Discussion 2

“Flexibility” as the rationale for organizational change: a discourse

perspective Richard Dunford, Suresh Cuganesan and David Grant

University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Ian Palmer College of Business, RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) University,

Melbourne, Australia, and

Rosie Beaumont and Cara Steele Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The concept “flexibility” is ubiquitous as a rationale for organizational change. However, its broad application is accompanied by a general lack of definitional agreement or theoretical cohesion. The purpose of this paper is to propose the merits of an alternative approach – applying a discourse perspective to the use of flexibility as a rationale for organizational change.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper first illustrates the broad referencing of flexibility as a desired organizational characteristic. It then discusses the associated lack of theoretical coherence associated with the use of the concept “flexibility” before arguing the merits of a discourse perspective on flexibility as a rationale for organizational change.

Findings – This paper identifies a set of questions to frame a discourse perspective on the use of “flexibility” as a rationale for organizational change.

Research limitations/implications – The questions derived in this paper provide a research agenda for an investigation of the use and effects of the concept “flexibility” in the context of organizational change.

Practical implications – The questions derived in this paper provide practice-based insights into how the concept “flexibility” is and/or could be used in the context of organizational change.

Originality/value – “Flexibility” is a ubiquitous concept as a rationale for organizational change and its use is accompanied by a diversity of definitions and conceptual frameworks. The originality of this paper is that rather than seeking to provide yet another definition – or attempting a resolution of definitional differences – it argues the merits of a discourse perspective on the use and effect of the concept flexibility in the context of organizational change.

Keywords Flexibility, Discourse, Rationale for organizational change, Organizational design, Organizational change

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

Police Department was facing a major challenge: increasingly it was being outmaneuvered by organized crime networks that seemed more rapid in its responsiveness to changing environmental conditions and more able to form and disband groupings according to its current needs. Restructuring became a priority with the intent of producing an organization that was more “flexible”. For the senior members of Police Department, “flexible” meant allocating a growing proportion of resources to pro-active policing (intelligence-gathering),

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

83

Journal of Organizational Change Management

Vol. 26 No. 1, 2013 pp. 83-97

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0953-4814

DOI 10.1108/09534811311307923

and having the capability to speedily deploy police when and where they were needed. However, for many of the officers in Police Department, “flexibility” developed less unambiguously positive connotations. For these officers, “flexibility” was experienced as the dismantling of squads which – due to their [previous] longevity and consistency of membership – were believed the officers to be central to the formation of deep knowledge about specific areas of crime and relations of trust (between squad members) which are central to effectiveness in frontline policing.

The motif “flexibility” that features centrally in the above vignette drawn from a real situation has been a longstanding component of the organizational change literature. In the aftermath of the Great Depression of the early twentieth century a key theme that emerged in management writings was the importance of being able to change when faced with altered market conditions (Lange, 1944; Stigler, 1939). “Flexibility” was identified as a key element of a sustainable commercial enterprise (Hart, 1937). Nearly a century later, flexibility remains a widely cited rationale for change initiatives. Also, despite, or perhaps because of, the widely recognised association between change initiatives and the desire for enhanced “flexibility”, this connection remains an active focus of scholarship (see, for example, Bernardes and Hanna, 2009; Davis et al., 2009; Nadkarni and Narayanan, 2007; Phillips and Wright, 2009; Verdu and Gomez-Graz, 2009).

In the broadest sense, flexibility is treated as the capacity to respond to changing environmental conditions. An associated inference, often explicit, is that such flexibility is a necessary condition for enhancing, or even just maintaining, organisational performance. Hence, the importance of flexibility is commonly cited in association with concepts such as “competitive advantage” (Teece et al., 1997) and “innovation” (Galunic and Eisenhardt, 2001), and with the ability to cope with the conditions prevalent in “turbulent” or “hypercompetitive” environments (Volberda, 1996, 1997). However, the application of the concept flexibility to diverse organisational contexts makes it a very difficult concept to define with any degree of precision. For example, “flexibility” is cited in the context of work-life balance (Van Dyne et al., 2007), career change and personal identity (Grote and Raeder, 2009), employment contracts (Ebbers and Wijnberg, 2009; Kulkarni and Ramamoorthy, 2005) and the ease with which employers can adjust employment numbers and conditions (“labour flexibility”) (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Lambert, 2008). Because of its breadth of application, the concept flexibility is characterised by a daunting array of definitions and frameworks and a general lack of theoretical cohesion (Golden and Powell, 2000). With each new attempt to identify the “holy grail” - an all-encompassing definition of flexibility – the outcome, rather than a resolution of epistemological and ontological differences, adds to the cacophony of voices/definitions. While the lack of an underlying consensus on the use of the term may be considered unsurprising, even the natural state (Derrida, 1978; Foucault, 1980) the empirical phenomenon that is observable, and which we would argue affects organisational practices, is that organisations are sites often characterised by contesting interpretations of “flexibility” and attempts are made to provide resolution of definitional differences.

In this article, we suggest an alternative perspective to the stark options of either: . dismissing the need for attention to the use of the term “flexibility” on the

grounds that all language is ultimately contextual and characterised by a lack of underlying consensus; or

. seeking a meta-definition that provides a resolution of definitional differences.

JOCM 26,1

84

Our alternative perspective involves a focus on the insights to be had from addressing the concept flexibility from an organisational discourse perspective. From such a perspective, the significance of the flexibility in the context of organisational change becomes inextricability linked to its use in framing change situations in particular ways. We argue that a discourse-based perspective provides a distinctive way of understanding the utilisation and impact of a flexibility-based rationale for organisational change. In making this argument we also contribute more broadly to the growing body of work that takes a discourse perspective on organisational change (Bisel and Barge, 2011; Caldwell, 2005; Heracleous and Barrett, 2001; Heracleous and Marshak, 2004; Kemp et al., 2010; Oswick et al., 2005).

In the following sections, we first identify the arguments underlying the prominence given to flexibility as a rationale for organisational change and illustrate the regularity with which flexibility is presented as a desirable state for organisations. We then discuss the multiplicity of definitions and lack of unifying framework that characterises the treatment of the concept “flexibility” before arguing the case for a discourse-based perspective on its use as a rationale for organisational change. We conclude by identifying a set of “action implications”, derived from a discourse perspective on “flexibility”, that are of significance for both organisational change researchers and those involved in managing or responding to organisational change initiatives.

Why the concern with “flexibility”? The increasing tendency to characterise the business environment as dynamic has led to flexibility being labelled a “core capability” (Galunic and Eisenhardt, 2001), something which “has become so important to organisations that it may have a critical role as a success factor in its own right” (Golden and Powell, 2000, p.375). Flexibility is presented as a critical characteristic of organisations that have to deal with turbulent environments.

Organisations responding to highly turbulent environments often seek flexibility through the implementation of “new, fluid” work systems in place of “old, rigid” structures (Dunford et al., 2007; Pettigrew et al., 2003). These “new organisational forms” and associated management practices are presented as a broad cultural shift away from hierarchy, centralised bureaucracy and formalised procedures (Galunic and Eisenhardt, 2001). The work environment that is characterised as flexible is associated with a range of characteristics, including the disaggregation and delayering of business units, which are advocated on the grounds that they contribute to the removal of boundaries and the dismantling of hierarchy (Palmer et al., 2007). Support for such “new organisational forms” has grown as structural features such as standardisation, specialisation, formalisation, and centralisation have been implicated in the reduction of a capacity for flexibility, particularly in complex and unstable environments (Child and McGrath, 2001; Davila, 2000). Simple and limited routines and regulations are associated with the development of the “self-directing” capacity of organisations facing rapid change (Galunic and Eisenhardt, 2001; Rindova and Kotha, 2001).

Similarly, the enhanced use of alliances and relationships that are built on trust and understandings of mutual benefit is represented as a key means of enhancing the capacity for flexibility (Child and McGrath, 2001), while networking and information sharing across an industry sector are represented as facilitating the shedding of

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

85

internal boundaries and movement towards more virtual and flexible forms of organisation (Bahrami and Evans, 1995). The use of social networks rather than formal market arrangements to source information is associated with the enhancement of organisational learning and flexibility (Koza and Lewin, 1998; Lewin et al., 1999). Similarly, teams based on “loose structure” and high levels of individual and team level autonomy are represented as exhibiting greater flexibility in turbulent environments (Nogueira and Raz, 2006), while interdisciplinary teams are seen as a effective way to blend hierarchical structures with flexible processes to achieve high level performance (see, for example, Klein et al., 2006).

Flexibility is also presented as central to achieving the innovative capacity that is a key feature associated with new organisational forms (Davila, 2000; Dess et al., 1995). As traditional organising principles such as standardisation and formalisation have come to be associated with a reduced potential to innovate, the looser more “organic” principles underpinning flexibility have been found to be key supports for innovation (Garud and Jain, 1996; Nogueira and Raz, 2006). Refocusing a work environment away from a regulated to a flexible structure is seen to facilitate experimentation and improvisation (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997). The growth in e-business has provided an added dimension to the focus on the flexibility-innovation connection (Phillips and Wright, 2009). Flexibility offers a means of retaining skills sets and stabilizing knowledge capital in virtual commercial settings and hence has been reinforced as a rationale for organisational change (Bahrami and Evans, 2004). Rindova and Kotha’s (2001) study of two internet service providers and their attempts to maintain competitiveness amidst extreme market volatility found a capacity to positively align with continual change, or “continuously morph” to positive effect, with a reliance on organisational arrangements that give managers the flexibility to innovate while supported by simple standards and rules. in situations marked by high uncertainty, managers have generally been found to rely on informal, interactive modes of control rather than more prescriptive tactics in an effort to attain the desired “flexibility” (Child and McGrath, 2001).

To complicate our understanding of the role of flexibility, research also indicates that the retention of traditional systems characteristics, such as formalisation can be beneficial to organisations seeking to reduce risk and enhance reliability (Davis et al., 2009). A growing number of authors contend that old and new practices can co-exist to positive effect in a single work environment (Dunford et al., 2007; Child and McGrath, 2001). The preservation of structure seems to enable people to comprehend and manage rapid change environments and innovators can struggle in environments completely devoid of structure and formal support (Weick, 1993). Similarly, flexibility appears to be facilitated by partial rather than total investment in alliance networks (Uzzi, 1997), and a moderate “loosening” of industry standards is associated with high levels of innovation (Garud and Jain, 1996).

For Brown and Eisenhardt (1997), a balance between old and new modes of organising requires constant managerial vigilance to keep organisations away from the extreme states of chaos or rigidity. They explore the phenomenon of organisational “semi-structures” that accommodate both old and new organisational characteristics and which constitute an intermediate point between the extremes of very rigid and highly fluid structures. They conclude that organisations using semi-structures outperform organisations that manifest the extremes of old and new structures. This

JOCM 26,1

86

finding is consistent with the argument that performance has an inverted-U shaped relationship with flexibility (Davis et al., 2009). That is, either too little or too much flexibility causes an organisation to lose the capacity to respond optimally to opportunities and threats; either because variation from established procedures is required for an optimal response or because of the loss of efficiency associated with the application of highly-tuned routines (see also Eisenhardt et al., 2010).

Although the preceding discussion represents a fraction of the vast literature that relates organisational design to performance, it provides an illustration of some of the context in which, and the regularity with which, flexibility is presented as a desirable state for organisations and as a rationale for organisational change. In the following section, we discuss the extent to which the widespread discussion of flexibility as a desired state is accompanied by a clear definition of flexibility as a concept.

Flexibility: definitions and frameworks Researchers could be forgiven for assuming that the term flexibility occupies a relatively unambiguous status given its pervasiveness and profile as a rationale for organisational change. However, this is not the case. Flexibility is a concept which is ubiquitous yet ill-defined (Golden and Powell, 2000). It is an “elusive” term (Fellenz, 2000). Definitions abound. For Golden and Powell (2000, p. 373) flexibility is “the capacity to adapt”, for Evans (1991, p.73) it is “the ability to do something other than that which was originally intended”, while for Volberda (1998, p. 100) it is “the degree to which an organization has a variety of managerial capabilities and the speed at which they can be activated, to increase the control capacity of management and improve the controllability of the organization.” For Koste and Malhotra (1999), an understanding of flexibility necessitates a measure of “range”, range having two components: the “range number” denoting the number of available options and “range heterogeneity”, the degree of variance between them: the greater the two numbers, the higher the flexibility state. Phillips and Tuladhar (2000) add the importance of temporal context, arguing that flexibility can only be said to apply if it encompasses many environmental changes over time and not just the response to a single environmental change.

As well as being characterised by multiple definitions and nuances, clarity around the concept “flexibility” is complicated by a high level of conceptual overlap. Terms such as “versatility” and “agility” are often so closely aligned to definitions of flexibility making it difficult to distinguish the terms (Fellenz, 2000). There are many examples of this: for Evans (1991, p. 74), versatility and agility and are “invoked by the concept of flexibility”; for Swafford et al. (2006), the terms agility and flexibility often appear to be interchangeable; Eardley et al. (1997) refer to “strategic flexibility or corporate agility” (as equivalent); while Phillips and Tuladhar (2000) refer to “agile response (flexibility)”.

The broad utilisation of the term flexibility has led several researchers to argue the case for conceptual clarification (Fellenz, 2000; Golden and Powell, 2000; Volberda, 1998). Various efforts have been made to distinguish flexibility from other similar terms. For some, flexibility is defined as a narrow concept, an “in-house competency” for responding to foreseeable, internal changes around equipment and processes, while agility is reserved for use as a descriptor for broader organisational responses to complex and unstructured change (Fellenz, 2000; Swafford et al., 2006). Bahrami and

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

87

Evans (1995) distinguish between flexibility as the temporary adjustment to evolving conditions and “adaptability”, the permanent adjustment to a newly transformed environment. In yet another variation, Wadhwa and Rao (2003) argue that while flexibility is the capacity to increase variety without losing responsiveness, agility is the responsiveness to change without losing flexibility, with superior organisational performance depending on a combination of these two characteristics which they label “flexagility”.

The lack of conceptual clarity around the notion of flexibility has raised concern that as long as it remains a conceptual conundrum, a confusing puzzle of elements, the theoretical and empirical contributions from the study of flexibility will be limited (Golden and Powell, 2000; Kara et al., 2002; Wadhwa and Rao, 2002). Fellenz (2000, p. 2) expresses concern that without consensus on the meaning of the term, “theoretical contributions will remain unresolvable until conceptual clarification is achieved.” However, Fellenz’s (2000, p. 13) suggested solution, defining flexibility as “a systems capacity for variability of one or more of its characteristics” simply adds one more definition to the cacophony of competing definitions rather than providing epistemological or ontological grounds for conceptual clarification.

An alternative approach to focusing on the production of one unifying definition has been to focus on deconstructing the term flexibility into component types of flexibility. For example, Volberda (1998) seeks clarity through differentiating three distinct types: operational flexibility, structural flexibility and strategic flexibility. Operational flexibility involves rapid response to familiar or predictable changes around routines, existing structures and goals; it facilitates small and reversible movements, such as budgetary reallocation or temporary expansion of the workforce through outsourcing. Structural flexibility enables management to alter direction through communication and decision making within a set structure; such flexibility can be internally-focused such as the shifting of team direction or altering control system characteristics, or it can be externally-focused where organisations can realign themselves in relation to other entities and networks. Strategic flexibility allows an organisation to respond to significant and unexpected changes within the external environment and enables major shifts that require the adoption of new norms, values and responsibilities. An alternative typology is provided by Golden and Powell (2000) who characterise flexibility in terms of four dimensions:

(1) Temporal – the rate at which an organisation can adapt to environmental changes.

(2) Range – the degree to which an organisation is able to respond to both foreseen and unforeseen environmental change.

(3) Intention – the degree to which an organisation’s stance towards flexibility is reactive/defensive or proactive/offensive.

(4) Focus – whether the flexibility applies to factors internal to the organisation (e.g. human resource policies) and/or external factors (e.g. alliances).

Unfortunately, frameworks such as these which disaggregate flexibility into various types of flexibility, rather than resolving definitional differences, reproduce at this disaggregated level the same problem of multiple definition that exists at the aggregated level in regard to the meaning of flexibility.

JOCM 26,1

88

In the following section we propose an alternative perspective as a way forward. Rather than seek a definition-based or typology-based resolution to the diverse use of the term flexibility, we present a discourse perspective on the use of this concept as a rationale for organisational change. We argue that this approach provides a new perspective on both the research agenda and action within organisations in regard to flexibility as a rationale for organisational change.

A discourse perspective on “flexibility” as a rationale for organizational change A discourse perspective focuses attention on the way in which language is not just descriptive but also constitutive, that is, on the way it is a material contributor to the way people frame situations in terms of both how a situation is conceived (what it is considered to “be”) and what might be deemed to be appropriate courses of action (Fairclough, 1992; Hardy et al., 2005; Pentland, 1999). When applied to the context of organisations, a discourse perspective implies a focus on the identification of the prevailing discourses within organisations, the means whereby they are created and sustained, their effects on people’s perception and action, and how they evolve/change (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000; Grant et al., 2004; Marshak and Grant, 2008)[1].

From an organisational discourse perspective, organisational change involves shifting the meanings that people attribute to the activities in which they are involved. That is, “there is hardly an organisational change which does not involve the re-definition, the re-labeling, or the re-interpretation of an institutional activity” (Tsoukas, 2005, p. 99). In this regard, how a change is framed is part of the process of “selling” the change (Marshak and Grant, 2008). More than this, the role of language in organisational change may be critical in its success. A significant body of research now supports the contention that the managing of language is a critical competency for those wishing to lead successful change (see, for example, Di Virgilio and Ludema, 2009; Ford and Ford, 1996; Heracleous and Barrett, 2001; Marshak, 1993, 1996). Disaggregating a discourse perspective into constitutive elements, Grant and Marshak (2011) present an interconnected set of premises. First, discourse is constitutive, that is, it shapes behaviour, in some instances reinforcing the status quo, in other instances supporting change. Second, discourse exists at multiple, interconnected, levels from the unconscious cognitive frames that affect individual sensemaking through organisational level discourses to societal level discourses such as “sustainability” or “globalisation”. Third, change narratives are constructed and disseminated through conversation. Fourth, discourses and their influence are shaped by power dynamics with certain discourses likely to be “privileged” in terms of the opportunities they receive to form the prevalent account for the “what” and “why” of change. Fifth, discursive “closure” is rarely achieved; a dominant discourse is likely to co-exist with alternative discourses which frame a situation differently and which may be drawn on to articulate a counter view in regard to proposed changes. Sixth, the formation and evolution of discourses is a process which is continuous, iterative and recursive. Finally, the capacity of change agents to influence their intended audience is increased if they are aware of the discursive nature of their practices.

These premises are of a generic nature, that is, they provide a broad overview of a discourse perspective. However, if the premises are reframed to specifically address “flexibility” as a rationale for organisational change, they can provide an outline of a

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

89

discourse perspective (on flexibility) in this context. We illustrate this situation in Table I by identifying specific questions that illustrate how a discourse perspective can be used to investigate the use of the concept flexibility. These questions provide both a research agenda and a set of issues for the attention of practitioners in the context of a specific organisational change initiative.

As an approach intended to refresh both research and practitioner perspectives on a ubiquitous concept, it is premature to be prescriptive as to what such an approach to flexibility as a rationale for organisational change will reveal. However, we make some initial observations.

First, “flexibility” would seem to have the potential to be a powerful discourse in the context of organisational change because it is a concept that has very strong, positive, connotations. As a term in everyday usage, flexibility has connotations of “freedom of choice” and “resilience” such that framing an organisational change as an act that will deliver greater flexibility is likely to place that initiative on the moral high ground. In common with a term such as innovation, flexibility carries with it a sense of

1. Consider 1.1. How is the concept “flexibility” used to frame organizational contexts? 1.2. How does use of the concept “flexibility” reinforce or challenge existing

schemas that are used to form judgements about the appropriateness of various initiatives within organizations (for example, “reliability” or “efficiency”)?

2. Investigate 2.1. What links, if any, exist between “flexibility” as a concept within management discourse and its use in discourses at various other levels (for example, at the societal-level)?

2.2. If a link exists, what mechanisms facilitate the migration of the concept between levels?

3. Investigate 3.1. Is “flexibility” a concept that is woven into conversations about the need for organizational change?

3.2. If “flexibility” is a concept present in conversations, in what form of argument does it appear?

4. Investigate 4.1. How do relations of power influence the adoption of “flexibility” as a discourse within organizations?

4.2. Who uses the concept “flexibility” and in what contexts?

5. Identify 5.1. What alternative discourses frame the same contexts differently from the “flexibility” lens?

5.2. How any such alternative discourse (for example, “reliability” or “efficiency”) affects actions within organizations (for example, do alternative discourses reinforce those actions suggested by the flexibility discourse or do they provide a basis for conflicting interpretations of priorities for action)?

6. Investigate 6.1. How the character of the discourse of “flexibility”, its meanings and the actions taken “in its name”, evolves over time

7. Internalise 7.1. Those involved in change initiatives within organizations that are based on a “flexibility” rationale should be aware of flexibility’s discursive character because this knowledge may enhance their capacity to act successfully (in their terms) within the context of change

Note: The structure of this table – linking action implications to a discursive perspective on flexibility – is derived from Grant and Marshak’s (2011) linking of generic premises about discourse to questions for researchers and change agents

Table I. Questions to frame a discourse perspective on “flexibility”

JOCM 26,1

90

self-evident virtue as an organisational characteristic. Flexibility also has strongly positive attributions in the management literature where it is presented as a “good thing”, a sought-after organisational characteristic (Golden and Powell, 2000). Verdu and Gomez-Gras’s (2009) argument that flexibility is an indispensable requirement for twenty-first century companies that wish to achieve competitive advantage is typical of this position and also indicative of the currency of this view (see also Bernardes and Hanna, 2009; Phillips and Wright, 2009). Packaged programmatically in the form of such artefacts as “flexible working”, flexibility becomes another label used by management consultants to sell their services (Whittle, 2005). The ability of the term flexibility to be applied to a broad range of organisational situations, coupled with its positive connotations in both lay and specialist discourses makes it a prime candidate for use as the rationale for organisational change. Fundamental to a discourse perspective is the proposition that language is constitutive not just descriptive (see, for example, Grant et al., 2004: Grant and Marshak, 2011).

Second, although the merit of change initiatives based on the desire to establish and embed enhanced flexibility might seem to be close to uncontestable for the reasons noted above, flexibility-framed change initiatives have their limitations. One of the greatest challenges facing change undertaken in the name of flexibility is that it may be very difficult to achieve the required level of flexibility. If a small deviation from the optimal level can lead to dysfunctionality the odds are in favour of the perception of a sub-optimal outcome. Changes implemented in the name of greater flexibility will almost inevitably involve some disruption of existing relationships. This may lead to resistance (which is likely to be heightened if the benefits flowing from enhanced flexibility are unclear or accrue to only certain organisational members). Also, no one discourse enters an uninhabited space; organisations are arenas within which multiple discourses co-exist. Some discourses, such as “strategy”, are well embedded as fundamental structuring languages within business (see, for example, Barry and Elmes, 1997). Others such as “human resource management” have a more ambiguous place, being variously seen as either a central plank in managerialism or as marginal to the dominant discourses of strategy, finance and marketing (see for example, Keenoy, 1990, 1999; Mueller and Carter, 2005). In this contested space, flexibility may either thrive if linked to a dominant discourse or wither if this link is not made. Flexibility may become a “tainted” term. The most reliable predictor of how people will react to the announcement of an organisational change initiative is their experience of previous changes (Reichers et al., 1997). This experience provides the basis for “scripts” (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991) or “narratives” (Bartel and Garud, 2009) that provide a perspective that may have a significant influence on how future change initiatives are viewed. As part of this process, concepts that are associated with changes may be either enhanced or tainted by that association. Terms/concepts can become damned through their association with change initiatives that some (if not all) stakeholders judge to be unsuccessful. A negative reaction to a change initiative framed as designed to achieve flexibility may leave flexibility a tainted term, that is, one that will subsequently arouse suspicion and concern rather than support and enthusiasm[2]. The discursive power of a concept will be affected by what people have previously experienced as done in its name. Because so many different initiatives may be undertaken in the name of flexibility the chances are increased that it will become associated with some changes less well received. For example, Twiname et al. (2006)

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

91

note the development of growing employee disenchantment with a flexibility-framed change initiative because it was experienced by them as work intensification, quality decline and the greater use of [less committed and less well trained] contract staff. The fraught path that initiatives framed as flexibility may face is a valuable reminder not to confuse the general proposition that language can be constitutive with the notion that any given discourse will necessarily bring about outcomes that would otherwise not have occurred (or at least not in the same form or magnitude).

Conclusion The need for greater “flexibility” is a pervasive rationale for organisational change. This in itself is not surprising; indeed it is the foundational proposition on which our paper is based. However, this pervasiveness is accompanied by multiple definitions (and typologies) of the concept flexibility. While the lack of an underlying consensus on the meaning of “flexibility” might be considered to be unsurprising – even the “natural state” – this does not mean that the diversity of meanings does not have associated consequences in the context of instances of organisational change. From this perspective, just how this diversity of meaning should be handled remains a live issue and justifiably so. Some writers call for and/or seek to provide an all-encompassing definition. However we argue the case for an alternative approach. In this paper, we have argued that, rather than seeking the illusive all-encompassing definition, new and valuable insights may be gained if we approach the use of the term flexibility from an organisational discourse perspective. From this perspective, the significance of flexibility in the context of organisational change is inextricability linked to its use as a concept that leads to the framing of the change situation in particular ways. We argue that addressing the concept flexibility from a discursive perspective is a key element of understanding its uses and effects as a rationale for organisational change.

Notes

1. Most research into organizational discourse adopts social constructionist assumptions and has converged in using insights from Foucault (e.g. 1972, 1977, 1980) and/or Fairclough (e.g. 1992, 1995). That said, we would not want to claim that there is a single definition of organizational discourse. Indeed, we acknowledge that as this field of research has grown, debate about how it might be defined has also intensified. See, for example, Alvesson and Karreman (2011a) and the consequent debate: Alvesson and Karreman (2011b); Bargiela-Chiappini (2011); Iedema (2011) and Mumby (2011).

2. Negative reactions to work intensification that follows the introduction of initiatives taken in the name of flexibility are a possible, not a necessary, outcome (see, e.g. Kelliher and Anderson, 2010).

References

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000), “Varieties of discourse: on the study of organizations through discourse analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1125-49.

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2011a), “Decolonializing discourse: critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1121-46.

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2011b), “Organizational discourse analysis – well done or too rare? A reply to our critics”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1193-202.

JOCM 26,1

92

Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (1995), “Flexible re-cycling and high technology entrepreneurship”, California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 62-89.

Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (2004), Flexibility for Knowledge Enterprise, Springer, London.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2011), “Discourse(s), social construction and language practices: in conversation with Alvesson and Karreman”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1177-91.

Barry, D. and Elmes, M. (1997), “Strategy retold: toward a narrative view of strategic discourse”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 429-52.

Bartel, C.A. and Garud, R. (2009), “The role of narratives in sustaining organizational change”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 107-17.

Bernardes, E.S. and Hanna, D. (2009), “A theoretical review of flexibility agility and responsiveness in the operations management literature”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 30-53.

Bisel, R.S. and Barge, J.K. (2011), “Discursive positioning and planned change in organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 257-83.

Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-34.

Caldwell, R. (2005), “Things fall apart? Discourses on agency and change in organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 83-114.

Child, J. and McGrath, R. (2001), “Organizations unfettered: organizational form in an information-intensive economy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1135-48.

Davila, T. (2000), “An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems design in new product development”, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 25 Nos 4-5, pp. 383-409.

Davis, J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Bingham, C.B. (2009), “Optimal structure market dynamism and the strategy of simple rules”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 413-52.

Derrida, J. (1978), Writing and Difference, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Dess, G., Rasheed, A., McLaughlin, K. and Priem, R. (1995), “The new corporate architecture”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 7-20.

Di Virgilio, M.E. and Ludema, J.D. (2009), “Let’s talk: creating energy for action through strategic conversations”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 67-85.

Dunford, R., Palmer, I., Benveniste, J. and Crawford, J. (2007), “Coexistence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices: transitory phenomenon or enduring feature?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 24-42.

Eardley, A., Avison, D. and Powell, P. (1997), “Developing information systems to support flexible strategy”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 57-77.

Ebbers, J.J. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2009), “Latent organizations in the film industry: contracts, rewards and resources”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 7, pp. 987-1009.

Eisenhardt, K.M., Furr, N.R. and Bingham, C.B. (2010), “Microfoundations of performance: balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments”, Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1263-73.

Evans, J.S. (1991), “Strategic flexibility for high technology manoeuvres: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 69-89.

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

93

Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press, London.

Fairclough, N. (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Longman, London.

Fellenz, M.R. (2000), “Flexibility in management theory: towards clarification of an elusive concept”, available at: http://ssrncom/abstractþ1098111 (accessed 25 August 2011).

Ford, J. and Ford, L. (1996), “The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 541-70.

Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith, Pantheon Books, New York, NY.

Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Foucault, M. (1980) in Gordon, C. (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Harvester, London.

Galunic, D. and Eisenhardt, K. (2001), “Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1229-49.

Garud, R. and Jain, S. (1996), “The embeddedness of technological systems”, in Baum, J. and Dutton, J. (Eds), Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 13, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 389-408.

Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), “Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 433-88.

Golden, W. and Powell, P. (2000), “Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the Holy Grail?”, Omega, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 373-84.

Grant, D. and Marshak, R.J. (2011), “Towards a discourse-centered understanding of organizational change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 205-35.

Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (2004), “Introduction – organizational discourse: exploring the field”, in Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (Eds), The Handbook of Organizational Discourse, Sage, London, pp. 1-36.

Grote, G. and Raeder, S. (2009), “Career and identity in flexible working: do flexible identities fare better?”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 219-44.

Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Grant, D. (2005), “Discourse and collaboration: the role of conversations and collective identity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 58-77.

Hart, J.L. (1937), “Anticipations, business planning and the cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 273-97.

Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. (2001), “Organizational change as discourse: communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 755-78.

Heracleous, L. and Marshak, R.J. (2004), “Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1285-312.

Iedema, R. (2011), “Discourse studies in the 21st century: a response to Alvesson and Karreman”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1163-76.

Kara, S., Kayis, B. and O’Kane, S. (2002), “The role of human factors in flexibility management: a survey”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 75-119.

Keenoy, T. (1990), “Human resource management: rhetoric, reality and contradiction”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 363-84.

Keenoy, T. (1999), “HRM as hologram: a polemic”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

JOCM 26,1

94

Kelliher, C. and Anderson, D. (2010), “Doing more with less? Flexible work practices and the intensification of work”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 83-106.

Kemp, D., Keenan, J. and Gronow, J. (2010), “Strategic resource or ideal source? Discourse organizational change and CSR”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 578-84.

Klein, K.J., Ziegert, J.C., Knight, A.P. and Yan, X. (2006), “Dynamic delegation: shared hierarchical and de-individualized leadership in extreme action teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, December, pp. 590-621.

Koste, L.L. and Malhotra, M.K. (1999), “A theoretical framework for analysing the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 75-93.

Koza, M.P. and Lewin, A.Y. (1998), “The co-evolution of strategic alliances”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 255-64.

Kulkarni, S.P. and Ramamoorthy, N. (2005), “Commitment, flexibility and the choice of employment contracts”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 741-61.

Lambert, S.J. (2008), “Passing the buck: labour flexibility practices that transfer risk onto hourly workers”, Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 9, pp. 1203-27.

Lange, O. (1944), Price Flexibility and Employment, Principle Press, Bloomington, IN.

Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P. and Carrol, T.N. (1999), “The coevolution of new organizational forms”, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 535-50.

Marshak, R.J. (1993), “Managing the metaphors of change”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 44-56.

Marshak, R.J. (1996), “Metaphors, metaphoric fields and organizational change”, in Grant, D. and Oswick, C. (Eds), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London, pp. 147-65.

Marshak, R.J. and Grant, D. (2008), “Organizational discourse and new organization development practices”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. S7-S19.

Mueller, F. and Carter, C. (2005), “The scripting of total quality management within its organizational biography”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 219-45.

Mumby, D.K. (2011), “What’s cooking in organizational discourse studies? A response to Alvesson and Karreman”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1147-61.

Nadkarni, S. and Narayanan, V.K. (2007), “Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 243-70.

Nogueira, J.C. and Raz, T. (2006), “Structure and flexibility of project teams under turbulent environments: an application of agent-based simulation”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 5-10.

Oswick, C., Grant, D., Michelson, G. and Wailes, N. (2005), “Looking forwards: discursive directions in organizational change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 383-90.

Palmer, I., Benveniste, J. and Dunford, R. (2007), “New organizational forms: towards a generative dialogue”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1829-47.

Pentland, B.T. (1999), “Building process theory with narrative: from description to explanation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 711-24.

Pettigrew, A.M., Whittington, R., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C., van den Bosch, F.A.J., Ruigrok, W. and Numagami, T. (Eds) (2003), Innovative Forms of Organizing, Sage, London.

Phillips, F. and Tuladhar, S.D. (2000), “Measuring organizational flexibility: an exploration and general model”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 23-38.

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

95

Phillips, R.A. and Wright, C. (2009), “E-business’s impact on organizational flexibility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1071-80.

Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.A. (1997), “Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-59.

Rindova, V. and Kotha, S. (2001), “Continuous ‘morphing’: competing through dynamic capabilities, form and function”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1260-77.

Stigler, G. (1939), “Production and distribution in the short run”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 47, pp. 305-27.

Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N.N. (2006), “A framework for assessing value chain agility”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 118-40.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.

Tsoukas, H. (2005), “Afterword: why language matters in the analysis of organizational change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 96-104.

Twiname, L.J., Humphries, M. and Kearins, K. (2006), “Flexibility on whose terms?”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 335-55.

Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in inter-firm networks: the paradox of embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-67.

Van Dyne, L., Kossek, E. and Lobel, S. (2007), “Less need to be there: cross-level effects of work practices that support work-life flexibility and enhance group processes and group-level OCB”, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 1123-54.

Verdu, A.J. and Gomez-Graz, J.-M. (2009), “Measuring the organizational responsiveness through managerial flexibility”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 668-90.

Volberda, H.W. (1996), “Toward the flexible form: how to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 359-74.

Volberda, H.W. (1997), “Building flexible organizations for fast moving markets”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 169-83.

Volberda, H.W. (1998), Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wadhwa, S. and Rao, K.S. (2002), “Towards a proactive flexibility management view”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3, pp. 1-10.

Wadhwa, S. and Rao, K.S. (2003), “Flexibility and agility for enterprise synchronization: knowledge and innovation management towards ‘flexagility’”, Studies in Information and Control, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111-28.

Weick, K.E. (1993), “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 628-52.

Whittle, A. (2005), “Preaching and practicing ‘flexibility’: implications for theories of subjectivity at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 1301-22.

About the authors Richard Dunford is Pro Vice-Chancellor (Business and Law) and Professor of Management at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Previously he was Professor of Business Strategy at the University of Sydney. He has published on a range of topics including organisational change,

JOCM 26,1

96

international strategy, organisation discourse and new organisational forms. His work has been published in a wide range of peer-reviewed journals, including Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Human Relations, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Long Range Planning and Organisation Studies. Richard Dunford is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Suresh Cuganesan is Professor of Organisational Control and Performance in the University of Sydney Business School. He has published three books and over 50 journal articles, book chapters and conference papers on topics, including the design of management control systems, performance measurement practice in organisations, and intellectual capital measurement and management.

David Grant is Professor of Organisational Studies in the University of Sydney Business School. His current research interests focus on the application of discourse theory and analysis to organisational change and leadership. He has published in a wide range of peer-reviewed journals, including Academy of Management Review, Human Relations, British Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies and Organisation Studies, and is co-editor of the Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse (2004), with Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick and Linda Putnam.

Ian Palmer is Pro Vice-Chancellor (Business) and Vice-President, RMIT University, Melbourne. He has a PhD from Monash University and has held visiting positions at Cornell University and University of Virginia. His teaching, research and consulting are in the fields of organisational analysis, design, change and new forms of organising. He has published in a wide range of journals, including Sociology, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies and Human Relations. In 2011 he was appointed Fellow, Academy of the Social Sciences of Australia (ASSA).

Rosie Beaumont is a Research Assistant at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. Cara Steele is a Research Assistant at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

“Flexibility” as the rationale for

change

97

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.