility and stability effectively resolved or at least inconsequential,

when these elements are in balance. Such simultaneous achievement of aspects of both stability

and flexibility in organizations is also described by Boynton and Victor (1991) in their

discussion of 'dynamically stable' organizations. Bahrami (1992) proposes bi-modal

organizational design features as a way to effectively resolve the contradiction, which mirrors

Duncan’s (1976) ‘ambidextrous organization’ as well as Galbraith’s (1994) discussion of parallel

or multi-layered organizational arrangements and of lateral integration and coordination

linkages.

In summary, the majority of applications of the flexibility concept in organization theory

aim at the organizational level with flexibility referring to an organization’s ability to change or

vary in certain aspects. Flexibility is generally used to address organizational capacity to cope

with environmental uncertainty. It is often conceived of as hierarchical with flexibility of

organizational elements or sub-components contributing to higher level (or total system)

flexibility. A particular concern regarding flexibility in organization theory relates to the


problematic relationship between flexibility and stability which reflects concerns about the

ambivalent or even paradoxical nature of organizations (Weick, 1979; Weick & Westley,

1996).

Flexibility in Strategic Management

The concept of flexibility is regularly used in the area of strategy management, with

some writers arguing that "the intellectual concept of strategy naturally leads to the intellectual

concept of flexibility" (Eccles, 1959, p. 25, quoted in Evans, 1991). Thus, some contributors view

flexibility as a core principle of business strategy (Evans, 1991; Hart, 1937) which relates to a

firm's abilities to deal with changing environmental circumstances (Harrigan, 1985). Others

regard it as one pole of the essential strategic tradeoff between "focused, concerted commitments

on the one hand and resource flexibility on the other" (Hambrick, 1985, p. xiii), while others

again see it as the foundation of an alternative product strategy that can provide competitive

advantage over “firms that try to adhere to more traditional product strategies of low cost,

differentiation, or focus.” (Sanchez, 1995). The view of the flexibility concept in business policy

and strategy appears highly homogenous, but the conceptualizations, scope, and usage of specific

flexibility constructs differ widely.

The most general term used by strategy researchers is 'strategic flexibility' (e.g., Evans,

1991; Harrigan, 1985; Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998; Sanchez, 1993, 1995). Strategic flexibility

refers to a strategic response to the unforeseen (Eppink, 1978, cited in Evans, 1991). It depicts

"firms' abilities to reposition themselves in a market, change their game plans, or dismantle their

current strategies when the customers they serve are no longer as attractive as they once

were." (Harrigan, 1985, p. 1) Thus, strategic flexibility is related to a firm's response set for firm-

environment interactions (Sanchez, 1993; see also Bowman & Hurry, 1993). The value of such

strategic flexibility appears obvious: "Organizations seek strategic flexibility in order to increase

the speed and extend their scope of manoeuvre." (Evans, 1991, p. 77) High speed and broad

scope of possible action enables organizations to react differently according to the specific

environmental situations. Such abilities are important for both strategy formulation and

implementation. They increase the likelihood that choices for appropriate (i.e., adaptive) courses

of action are available at each point in the strategic management process (Bowman & Hurry,

1993; Sanchez, 1993). The need for such strategic flexibility is particularly high in

hypercompetitive environments where competitive advantage is extremely short-lived and

competitive success depends on firms’ abilities to counteract the erosion of their advantages with

quick and novel actions (D’Aveni, 1994).


Strategic flexibility is influenced by the 'real', internal and external conditions of the firm,

by the ability of strategy makers to recognize and conceptualize limitations and opportunities

inherent in the organization's complex situation, and their ability and willingness to develop

action alternatives for the firm. Thus, strategic flexibility can be seen as restricted or enabled by

two factors, each of which is necessary but not sufficient.5 The first factor restraining strategic

flexibility is the number of ecologically6 valid strategic options or the number of action options

that the internal and external conditions of the firm permit and for which the necessary resources

(e.g. capital, know-how, support, legitimization, etc.) are available or can be obtained. The

second restraining factor is the number of acknowledged strategic options, which refers to the

number of strategic options that organizational decision-makers are able to conceptualize or

recognize, and willing to consider. Only options that are both ecologically valid, and

acknowledged by a firm's decision makers, contribute to a firms strategic flexibility, or the

number of strategic action options currently available to a firm .

These two factors contributing to strategic flexibility have been identified and discussed.

The number of ecologically valid strategic options is related to both environmental conditions

and resource flexibility. Resource flexibility in this context refers to the number of different ways

in which a particular resource can be utilized (e.g., Hambrick, 1985; Sanchez, 1993, 1995;

Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996). Examples of resource flexibility include equipment flexibility ,

workforce flexibility (Malhotra, Fry, Kher, & Donohue, 1993), or product development sub-

process flexibility (Sanchez, 1995).

The second determinant is organizational decision makers' ability to recognize, and

motivation to consider, all available strategic options. This ability/motivation factor refers to both

existing and well-known options, as well as to unfamiliar and novel strategic options. Managers

identify such options through retrospective sensemaking processes (Hurry, Miller, & Bowman,

1992; Bowman & Hurry, 1993), and Harrigan (1985) postulates that mental barriers are an

important inhibitor of strategic flexibility.

Other conceptualizations of flexibility in strategic context exist. Krijnen (1979) uses the

term strategic flexibility to describe the ability of an organization’s structure to change its

product-market combinations. Kogut and Kulatilaka (1994) call the ability of multinational

corporations to shift production across borders between sub-units located in different countries

operating flexibility, which can be interpreted as a more specific strategic flexibility construct.

A number of strategy researchers have extended the above conceptualization of

flexibility by including an evaluative dimension. They portray strategic flexibility as 'successful

responsiveness to environmental demands' and describes it as characterized by readiness and


capability to change (e.g., Krijnen, 1979). Jennings (1987) uses the term organizational

flexibility to describe an organization's entrepreneurial ability which "entails the capacity to

recognize and then effect profitable change." (1987, p. 23) Hitt and his co-authors define

strategic flexibility as “the capability of the firm to proact or respond quickly to changing

competitive conditions and thereby develop and/or maintain competitive advantage.” (1998, p.

26; see also Hitt, Hoskisson & Harrison, 1991) While ostensibly similar to the above

descriptions of strategic flexibility, these different conceptions include an evaluative dimension

('successful', 'profitable', ‘competitive advantage’) in the definition of strategic flexibility that is

conceptually unsatisfactory. As discussed above, strategic flexibility refers to the capability of a

firm to respond to environmental demands and exploit environmental opportunities. The success

of a chosen course of action, however, is not inherent in the response capability or the choice to

employ it, but is rather determined by the unfolding interplay between strategy implementation

and environmental conditions over time. Thus, success can only be determined ex post facto.

Including an evaluative dimension in a definition of strategic flexibility would require

knowledge about the outcomes of each choice that is not available in uncertain, dynamic and

complex situations. The most explicit approach to deal with the evaluation issues is

Sanchez’ (e.g., 1993) work using a strategic options view of strategic flexibility. Within this

view, a firm’s strategic flexibility is determined by the set of options it has for competitive

actions in input and output markets. The value of option sets is determined through real option

valuation and is determined by the appropriateness of the available options for obtaining and

sustaining competitive advantage given the actual internal and environmental conditions the

firm faces.

In summary, flexibility is used in the strategy literature to depict firms’ ability to adapt to,

and exploit, changing environmental conditions and demands. It is valued as an important

capability for dealing with environmental uncertainty and competitive pressures. Strategic

flexibility is seen as the firm’s ability to change the direction, intensity, or quality of its

endeavors. It is thus frequently conceptualized as the size of a firm’s strategic option set, which

is jointly influenced by the ability and motivation of decision-makers to recognize and consider

such options. Finally, flexibility is seen as a hierarchical phenomenon in that different types of

resource flexibility can contribute to the higher-level strategic flexibility of a firm.

Flexibility in Operations Management

The concept of flexibility has been discussed with acute attention to the problems of

definition in the area of production and operations management (e.g., Gerwin, 1993; Slack,


1997; Swamidass, 1988; Upton, 1994). The notion of flexibility is central to many theoretical

and empirical contributions in the operations management (OM) domain. However, the term

'flexibility' is often not well defined (e.g., Beckmann, 1990; Hill & Chambers, 1991; Slack,

1989, 1997; Suárez, Cusumano, & Fine, 1991; Swamidass, 1988) and existing definitions are

not uniformly accepted. Swamidass (1988), listing frequently used flexibility terms, argues that

the scope of existing flexibility constructs overlaps and that some are aggregates of others. Upton

points out that “the term has come to be used for many purposes, each of which characterizes a

different quality or capability of a system.” (1994: 72) Moreover, different authors use the same

terms in different ways which adds further confusion.

Flexibility is generally used in the OM literature to describe characteristics of

manufacturing or operations systems that allow these systems to deal with environmental

uncertainty (Gerwin, 1993; Gupta & Goyal, 1989; Slack, 1997; Swamidass, 1988; Swamidass &

Newell, 1987). Examples of the use of this capability include switching between or re-combining

in different ways aspects of the production/operation process. Consequently, Swamidass defines

manufacturing flexibility as "the capacity of a manufacturing system to adapt successfully to

changing environmental conditions and process requirements. It refers to the ability of the

production system to cope with the instability induced by the environment." (1988, p. 2)

Manufacturing flexibility enables companies to “introduce modified or new products at

minimal cost and lead time” (Garud & Kotha, 1994, p. 671) with the aim of gaining a

competitive advantage over others.

In the OM domain, different types of flexibility are frequently distinguished according to

the level of analysis used (e.g., Browne, Dubois, Rathmill, Sethi, & Stecke, 1984; Slack, 1991;

1997; Swamidass, 1988). The common assumption here is that the flexibility of sub-components

(e.g., technology; human resources; supply networks) contributes to overall system flexibility

(Slack, 1991, p. 85). This hierarchical conceptualization can be found throughout the OM

literature on flexibility, with different terms used to distinguish between sub-component

flexibility (e.g., ‘technical’ or ‘machine-level’ flexibility, Swamidass, 1988; ‘resource

flexibility’, Slack, 1991) and overall system flexibility (e.g., ‘plant-level flexibility’, Swamidass,

1988; ‘system flexibility’ or ‘total operation flexibility’, Slack, 1991). Examples for technical, or

lower-level, flexibility that can contribute to total-system, or manufacturing, flexibility include

particular production equipment, product design, work organization, planning and control

procedures, materials management, and information technology (Gerwin, 1993: 396; see also

Boer & Krabbendam, 1992).


Slack (1991) discusses the need for manufacturing flexibility as arising from four

sources: variety of requirements of the present system; short-term uncertainty regarding ability

to maintain performance if things do not go according to plan; long-term uncertainty regarding

emerging technologies, products, or market conditions; and ignorance about the appropriate

strategic direction of the manufacturing function due to lack of knowledge about the overall firm

strategy. He distinguishes different types of flexibility that can address the different challenges

arising from these sources: range and response flexibility. The former refers to the amount of

options (e.g., range of products) that a manufacturing system can produce at any given time,

while the latter describes the time necessary to make new options available (Slack, 1989, 1991).

A similar distinction is made by Parthasarthy and Sethi (1992) who term these aspects scope and

speed flexibility, respectively.

At second type of flexibility aims at the more general organization or plant level of

analysis. According to Swamidass (1988), such plant-level (or manufacturing) flexibility is

determined by the complex interplay between technological capabilities and the infrastructure of

people, policies, procedures, manufacturing strategy, etc. It is "also derived from flexibility in

design and engineering capabilities." (Swamidass, 1988, p. 2) This latter point highlights the

developmental aspect of plant-level flexibility in that such flexibility is derived from the ability

of the firm to develop, change, and redesign aspects of its production system. The main

difference between plant-level flexibility and technical flexibility is that the former is not

constrained by the available options within a response set (or 'parts envelope'), but that this

response set itself can be changed, extended, and transformed. 7 The importance of this

qualitative distinction becomes clearer when the strategic role of manufacturing flexibility is

considered.

Fundamentally, manufacturing flexibility enables firms to respond to changes in their

environment with a change in the kind, mix or volume of their output (Boer & Krabbendam,

1992; Goldhar, Jelinek, & Schlie, 1991; Goldman & Nagel, 1993; Swamidass, 1988; Tranfield,

Smith, Ley, Bessant, & Levy, 1991). It is generally seen as an effective means to deal with

uncertainty. For technical flexibility, the kinds of uncertainty considered have mainly been

forecasting and thus production capacity and utilization uncertainties (e.g., Tobias, 1991). One

way of achieving such flexibility is through buffering, through large inventories, surplus

production capacity, or excessively long quoted lead times (Newman, Hanna & Maffei, 1993).

Buffering through slack resources enables the production system to deal with uncertain external

requirements by giving it time and resource redundancy. Such redundancy is expensive, which


limits the feasibility of such buffering strategies (Newman et al., 1993; Adler et al., 1999, for a

discussion of flexibility/efficiency tradeoffs).

In addition to uncertainty about quantitative aspects of production, such as volume and

mix, plant-level or manufacturing flexibility also allows to deal with uncertainty related to

qualitative changes in the environment, e.g., new technologies or change in customer demands.

The ability to change existing options, or add new options to the existing option set, enables

companies to adapt to discontinuous change. Thus, plant-level manufacturing flexibility, as

opposed to technical flexibility, permits choice between existing, as well as development and

adoption of novel, strategic responses that are related to the production process.

In summary, flexibility as used in the OM literature is seen as an important capability

enabling operation and manufacturing systems to deal with uncertainty. Flexibility addresses

aspects of the system that can vary or change, and is often conceptualized as the option set for

the kind, mix, or volume of output. Frequently, flexibility is depicted as hierarchical, with lower

level (or element and sub-component) flexibility contributing or enabling higher level (or total

system) flexibility. In the OM literature, an explicit distinction is made between range (or scope)

and response (or speed) flexibility, which refer to the number of available options, and the time

for generating different options, respectively. This distinction reflects the applied focus and often

prescriptive nature of the OM contributions on flexibility.

Concluding our selective review of flexibility in the field of management theory, it

appears that there is fundamental agreement in the way in which flexibility is used, while some

points of divergence exist. I will discuss these points of convergence and divergence in turn in

the next section.

Convergence and divergence in flexibility conceptions and

a general definition of the flexibility concept

Our review of the use of the flexibility construct in three management literatures reveals

convergence in the understanding of the flexibility concept, but divergence in the definitions and

use of specific flexibility constructs. The similarity in understanding is reflected in the shared

concerns that compel researchers in these different domains to invoke the concept of flexibility.

In all cases, flexibility is considered in relationship to the need to cope with uncertainty and

change. This correspondence highlights another point of convergence, namely the implicit or

explicit use of systems thinking. Two core foci of systems theory are systemic functioning and

system-environment relationships, both of which are informed by flexibility. Other points of

convergence in views on the flexibility concept are the predominant view of flexibility as a


system’s capability. Similarly, the literatures converge in the implicit or explicit recognition

of the hierarchical nature of different kinds of flexibility, such that flexibilities of components

or dynamics on lower levels of analysis contribute to higher-level or overall flexibility

(Ashby, 1952, 1960; Bateson, 1972; DeGreene, 1991).

Our review has also revealed some differences in the use of flexibility constructs

between the three literatures. Specifically, the objects to which flexibility is applied differ

markedly between and even within the literatures, as do the specific issues and dynamics that

these different flexibility constructs are addressing. The difficult relationship between flexibility

and stability is discussed almost exclusively in organization theory, conceptualizations of

flexibility as a repertoire concept (or option set) are common mainly in strategic management

and operations management, and distinctions between range and response flexibility appear only

in operations management. These distinctions between flexibility constructs and in their use

derive from different preoccupations of the respective areas of management theory, and often

reflect a more developed view -- or at least a more explicit recognition -- of some key issues

related to aspects of flexibility. These distinctions at construct level do not, however, affect the

similarity in conceptions of flexibility as a concept.

Overall, the review of the use of the flexibility concept in selected important

management literatures reveals fundamental similarities in the meaning and use of the

concept. These similarities make it relatively easy to integrate the existing views of flexibility.

Flexibility generally refers to a characteristic of a system, or of an element or aspect of a

system. It commonly specifies a distinct capacity for variability and change inherent in the

focal system, without implying if and when this capacity may be used, and without any

predetermined implication of the usefulness of such variation and change. Thus, the following

may serve as a general working definition for the concept of flexibility: Flexibility refers to a

system’s capacity for variability of one or more of its characteristics. This definition of

flexibility is congruent with the conceptions found in the reviewed literatures, with the

common usage of flexibility in everyday language, and also with semantic analyses of the

term flexibility (e.g., Fellenz, 1997). Based on this general definition of the concept, more

specific definitions can be developed for specific flexibility constructs that serve particular

purposes. For a systems theoretical investigation of system-environment relations, for

example, system flexibility may be defined as the system’s capability to change its internal

components, or the arrangement of these components, to reflect changes in the environment

and create continued fit.


Implications for research practice: Procedures for increasing the

clarity of flexibility constructs

In this essay I have reviewed the use of the flexibility concept in some important areas

of management theory. I concluded that the concept is widely employed and accepted, and

while specific uses are different, the distinct conceptions of flexibility have at their heart

many common aspects of meaning. After clarifying the nature of the flexibility concept and

proposing a general definition, I feel that it is important to discuss ways of employing the

concept in management research that help to avoid the perpetuation of conceptual uncertainty

and confusion.

The use of flexibility is seldom restricted to a purely conceptual treatment. In

empirical research, but similarly in theory development, the flexibility concept will be applied

to particular phenomena to create specific flexibility constructs. These flexibility constructs

are defined in context specific ways and can be used in theory development (to guide

explanation) and empirical research (to guide operationalization) (Kerlinger, 1986; Rosenthal

& Rosnow, 1991). Rather than confusion about the flexibility concept, it is the way in which

specific flexibility constructs have been presented and used that has produced the current

predicament regarding flexibility. To address this, I propose steps for construct development

and guidelines for their use that can substantially reduce the confusion, misunderstandings

and problems for theory and research that arise from the inadequate explication of flexibility

constructs.

The development of any flexibility construct must start with a clear definition of

flexibility. For this discussion of a set of requirements for construct explication, I are using

the definition presented in the previous section. However, the fundamental steps remain the

same even if a different conception of flexibility is used.

The concept of flexibility as defined here (a capability) requires firstly the

development of a relational construct, i.e., a construct that has to be defined in terms of some

other object, system, or state. In creating a concrete construct from the abstract flexibility

concept the essential first step is therefore to clearly identify the focal object that has this

capability. A second, related reason why a clear definition of the object that has flexibility is

important is that the systems perspective that underlies virtually all of the applications of

flexibility necessitates that the object (or system) that has flexibility is clearly demarcated. In

system theoretical terms, conceptualizing flexibility as a capacity equates to flexibility as a

property of the system. Thus, the system’s boundaries need to be clearly defined to allow an

unequivocal discussion of any flexibility construct (see Upton, 1994). This, in turn, cannot be


achieved without some considerable reflection on the origins of flexibility. More specifically,

identifying the nature and boundaries of the focal object that possesses flexibility requires an

understanding of the causal dynamics underlying the ability to vary or change particular

aspects of the object.

To clarify this point it is useful to briefly compare two commonly used sources of

flexibility that I will call variable-based flexibility and configuration-based flexibility.

Variable-based flexibility reflects the view that systems can be described as sets of interlinked

variables, each of which has upper and lower thresholds of tolerance. Movement within these

tolerances is achievable, but at extreme values variables lock up and rigidities can spread

throughout the system (Bateson, 1978; Ashby, 1960). If the flexibility construct is based on

such a variable-based view of flexibility, it is useful, if not necessary, to provide an account of

the key variables and their relationships as well as the relevant thresholds and internal or

external influences that require the variables to change. It may also be necessary to discuss

how the thresholds can be moved to allow for larger variability of the key variables.

Configuration-based flexibility reflects the view that different system-states can be

achieved by reconfiguring the relationships between, or the structure of, the system’s

elements. Loosely-coupled system, for example, will be less affected by individual variables

operating at their threshold than tightly coupled systems where rigidities can spread quickly.

The nature of the system’s internal coupling, then, should be considered as part of the

definition of flexibility and the description of the object because these internal relationships

determine how a central system capability, i.e., flexibility, is derived and can be employed.

As an example, when proposing a construct such as ‘structural flexibility’, it needs to

be clear what the focal object is that has this capability. It could be an organization with the

capability to vary its structure, or a structural arrangement that supports different kinds of

business processes. Choosing one of these two objects would fundamentally change the

nature of the flexibility construct that is described, as would a different definition of each of

them. If structural flexibility is viewed as a feature of an organization, then the nature of the

focal object (organization) and of its variable aspect (structure), as well as the relationship

between them, needs to be clarified. Also, an understanding of where flexibility originates and

how it can be used is important. If organization is conceived in its institutional (rather than

instrumental) meaning and its structure is defined as the formal arrangement of reporting

relationships, then it would make sense to define the organization as demarcated by the limits

of formal authority which underlies such reporting relationships. The system’s boundaries are

thus clearly identified, as is the nature of the variable aspect and the way in which the existing


structural flexibility can be exercised (i.e., by authority-based decree). A different definition

of the focal object and its limits, of the flexible aspect, or of the way in which flexibility can

be exercised would lead to a fundamentally different flexibility construct.

In summary, unless the focal object is clearly defined and the nature of flexibility

underlying the to-be-developed construct is made explicit, the construct fails to be fully

explicated, and will have limited theoretical value. Also, it cannot guide operationalization

and thus hinders proper empirical investigation.

The next crucial step in flexibility construct development is to identify the aspect or

aspects of the focal object that can vary. In some cases, it may be useful to also explicitly

discern the non-flexible aspects of the focal object as well. In other words, it is necessary to

identify the nature and the limits of the capacity called flexibility. To follow through with the

above example, for construct development purposes it is not enough to claim that structural

flexibility is an organization’s capability. The construct is not properly developed unless it is

clear that structural flexibility for example refers to an organization’s capability to vary its

structural arrangements, but not its strategic objectives, its culture, its legal status, the

environmental domain(s) it is engaged in, or other aspects that continue to define its identity.

Such additional explication make the abstract notion of flexibility more concrete and provide

necessary clarity and specificity regarding the nature of the developed flexibility construct.

A further important step in construct development is the clarification of the theoretical

context of the developed construct. Without a theoretical or empirical justification for a

construct (i.e., an explanatory variable) there is little research value in developing it. Often,

the theoretical justification remains implicit, preventing the construct from being fully

explicated in a way that informs others not only about its nature, but also about its relation to

other variables and its role in relevant causal dynamics. Examples for aspects of the

theoretical context include for example antecedents and consequences of the flexibility

constructs. In addition to addressing the questions of where flexibility originates, and what its

implications may be, specifying antecedents and consequences also benefits empirical

research. Defined as a capability, flexibility has to be treated as a latent variable.

Measurement strategies will therefore usually involve triangulating flexibility by measuring

observable aspects or correlates, and antecedents and consequences can serve as such

indicators.

In addition to these requirements for construct development, I propose an additional

guideline not aimed at construct development and explication, but rather at the use of

flexibility constructs in management research and practice. For the purpose of analytical


clarity, it is important to distinguish the presence of flexibility from the potential value that

can be derived from its use. Any evaluation of flexibility must be derived from, and should be

explicitly linked to, the particular goals and objectives associated with the focal object that

has flexibility. The presence or absence of flexibility in itself is not valuable. What determines

the value of flexibility is the purpose for which it is used, and the context in which it is

employed. If this is not recognized, flexibility will remain a ‘warm fuzzy’ of management

theory and it will be harder, if not impossible, to further progress towards a full understanding

of flexibility.

In summary, the following steps are crucial for the development and explication of

flexibility constructs: (a) identifying the focal object, entity, or system that has flexibility; (b)

specifying the nature and the limits of this flexibility, and (c) placing the flexibility construct

in an explicit theoretical context. In addition, it is important to base any evaluation of

flexibility in analyses that take account of particular objectives and situational context and the

resulting relevant value dimensions.

Directions for further research into flexibility

The main focus of this article is the notion of flexibility and its use in management

theory and research. The result of the review and analysis presented in this article is that

flexibility conceptions are similar across different areas of management research, but that

specific flexibility constructs are generally not sufficiently explicated which leads to

confusion and hinders their proper use in empirical investigations. The implications for

further research arising from these findings aim primarily at two aspects: the nature of the

flexibility concept, and the constitution of specific flexibility constructs. Relevant research

directions related to these two issues are discussed in turn below.

Notwithstanding the similarity of flexibility conceptions established in article, our

analysis raises several fundamental questions regarding the nature of the flexibility concept.

The first aspect deserving attention is the relation of flexibility to concepts such as

adaptability, agility, or change. What are the similarities and differences between these

concepts and flexibility? Does flexibility add to their explanatory potential, or is it redundant?

In the context of the relationship between flexibility and change, particularly the perplexing

relation between flexibility and stability deserves clarification. Future research should address

the question about the exact nature of the relationships among flexibility (a capacity), change

(a process or a difference in status over time), and stability (the absence of change). Our


depiction of these different concepts already aims this conceptual investigation in a particular

direction, but other approaches should also be encouraged.

A related yet distinct research direction aims at the link between flexibility and

learning. References to learning are frequent in the reviewed literatures, but the specific

relation between the two concepts remains unclear and should be investigated. For particular

objects (e.g., organizations), this research direction could lead to the development of

comprehensive models explaining the connections between and among flexibility [a

capability], learning [a process], knowledge [an outcome of learning], and change [an

outcome or a difference in status].

A third set of questions that future research needs to address in more detail is related

to the hierarchical nature of flexibility. Why is flexibility frequently conceptualized in a

hierarchical manner? Is flexibility homomorph and homologous across different levels of

analysis, or does it differ in qualitative ways depending on the level at which it is considered?

What are the cross-level dynamics involving flexibility, if any, and what are their implications

for the conception of flexibility in management theory?

A fourth research direction emanates from the definition of flexibility as a capability.

This definition implies that in empirical research, flexibility will have to be treated as a latent

variable (similar to intelligence, creativity, competency, etc.). Because latent variables cannot

be directly observed, they pose specific problems for operationalization and measurement

(e.g., Bollen & Lennox, 1991; Hughes, Price, & Marrs, 1986). Moreover, not only is

observation restricted to antecedents, correlates, or consequences of flexibility, but even

specific outcomes may not unequivocally be treated as the result of flexibility. For these

reasons, the implications of conceiving of flexibility as a capability need to be further

explored. Also, future research that adopts this conception (as most of the extant work has

done) must take special care in providing exact and comprehensive statements of theory as

well as fully explicated and carefully operationalized constructs.

As a result of the analysis and discussion presented in this article, we have criticized

the lack of explication of most existing flexibility constructs. Research attention should

therefore be given to revisiting existing flexibility constructs to specify them, as needed,

according to the steps outlined in this article. A related methodological requirement would be

the development and validation of instruments that allow the measurement of existing

flexibility constructs. Future research should also aim at developing new, fully explicated

flexibility constructs for inclusion in current theories and models dealing with adaptation,

change, and the management of uncertainty.


Conclusion

This paper was prompted by the apparent confusion about the meaning of the concept

of flexibility, and by the proliferation of ill-defined flexibility constructs in all areas of

management theory. A review of the use of flexibility in selected management literatures it

becomes clear that most users have similar conceptions of flexibility, and the paper advanced

a general definition of flexibility based on this common understanding. It concluded that the

confusion regarding flexibility arises not from different definitions of the flexibility concept,

but rather from the inadequate explication of flexibility constructs. Thus, the paper proposes

several steps that, if taken, will help to ameliorate the current problems.

Conceptual pluralism can be appropriate and valuable for emerging areas of study

because it invites participation, opens up debate, permits multiple avenues of inquiry, and

makes contributions from multiple traditional and non-traditional perspectives possible. All

these activities support the full exploration of important issues. In management theory,

however, the concept of flexibility is generally not used in such an exploratory way. Rather, it

is invoked in ways that presume a clear, explicit, and commonly accepted definition. This

paper aims at providing such a definition that can serve as a beacon for those interested in this

important concept. Moreover, it calls for clearer explication of the exact meanings of

flexibility constructs that are developed for specific purposes and contexts.

Still, this article is not an attempt to provide management theory with the final,

absolute definition of flexibility. If the presented definition falls short of the needs of

researchers and practitioners, then hopefully it will serve as an invitation to develop and

articulate improved conceptions and definitions. Nevertheless, no matter which definition of

the concept of flexibility is used, this call for improved construct explication should be

heeded. This is necessary to advance the analysis and understanding of the important issue of

flexibility in management theory.

References

Adler, P.S. (1988). ‘Managing flexible automation’. California Management Review, 30(3): 34-56.

Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D.L. (1999). ‘Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system’. Organization Science, 10(1): 43 –68.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Ashby, W.R. (1952). Design for a brain. New York: Wiley.

Ashby, W.R. (1960). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

Bahrami, H. (1992). ‘The emerging flexible organization: Perspectives from Silicon Valley’. California Management Review, 34(4): 33-52.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Beckmann, S.L. (1990). ‘Manufacturing flexibility: the next source of competitive advantage’. In Moody, P. (Ed.), Strategic manufacturing: Dynamic new directions for the 1990s, 107-132. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones Irwin.

Boer, H., & Krabbendam, K. (1992). ‘The effective implementation of and operation of flexible manufacturing systems’. International Studies of Management and Organization, 22: 33-48.

Bollen, K, & Lennox, R. (1991). ‘Conventional wisdom on measurement - A structural equation perspective’. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2): 305-314.

Bowman, E.H., & Hurry, D. (1993). ‘Strategy through the option lens: An integrated view of resource investments and the incremental-choice process’. Academy of Management Review, 18(4): 760-782.

Boynton, A.C., & Victor, B. (1991). ‘Beyond flexibility: Building and managing the dynamically stable organization’. California Management Review, 34(1): 53-66.

Browne, J., Dubois, D., Rathmill, K., Sethi, S.P., & Stecke, K.E. (1984). ‘Classification of flexible manufacturing systems’. The FMS Magazine, 2(2): 114-117.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall.

Daft, R.L., & Weick, K.E. (1984). ‘Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems’. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 284-295.

D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.

DeGreene, K.B. (1991). ‘Rigidity and fragility of large sociotechnical systems: Advanced information technology, the dominant coalition, and paradigm shift at the end of the 20th century’. Behavioral Science, 36: 64-79.

Duncan, R.B. (1976). ‘The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation’. In Kilmann, R.H., Pondy, L. R., & Slevin, D.P. (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation, 167-188. New York: North-Holland.

Eccles (1959). Logistics and the national defense. London: Stackpole.

Evans (1991). ‘Strategic flexibility for high technology manoeuvres: A conceptual framework’. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1): 69-89.

Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1965). ‘The causal texture of organizational environments’. Human Relations, 18: 25-32.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman.


Fellenz, M.R. (1997). Individual flexibility in organizations: A new conception and a validated measure. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Boston.

Galbraith, J.R. (1994). Competing with flexible lateral organizations (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Garud, R., & Kotha, S. (1994). ‘Using the brain as a metaphor to model flexible production systems’. Academy of Management Review,19(4): 671-698.

Gerwin, D. (1993). ‘Manufacturing flexibility: A strategic perspective’. Management Science, 39: 395-410.

Ghemawhat, P., & Ricart I Costa, J.E. (1993). ‘The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency’. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Special Issue): 59-73.

Gilbreth, F.B., & Gilbreth, L.M. (1917). Applied motion study. New York: Sturgis & Walton.

Goldhar, J.D., Jelinek, M., & Schlie, T.W. (1991). ‘Flexibility and competitive advantage: Manufacturing becomes a service industry’. International Journal of Technology Management (Special Issue on Manufacturing Strategy), 6: 243-259.

Goldman, S.L., & Nagel, R.N. (1993). ‘Management, technology, and agility: The emergence of a new era in manufacturing’. International Journal of Technology Management (Special Issue on New Technological Foundations of Strategic Management), 8: 18-38.

Graham, P. (Ed.) (1995). Mary Parker Follett--prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Grochla, E. (1978). Einführung in die Organisationstheorie [Introduction to organization theory]. Stuttgart: Poeschl.

Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.) (1937). Papers in the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.

Gupta, Y.P., & Goyal, S. (1989). ‘Flexibility of manufacturing systems: Concepts and measurement’. European Journal of Operations Research, 43: 119-135.

Hambrick, D.C. (1985). ‘Foreword’. In Harrigan, K.R., Strategic flexibility: A management guide for changing times, (xiii-xiv). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Harrigan K.R. (1985). Strategic flexibility: A management guide for changing times. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hart, A.G. (1937). ‘Anticipations, business planning and the cycle’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51: 272-293.

Hill, T., & Chambers, S. (1991). ‘Flexibility – A manufacturing conundrum’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 11(2): 5-13.

Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E., & Harrison, J.S. (1991). ‘Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. executives’. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2): 7-22.

Hitt, M.A., Keats, B.W., & DeMarie, S.M. (1998). ‘Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century’. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 22-42.


Hughes, M.A., Price, R.L., Marrs, D.W. (1986). ‘Linking theory construction and theory testing: models with multiple indicators of latent variables’. Academy of Management Review, 11(1): 128-145.

Hurry, D., Miller, A.T., & Bowman, E.H. (1992). ‘Calls on high-technology: Japanese exploration of venture capital investments in the United States’. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 85-101.

Jennings, D.F. (1987). Organizational flexibility; The link between management characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship. Baylor Business Review, Winter 1987: 23-26.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston.

Klimecki, Rüdiger G., & Gmür, Markus (1997). Strategie und Flexibilität: Wenn Erfolgspotentiale zu Risikopotentialen werden [Strategy and flexibility: When success potentials turn into risk potentials]. Zeitschrift Führung und Organisation, 66: 206-212.

Krijnen, H.G. (1979). ‘The flexible firm’. Long Range Planning, 12: 65-75.

Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). ‘Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network’. Management Science, 40(1): 123-139.

Koontz, H., & O’Donnell, C. (1955). Principles of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.

Malhotra, M.K., Fry, T.D., Kher, H.V., & Donohue, J.M. (1993). ‘The impact of learning and labor attrition on worker flexibility in dual resource constrained job shops’. Decision Sciences, 24(3): 641-663.

March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Meilich, O. (1997). The flexibility-efficiency debate: Review and theoretical framework. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Boston.

Miner, J.B. (1980). Theories of organizational behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Miner, J.B. (1982). Theories of organizational structure and process. Chicago, IL: Dryden.

Newman, W.R., Hanna, M., & Maffei, M.J. (1993). ‘Dealing with the uncertainties of manufacturing: Flexibility, buffers and integration’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(1): 19-34.

Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). ‘“That's not my job": Developing flexible employee work orientations’. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4): 899-929.

Parthasarthy, R., & Sethi, S.P. (1992). ‘The impact of flexible automation on business strategy and organizational structure’. Academy of Management Review, 17: 86-111.

Parthasarthy, R., & Sethi, S.P. (1993). ‘Relating strategy and structure to flexible automation: A test of fit and performance implications’. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 529-548.

Pasmore, W.A. (1994). Creating strategic change: Designing the flexible, high-performing organization. New York: Wiley.


Perrow, C. (1967). ‘A framework for comparative organizational analysis’. American Sociological Review, 16: 444-459.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations; A resource-dependence perspective. New York: Haper &Row.

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.F., Hinings, C.R., Macdonald, K.M., Turner, C., & Lupton, T. (1963). ‘A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8: 289-315.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sanchez, R. (1993). ‘Strategic flexibility, firm organization, and managerial work in dynamic markets: A strategic options perspective’. In Shrivastava, P., Huff, A.S., & Dutton, J. (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management, 9: 251-291.

Sanchez, R. (1995). ‘Strategic flexibility in product competition’. Strategic Management Journal; 16 (Special Issue): 135-159.

Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J.T. (1996). ‘Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design’. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 63-76.

Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C., & Lankau, M.J. (1993). ‘Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a qualitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments’. Journal of Management: 19: 385-417.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.

Singleton, R.A. Jr., Straits, B.C., & Straits, M.M. (1993). Approaches to social research (2nd

ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Skinner, W. (1974). ‘The focused factory’. Harvard Business Review, 52(3): 113-121.

Slack, N. (1989). ‘Focus on Flexibility’. In Wild, R. (Ed.), International handbook of production and operations management, 50-73. Cassell.

Slack, N. (1991). The manufacturing advantage: Achieving competitive manufacturing operations. London: Mercury Books.

Slack, N. (Ed.) (1997). The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of operations management. Oxford : Blackwell.

Snow, C.C., & Snell, S.A. (1993). Staffing as strategy. In N. Schmitt, W. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, 448-479. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Suárez, F.F., Cusumano, M.A., & Fine, C.H. (1991). Flexibility and performance: A literature critique and strategic framework. Report No. WP50-91. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Swamidass, P.M. (1988). Manufacturing flexibility. Operations Management Association Monograph No. 2. Waco, TX: Naman & Schneider Associates.


Swamidass, P.M., & Newell, W.T. (1987). ‘Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance: A path analytical model’. Management Science, 33(4): 509-524.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.

Terreberry, S. (1968). ‘The evolution of organizational environments’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 590-613.

Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tobias, A.M. 1991. ‘Managing the redesign of manufacturing systems’. International Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Manufacturing Strategy, 6: 375-384.

Tranfield, D., Smith, S., Ley, C., Bessant, J., & Levy, P. 1991. ‘Changing organizational design and practices for computer-integrated technologies’. International Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Manufacturing Strategy, 6: 211-221.

Upton, D.M. (1994). ‘The management of manufacturing flexibility’. California Management Review, 37: 72-89.

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

Volberda, H.W. (1998). Building the flexible firm: How to remain competitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Webster, J., & Starbuck, W.H., (1988). ‘Theory building in industrial and organizational psychology’. In Cooper, C., & Robertson, I., (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1988, 93-138. London: Wiley.

Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weick, K.E. (1982). ‘Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements’. In Goodman, P., & Associates (Eds.), Change in organizations: New perspectives in theory, research and practice, 375-408. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

Weick, K.E., & Westley, F. (1996). ‘Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron’. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies, 440-458. London: Sage.

Zammuto, R.F., & Connolly, T. (1984). ‘Coping with disciplinary fragmentation’. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9: 30-37.

1 We use the term ‘construct explication’ to refer to the explicit definition and theoretical clarification of a construct (see Cook & Campbell, 1979). Nunnally defines construct explication as “the process of making an abstract word explicit in terms of observable variables” (1967: 95), a general process that we call ‘operationalization’.2 Note also the “widely felt intuition of a corollary between efficiency and rigidity" (Adler, 1988: 40) and its relationship to the relation between flexibility and adaptation which is discussed further by Adler, Goldoftas and Levine (1999) and Meilich (1997).3 Flexibility is also a key concern, and a central concept, in other management areas such as human resource management, financial management, or information systems and technology management, to name but a few. This article focuses on the three selected areas in an exemplary rather than exclusive fashion. Other areas could have been included, but the thematic, conceptual, and methodological links between the chosen areas appear particularly relevant and useful to frame this treatment of flexibility. 4 "Chronic flexibility" should not be misunderstood as indicating continuous change. While flexibility is a capability for change, actual change is a process distinct from the capability that enables it. Chronic or total flexibility would indicate a state where all possible options are available, and no option has a higher likelihood of being chosen than any other option. Thus, no consistent patterns of actions can emerge (unless decision-making procedures systematically limit the number of choices), and an identifiable identity on the basis of past action cannot be developed.5 Sanchez (1995) provides a similar distinction. He identifies resource flexibility and coordination flexibility as factors contributing to strategic flexibility.6 The term "ecological" is not used to point to the natural ecosystem as a factor in this analysis. Rather, it represents the fact that strategic actions can only be assessed as viable in a specific context that includes the organization's internal and external environment. Bowman and Hurry (1987) call ecologically valid but unacknowledged choices “shadow options”.7 This corresponds to the distinctions between 'learning I' and 'learning II' (Bateson, 1972), and single-loop and double-loop learning (e.g., Argyris & Schön, 1978), respectively.

Documents

المرونة في نظرية الادارة