This paper develops and tests a measure of flexibility of work groups in steady-state functioning. The measure incorporates two different problems of adjustment in work groups, namely rigidity and disorganization, within aflexibility-inflexibility continuumn. The measure was aplied to three areas of work group activity in which environmental variations call for adjustment: allocation of tasks to members, use of rules and procedures, and communication patterns. The composite flexibility scale and the component rigidity and disorganization scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency. Construct validity was investigated by relating the flexibility measure and its components to selected group variables which were theoretically expected to predict flexibility. Partial support was obtained for the hypothesized relationships in the present sample of groups. The integration of rigidity and disorganization within a composite flexibility scale is justified on the basis of thesefindings. Suggestions forfurther construct validity investigations for the flexibility measure are pointed out.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ALBANESE, R.Overcoming resistance to stability. Business Horizons, 1970, 13(2), 35-42.
2.
ASHBY, W. R., Design for a Brain. 2nd ed.London: Butler and Tanner, 1960.
3.
BENNIS, W. G.Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw-hill, 1966.
4.
BLAKE, R. R., & MOUTON, J. S.The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf, 1964.
5.
BOWERS, D. G., & SEASHORE, E. S.Predicting organizational effectiveness with a fourfactor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 11(2), 238-263.
6.
BUJRDEN, E. W. E.A participative approach to management: Shell, U. K. Ltd. microwax department. In L. E. Davis, & A. B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life: Volume Two: Cases and commentary, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1975.
7.
COHEN, J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
8.
CROZIER, M.The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
9.
CRONBACH, L. J., & MEEHL, P. E.Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 281-302.
10.
DAVIS, L. E.The design of jobs. Industrial Relations, 1966, 6, 21-45.
11.
DAVIS, L. E., & ENGELSTAD, P. H.Unit operations in sociotechnical systems: Analysis and design. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, Document No. T. 894, 1966.
12.
DEUTSCH, M.The effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row, 1968. (Originally published as two articles in Human Relations, 1949, 2, 129-152 and 199-23 1)
13.
EMERY, F. E., & TRIST, E. L.Socio-technical systems. In C. W. Churchman and M. Verhulst (Eds.), Management sciences, models and techniques, Vol. 2, London: Pergamon Press, 1960.
14.
ENGELSTAD, P. H.Socio-technical approach to problems of process control. In L. E. Davis and J. C. Taylor (eds.), Design of jobs, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972.
15.
FEIBLEMAN, J. & FRIEND, J. W.The structure and function of organization. Philo-sophical Review, 1945,54, 19-44.
16.
GALBRAITH, J.Organization design: An information processing view. In D. A. Kolb, et al. (Eds.), Organizational psychology, (2nd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
17.
GULOWSEN, J.A Measure of work group autonomy. In L. E. Davis and J. C. Taylor (Eds.), Design ofjobs, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972.
HALL, R.Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
20.
HEMPHILL, J. K., & WESTIE, C. M.The Measurement of group dimensions, Journal of Psychology, 1950, 29, 325-341.
21.
HERBST, P. G.Autonomous group functioning. London: Tavistock, 1962.
22.
HOUSE, R. J.A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16(3), 321-333.
23.
HOUSE, R. J. & DESSLER, G.The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership. Carbonsdale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973, 29-62.
24.
HOUSE, R. J., & RIZZO, J. R.Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 467-505.
25.
KAHN, R. L., WOLFE, D. M., QUINN, R. P., SNOEK, J. D., & ROSENTHAL, R. A.Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
26.
KATZ, D., & KAHN, R. L.The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966.
27.
KETCHUM, L. D.Diffusion in the general foods corporation. In L. E. Davis and Al B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life: Volume Two: Cases and commentary. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1975.
28.
KILMAN, R. H., & THOMAS, K. W.A forced-choice measure of conflict handling behavior: The "MODE" instrument. Graduate School of Management, UCLA, Working Paper 73-12, 1973.
29.
LAWRENCE, P. R., & LORSCH, J. W.Organization and environment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967.
30.
LEWIN, K.Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951.
31.
MAIER, N. R. F., & HOFFMAN, L. R.Acceptance and quality of solutions as related to leaders' attitudes toward disagreement in group problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1965, 1(4), 373-386.
32.
MANN, F. C.Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organization. In R. Dubin, et al. (Eds.), Leadership and productivity. San Francisco: Chandler, 1965.
33.
PHEYSEY, D. C., & PAYNE, R. L.The Hemphill group dimensions descriptions questionnaire. Human Relations, 1970, 23, 473-497.
34.
PHEYSEY, D. C., PAYNE, R. L., & PUGH, D. S.Influence of structure at organizational and group levels. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16(1), 61-72.
35.
PUGH, D. S., HICKSON, D. J., HININGS, C. R., & TURNER, C.Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1968, 13(1), 65-105.
36.
RICE, A. K.Productivity and social organization. London: Tavistock, 1968.
37.
RIZZO, J. R., HOUSE, R., & LIRTZMAN, S.Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970. 15(2), 150-163.
38.
SUSMAN, G. I.Technological prerequisites for delegation of decision making to work groups. In L. E. Davis and A. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life, Volume One: problems, prospects and state of the art, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1975.
39.
TAYLOR, R. J.Technology and planned organizational change. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1971.
40.
TAYLOR, J. C., & BOWERS, D. G.Survey of organizations. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1972.
41.
THOMAS, K. W.Conflict and conflict management. In M. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, Vol. II, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
42.
THOMPSON, J. D.Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
43.
TRIST, E. L., HIGGIN, G. W., MURRAY, H., & POLLOCK, A. B.Organizational choice. London: Tavistock, 1963.
44.
VAN BEINU, H. J. J.The design of the new radial tire factory as an open socio-technical system. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, HRC 150, 1968.
45.
WEICK, K. E.The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
46.
WILDEN, A.System and structure. London: Tavistock, 1971.
47.
YUNKER, G. W. A comparison of two measures of leader behavior at the first level of management. Unpublished master's thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1972.
48.
ZIMMERMAN, D. H.The practicalities of rule use. In Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life, Chicago: Aldine, 1970.
