Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Transforming Organizations Through Flexible Systems Management pp 59–74Cite as

Effect of Vital Organizational Processes on Flexibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Flexible Systems Management ((FLEXSYS))

Abstract

The business scenario has changed a lot in the current knowledge era. Uncertainty and complexity in the environment are changing day by day due to globalization, more informed customers, technological advancement, and availability of a skilled workforce. Satisfying the varied and changing customers’ demands is one of the key parameters to decide about organization survival and growth. Flexibility gives strength to an organization for managing these changes. Learning, innovation and entrepreneurship are the three vital processes for organization success and affect the degree of flexibility. This chapter has explored the integration aspects of learning, innovation, and entrepreneurship with a focus on flexibility. This empirical study has been done based on the survey conducted on selected companies from IT and automobile industry in India. Stepwise regression method has been used to analyze the effect of the three identified processes on flexibility aspects. The final integrated model explains the effect of learning, innovation, and entrepreneurship factors on flexibility.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (1999). Learning orientation, market orientation, and innovation: Integrating and extending models of organizational performance. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battor, M., & Battour, M. (2013). Can organizational learning foster customer relationships? Implications for Performance, The Learning Organization, 20(4/5), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishwas, S. K. (2011). Conceptualization of organization vitality based on strategic knowledge management. Global Journal of e-Business and Knowledge Management, 7(1), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishwas, S. K., & Sushil. (2013). Critical issues for organizational growth and success: A systems thinking view using feedback loop analysis. In Proceedings of 31st International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishwas, S. K. (2015a). Achieving organization vitality through innovation and flexibility: An empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(2), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishwas, S. K. (2015b). Organizational flexibility and entrepreneurship: Knowledge management perspective. In Proceedings of Fifteenth Global Conference on Flexible Systems Management, SIU, Pune, India (pp. 193–213).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishwas, S. K. (2015c). Achieving organization vitality through strategic knowledge management and vitalization processes: A study of select industries (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). New Delhi, India: Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishwas, S. K., & Sushil. (2017). Integration of critical processes for organizational innovation. In Riding the new trends: Navigating the future through effective people management. India: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T. T., & Armstrong, S. J. (2013). A longitudinal study of individual and organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 20(3), 240–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camps, J., Oltra, V., Aldás-Manzano, J., Buenaventura-Vera, G., & Torres-Carballo, F. (2016). Individual performance in turbulent environments: The role of organizational learning capability and employee flexibility. Human Resource Management, 55(3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calisir, F., Gumussoy, C. A., & Guzelsoy, E. (2013). Impacts of learning orientation on product innovation performance. The Learning Organization, 20(3), 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chermin, M. M., & Nijhof, W. J. (2005). Factors influencing knowledge creation and innovation in an organization. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(2), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, B., & Gronhaug, K. (2004). Uncertainty, flexibility, and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 57(5), 484–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, F. (1985). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Practice and principles. Harper Business: NewYork.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppink, D. J. (1978). Planning for strategic flexibility. Long Range Planning, 11(4), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, E. M. (2003). How to learn from the environment about the environment: A prerequisite for organization well-being. Journal of General Management, 29(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, P. E., Larsson, J., & Pesämaa, O. (2017). Managing complex projects in the infrastructure sector—A structural equation model for flexibility-focused project management. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1512–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folami, L. B., & Powers, T. L. (2009). Managerial and functional influences on perceived environmental uncertainty. Journal of Finance and Accountancy, 1(August), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., & Quon, T. K. (2012). The relationship between learning capability and organizational performance a meta-analytic examination. The Learning Organization, 19(2), 92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrunn, S. (2008). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity in communities. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 2(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Keats, D. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, R. Y. Y., Lien, B. Y. H., Fang, S. C., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Knowledge as a facilitator for enhancing innovation performance through total quality management. Total Quality Management, 21(4), 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jitnom, S., & Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2010). Strategic learning capability, firm performance and sustainable growth: An empirical study of auto spare part manufacturing businesses in Thailand. International Journal of Business Strategy, 10(4), 107–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). Creative ways to empower action to change the organization: Cases in point. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 22(1), 73–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looise, J. C., Riemsdijk, M. V., & Lange, F. D. (1998). Company labour flexibility strategies in the Netherlands: An institutional perspective. Employee Relations, 20(5), 461–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maisel, L. S. (1992). Performance measurement: The balanced scorecard approach. Journal of Cost Management, 5(2), 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, T. J., & Weiss, E. M. (2010). Continuous learning skill demands: Associations with managerial job content. Age, and Experience, Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, S. C., & Pearce, J. A. (2009). The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(3), 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, C., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). Fostering organizational performance: The role of learning and intrapreneurship. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(5), 388–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: Towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pantouvakis, A., & Bouranta, N. (2013). The link between organizational learning culture and customer satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascle, R. T. (1991). The two faces of learning. Modern Office Technology, 36(3), 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggles, R., & Little, R. (1997) Knowledge management and innovation: An initial exploration. Ernst & Young. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/km_and_innovation.pdf.

  • Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. (2000). Organizational learning: From world-class theories to global best practices. Boca Raton: St. Lucie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, M. K., Sushil, & Jain, P. K. (2010). Revisiting flexibility in organizations: Exploring its impact on performance. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11(3), 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. G. (1961). Organization theory: An overview and an appraisal. Journal of Academy of Management, 4(1), 8–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stace, D. A., & Dumphy, D. C. (1992). Translating business strategies into action: Managing strategic change. Journal of Strategic Change, 1(4), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2003). Give a new ‘LIFE’ to your organization! Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 4(1&2), iii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2004). Leading organizations to higher order ‘LIFE’. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 5(1), iii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2007). From learning organization to enlightened organization. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 8(4), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2013). Flowing stream strategy: Leveraging strategic change with continuity. New Delhi: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2014). The concept of flexible enterprise. In Sushil & E. A. Stohr (Eds.), The flexible enterprise, flexible systems management (pp. 3–26). New Delhi: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, D. M. (1995). What really makes factories flexible? Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valle, R. S., Valencia, J. C. N., Jimenez, D. J., & Caballero, L. P. (2011). Linking organizational learning with technical innovation and organizational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 997–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdu, A. J., & GomezGras, J. M. (2009). Measuring the organizational responsiveness through managerial flexibility. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 668–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicenzi, R., & Adkins, G. (2000). A tool for assessing organizational vitality in an era of complexity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64(1), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1997). Building flexible organizations for fast-moving markets. Long Range Planning, 30(2), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., Houssin, R., Ciallaud, E., & Gardoni, M. (2011). Fostering continuous innovation in design with an integrated knowledge management approach. Computer in Industry, 62(4), 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 11(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India

    Sumant Kumar Bishwas

  2. Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Vishwakarma Bhawan, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Sushil

Authors
  1. Sumant Kumar Bishwas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sushil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sumant Kumar Bishwas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Delhi School of Management, Delhi Technological University, New Delhi, India

    P.K. Suri

  2. Delhi School of Management, Delhi Technological University, New Delhi, India

    Rajan Yadav

Appendix 1: Stepwise Regression Models

Appendix 1: Stepwise Regression Models

1.1 Flexibility Factors as Dependent Variable

(1) Strategic Flexibility as Dependent (VPF1)

Model summary

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

SEE

1

0.782a

0.612

0.610

0.54360

2

0.828b

0.685

0.683

0.49043

3

0.848c

0.719

0.715

0.46453

4

0.861d

0.742

0.737

0.44639

5

0.865e

0.748

0.742

0.44219

  1. aPredictors: (Constant), VPF2
  2. bPredictors: (Constant), VPF2, VPI2
  3. cPredictors: (Constant), VPF2, VPI2, VPF3
  4. dPredictors: (Constant), VPF2, VPI2, VPF3, VPE1
  5. ePredictors: (Constant), VPF2, VPI2, VPF3, VPE1, VPI3
  6. fDependent variable: VPF1

ANOVA

Model

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

103.822

1

103.822

351.347

0.000b

Residual

65.896

223

0.295

  

Total

169.718

224

   

2

Regression

116.323

2

58.161

241.817

0.000c

Residual

53.395

222

0.241

  

Total

169.718

224

   

3

Regression

122.030

3

40.677

188.506

0.000d

Residual

47.688

221

0.216

  

Total

169.718

224

   

4

Regression

125.880

4

31.470

157.930

0.000e

Residual

43.838

220

0.199

  

Total

169.718

224

   

5

Regression

126.896

5

25.379

129.796

0.000f

Residual

42.822

219

0.196

  

Total

169.718

224

   

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients

t

Sig.

B

Std. error

Beta

1

(Constant)

0.697

0.153

 

4.552

0.000

VPF2

0.777

0.041

0.782

18.744

0.000

2

(Constant)

0.177

0.156

 

1.137

0.257

VPF2

0.559

0.048

0.563

11.626

0.000

VPI2

0.377

0.052

0.349

7.209

0.000

3

(Constant)

−0.024

0.153

 

−0.159

0.874

VPF2

0.422

0.053

0.425

8.006

0.000

VPI2

0.300

0.052

0.278

5.812

0.000

VPF3

0.273

0.053

0.264

5.143

0.000

4

(Constant)

−0.105

0.148

 

−0.713

0.476

VPF2

0.322

0.056

0.324

5.798

0.000

VPI2

0.229

0.052

0.212

4.384

0.000

VPF3

0.230

0.052

0.223

4.440

0.000

VPE1

0.235

0.053

0.237

4.396

0.000

5

(Constant)

0.163

0.188

 

0.868

0.387

VPF2

0.353

0.057

0.356

6.230

0.000

VPI2

0.213

0.052

0.197

4.073

0.000

VPF3

0.246

0.052

0.238

4.740

0.000

VPE1

0.239

0.053

0.242

4.524

0.000

VPI3

−0.094

0.041

−0.086

−2.280

0.024

  1. Dependent variable: VPF1

(2) Flexible Resource Usage as Dependent (VPF2)

Model summary

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

SEE

1

0.782a

0.612

0.610

0.54743

2

0.813b

0.661

0.658

0.51273

3

0.829c

0.687

0.682

0.49403

4

0.840d

0.706

0.700

0.47998

5

0.856e

0.732

0.726

0.45886

6

0.861f

0.741

0.734

0.45217

  1. aPredictors: (Constant), VPF1
  2. bPredictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPI1
  3. cPredictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPI1, VPI3
  4. dPredictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPI1, VPI3, VPE1
  5. ePredictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPI1, VPI3, VPE1, VPL2
  6. fPredictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPI1, VPI3, VPE1, VPL2, VPL3
  7. gDependent variable: VPF2

ANOVA

Model

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

105.290

1

105.290

351.347

0.000b

Residual

66.827

223

0.300

  

Total

172.117

224

   

2

Regression

113.755

2

56.877

216.351

0.000c

Residual

58.363

222

0.263

  

Total

172.117

224

   

3

Regression

118.179

3

39.393

161.404

0.000d

Residual

53.938

221

0.244

  

Total

172.117

224

   

4

Regression

121.434

4

30.358

131.776

0.000e

Residual

50.683

220

0.230

  

Total

172.117

224

   

5

Regression

126.006

5

25.201

119.690

0.000f

Residual

46.111

219

0.211

  

Total

172.117

224

   

6

Regression

127.545

6

21.258

103.970

0.000g

Residual

44.572

218

0.204

  

Total

172.117

224

   

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients

t

Sig.

B

Std. Error

Beta

1

(Constant)

0.845

0.151

 

5.598

0.000

VPF1

0.788

0.042

0.782

18.744

0.000

2

(Constant)

0.343

0.167

 

2.056

0.041

VPF1

0.591

0.052

0.587

11.288

0.000

VPI1

0.323

0.057

0.295

5.674

0.000

3

(Constant)

−0.190

0.204

 

−0.932

0.352

VPF1

0.589

0.050

0.585

11.671

0.000

VPI1

0.253

0.057

0.231

4.414

0.000

VPI3

0.191

0.045

0.173

4.258

0.000

4

(Constant)

−0.256

0.199

 

−1.291

0.198

VPF1

0.455

0.061

0.452

7.492

0.000

VPI1

0.216

0.057

0.197

3.823

0.000

VPI3

0.169

0.044

0.153

3.846

0.000

VPE1

0.214

0.057

0.215

3.759

0.000

5

(Constant)

0.032

0.200

 

0.161

0.872

VPF1

0.451

0.058

0.448

7.766

0.000

VPI1

0.280

0.056

0.255

5.018

0.000

VPI3

0.136

0.043

0.124

3.206

0.002

VPE1

0.309

0.058

0.310

5.317

0.000

VPL2

−0.199

0.043

−0.207

−4.660

0.000

6

(Constant)

−0.030

0.198

 

−0.149

0.881

VPF1

0.422

0.058

0.419

7.269

0.000

VPI1

0.221

0.059

0.202

3.744

0.000

VPI3

0.146

0.042

0.133

3.473

0.001

VPE1

0.286

0.058

0.287

4.945

0.000

VPL2

−0.210

0.042

−0.218

−4.972

0.000

VPL3

0.136

0.049

0.136

2.744

0.007

  1. Dependent variable: VPF2

(3) Adaptive Capacity of Leadership as Dependent (VPF3)

Model summary

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

SEE

1

0.723a

0.523

0.520

0.58427

2

0.785b

0.616

0.613

0.52505

3

0.800c

0.641

0.636

0.50909

4

0.806d

0.649

0.643

0.50434

  1. Predictors: (Constant), VPF1
  2. Predictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPL3
  3. Predictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPL3, VPI3
  4. Predictors: (Constant), VPF1, VPL3, VPI3, VPE3
  5. Dependent variable: VPF3

ANOVA

Model

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

83.316

1

83.316

244.064

0.000b

Residual

76.126

223

0.341

  

Total

159.442

224

   

2

Regression

98.241

2

49.120

178.178

0.000c

Residual

61.201

222

0.276

  

Total

159.442

224

   

3

Regression

102.164

3

34.055

131.397

0.000d

Residual

57.278

221

0.259

  

Total

159.442

224

   

4

Regression

103.483

4

25.871

101.709

0.000e

Residual

55.959

220

0.254

  

Total

159.442

224

   

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients

t

Sig.

B

Std. error

Beta

1

(Constant)

1.065

0.161

 

6.612

0.000

VPF1

0.701

0.045

0.723

15.623

0.000

2

(Constant)

0.617

0.157

 

3.928

0.000

VPF1

0.467

0.051

0.482

9.093

0.000

VPL3

0.375

0.051

0.390

7.358

0.000

3

(Constant)

0.050

0.211

 

0.235

0.815

VPF1

0.433

0.051

0.446

8.559

0.000

VPL3

0.365

0.049

0.379

7.371

0.000

VPI3

0.172

0.044

0.163

3.891

0.000

4

(Constant)

−0.029

0.212

 

−0.139

0.890

VPF1

0.382

0.055

0.394

6.986

0.000

VPL3

0.335

0.051

0.348

6.592

0.000

VPI3

0.170

0.044

0.161

3.880

0.000

VPE3

0.116

0.051

0.118

2.277

0.024

  1. Dependent variable: VPF3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bishwas, S.K., Sushil (2020). Effect of Vital Organizational Processes on Flexibility. In: Suri, P., Yadav, R. (eds) Transforming Organizations Through Flexible Systems Management. Flexible Systems Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9640-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation