The best equilibrium in organizational flexibility-stability continuums

Abstract

Purpose This work aims to analyse the flexibility-stability continuum and explore the question of where the best equilibrium lies on this continuum and to what extent it can be realized. Design/methodology/approach After analysing the concepts of flexibility and stability, along with their trade-off relationship, from a theoretical standpoint, the optimum in the flexibility-stability continuum is determined by means of a triangulation of theories. The subsequent operation to determine best possible practice is also accomplished via a theoretical analysis. Findings Organizational flexibility and stability are two poles of a continuum that are interdependent. The optimum in a flexibility-stability continuum lies, according to Gossen's first law, where marginal utility is zero. Determination of the optimum requires a great deal of information, however, which is difficult to collate and process because of its complexity. As an alternative to the “optimum”, “best possible practice” is introduced. This provides an alternative to the less satisfactory method of “best practice according to benchmarking.” Originality/value The value of this work lies in finding an optimum in the flexibility-stability continuum. As the (theoretical) optimum is difficult to determine and realize due to inherent complexities, “best possible practice” is presented as an alternative. This takes into account the idea of optimization meaning no improvement is possible if the goal is achieved. “Best possible practice” defines an implementable, best possible state that can be used for organizational goal formulation. To achieve the best possible equilibrium in the flexibility-stability continuum, the respective advantages of stability and flexibility should be ideally exploited to lead to competitive advantage.

Criteria to appraise top executives for ambidextrous leadership

“…In the next section, a theoretical-conceptual, triangulated approach is used to investigate the requirements which in theory are necessary for top executives when the aim is to foster both exploration and exploitation in organizations. As in Bennett (2019) or Laser (2017Laser ( , 2021, where different theories are triangulated, the concepts-leader/manager, transactional/ transformational leadership, and exploration/exploitation-are brought together and used to explain the attributes necessary for a top executive to lead ambidextrously. Triangulation can provide a broader range of theoretical contexts by analysing the research subject from more than one perspective or using more than one approach (Denzin, 2017;Flick, 2008).…”

Drivers of workforce agility: a dynamic capability perspective

“…The analysis of our empirical findings determines workforce agility as a response to the pressures from dynamic capability requirements of companies, to achieve reconfiguration and redeployment of external and internal human resources and an inherent need to bring some stability in the internal resources of a company. Balancing flexibility and stability is paramount for effective business performance and achieving strong dynamic capability (Laser, 2020; Teece, 2014). This theoretical conclusion about workforce agility enlightens important implications from the conceptual heuristic (Figure 1 and Section 4) that warrants a practical framework by applying SHRM and SHRD literature on strategic agility and dynamic environments.…”

“…Additionally, organizations facing a highly dynamic environment with few recurrent but many unique problems such as in the IT industry, flexibility (one aspect of agility) becomes paramount to provide innovative solutions. Balancing flexibility with a certain amount of stability is the key to achieving dynamic capability (Laser, 2020; Teece, 2014).…”

Workplace Flexibility for Sustainable Career Satisfaction: Case of Handling in the Aviation Sector in North Cyprus

“…Laser, J. [33] states that having extra flexibility and change may affect employees who lack orientation and feel unconfident, because employees' behaviors that become habits no longer appear as successful, and employees begin to improve their current skills in response to change or find fewer opportunities to use skills that become habits. Lee et al [34] suggest that a goal is a specific action for employees; difficult goals are found to be the antecedent of higher performance than easy goals, and easy goals are not challenging for the employees.…”