The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm

Enablers of workforce agility in Enablers of

workforce
engineering agility

educational institutions
Shalini Menon and M. Suresh
Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India
Received 7 December 2019
Revised 18 February 2020
Abstract 31 March 2020
17 May 2020
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore and encapsulate the enablers that can facilitate agility in 24 June 2020
faculty members of engineering institutions. The paper also aims to conduct a prelim qualitative validation of Accepted 24 June 2020
the enablers and analyze the interplay between them using the total interpretive structural modeling (TISM)
approach.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted the TISM approach to comprehend the interactions
and transitivity between the enablers. Cross-impact multiplication matrix (MICMAC) analysis was applied to
rank the enablers and classify them on the basis of the driving and dependence power into dependent,
autonomous, independent and linkage enablers.
Findings – Extensive literature review and expert opinion helped identify 16 enablers that can promote
workforce agility. The results indicate “management support” as the most crucial enabler. Rewards and
recognition and employee empowerment were among the other enablers that have a high driving force. New
capabilities, learning and innovation and the expanding role of faculty members were found to have high
dependence power, which makes the enablers dependent on other enablers for activation.
Practical implications – The results of this study would assist the management of engineering colleges and
universities to design, adopt and implement policies and practices that would facilitate agility in faculty
members. Faculty members shoulder the responsibility of molding the future generation, and hence, it is
important that they are competent enough to impart quality education. The policymakers should focus on
policies and practices that leverage human resource potential and support an innovative climate that nurtures
entrepreneurial activities in engineering institutions.
Originality/value – So far research on workforce agility has predominantly focused on the manufacturing
sector. Despite the workforce (refers to faculty members here) being crucial in contributing to the progress of
universities and colleges, very little work is done on how faculty members can be made agile. Application of the
TISM method in identifying the variables that can facilitate faculty members’ agility in engineering institutions
in India is a new and original contribution to the literature on workforce agility.
Keywords Agility, Faculty members, Engineering education institutions, Total interpretive structural
modeling
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Human capital is the most valuable asset for any country. Higher education plays an
important role in developing the future workforce. The past two decades have seen
tremendous growth in the number of students enrolling for higher education programs and a
parallel proliferation in the number of colleges and universities to accommodate these
students. Quality issues, advancement in technology, increasing global competition, changes
in students’ demand, students’ diversity and mismatch between industry requirements and
students’ skills have been some of the challenges being faced by universities and colleges
world over (Howells et al., 2014; Mukerjee, 2014). Higher education institutions operate in a
complex setting with multiple stakeholders, each with their own expectations. To sustain in
the competitive world, addressing the changes, without sacrificing on the quality standards,
ensuring education offered meets the expectations of students and the requirements of
employers have become imperative (Johnson et al., 2016). Educational institutions like any
other organization are subjected to changes, but when compared with their industrial Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
counterpart, they are found to be less agile in organizing and managing change (Shurville and © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
Browne, 2007). The ease and flexibility with which organizations adapt or react to the DOI 10.1108/JARHE-12-2019-0304
JARHE changes in the environment without compromising on their core competencies is called
agility (Dyer and Shafer, 1998). Agile enterprises are the ones that can thrive in an
environment of continuous and unanticipated change (Plonka, 1997).
Higher engineering educational institutions play a crucial role in the economic
development of a country. According to the National Science Board (2018), India is the
highest producer of science and engineering graduates. Apart from a few renowned
engineering colleges in India, failure on the part of engineering colleges in producing students
with the required skills and competencies that can fetch them suitable jobs has become a topic
of concern. Despite the growth in colleges and universities offering engineering education,
low employability (MHRD, 2016), rigid governance (Friedman and Friedman, 2018) and
quality of teachers continue to plague the engineering educational institutions (Knott et al.,
2015). Lack of faculty members to act as an interface between the institution and the industry
and the incompetency to deliver a curriculum that is in tune with the industry requirements
fail to make students employment-ready (Debnath and Shankar, 2012; Gambhir et al., 2016).
Mittal et al. (2018) attributed the decline in the quality of engineering institutions in India to
the lack of facility and resources for faculty capacity-building, poor research environment
that limits the sharing of latest knowledge with the students and the disinterest among
engineering graduates from institutes like Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and
National institutes of Technology (NITs) to join the teaching profession. To produce
competent engineers, engineering institutions need to revamp and renew their practices and
processes. Like other organizations, it is equally critical for engineering institutions, to sense
the change, envision and forecast the future capabilities expected of an engineering graduate
and make changes to the system accordingly preparing graduates to fit the demands of the
new world work (Kamp, 2016).
Sherehiy (2008) described the organization, technology, people and innovation as the main
agility drivers in any manufacturing organization. These factors are compatible with driving
agility in engineering institutions as well. One of the most crucial elements among the agility
drivers in engineering institutions is people, and in this study, people refers to the faculty
members. Educators are the backbone of any institution (Sharma and Pandher, 2018), and
they shoulder the responsibility of producing globally competent students. The changing
educational environment makes it imperative for the engineering institutions to provide for
professional and personal development of faculty members, as changes in the educational
environment may require faculty members to acquire new learning and capabilities. To
produce agile engineering students, with the required skills and competencies, it is imperative
that the faculty members are well equipped with the desired knowledge, skills and abilities to
mentor and assist the students. On scanning the literature, the authors discovered that the
majority of the research conducted focused on workforce agility in the manufacturing sector,
and very little work has been done on how faculty members can be made agile. The purpose of
this study is to understand what enables faculty members’ agility in engineering educational
institutions, as this is crucial for producing the future workforce that is employable and agile.
This became the motivation for the study and helped in formulating the research questions:
RQ1. What enablers can facilitate workforce agility in engineering education?
RQ2. What is the connection between these enablers, if any, in facilitating workforce
agility?
RQ3. How can the model help engineering educational institutions make their
workforce agile?
The answers to these questions would help the engineering institutions understand the
importance of some enablers that can be crucial in promoting workforce agility and help them
formulate strategies and practices around these enablers.
2. Literature review Enablers of
The literature review included research papers on enablers of workforce agility and the workforce
papers that have used the total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) approach.
agility
2.1 Literature review on workforce agility
Universities and colleges, like any other organization, are subjected to external pressures.
These changes in the environment call for revamping processes and practices and leveraging
capacity and capabilities of human resource (Qin and Nembhard, 2015; Breu et al., 2002).
Management practices can play a crucial role in promoting adaptive and flexible behavior
among employees by adopting practices and methods that promote teamwork, employee
involvement and organizational learning (Muduli, 2016). Management practices that facilitate
workforce scalability and flexibility enable organizations to transit human resource from one
configuration to another in a seamless manner during the process of change (Nijssen and
Paauwe, 2012). Universities and colleges are loosely coupled systems that lack
interdepartmental collaborations. Collaboration and social interactions between and within
the departments, between the faculty members and students and with the stakeholders
outside campuses can foster the exchange of ideas and knowledge facilitating learning and
construction of new knowledge (Bunton, 2017; Yang, 2007). Learning enables individuals to
perform their job in an improved way and also equips and empowers them to apply the
acquired new knowledge in realizing the organization’s goals (Giesecke and McNeil, 2004).
Studies have confirmed a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and workforce
agility (Almahamid, 2018; Suofi et al., 2014). Knowledge, skills, experience, innovative and
entrepreneurial abilities of employees that are rare, non-substitutable and inimitable (Wright
et al., 1994) help organizations gain sustained competitive advantage. To channelize
employee capabilities in the right direction, organizations need to design flexible and
strategic human resource practices (Shafer et al., 2001). Some of the strategies that
organizations have adopted in promoting agility among the workforce are training and
development (Muduli, 2016; Qin and Nembhard, 2015; Nijssen and Paauwe, 2012), open and
robust communication system (Bunton, 2017; Hamed, 2010), participative decision-making
(Owusu, 1999) and innovative and novel reward system (Sumukadas and Sawhney, 2004).
According to Dyer and Shafer (2003), an agile workforce is proactive, adaptive and
generative. Proactive workforce continuously senses the environment for opportunities and
threats (Zhang and Sharifi, 2000), adaptability enables the workforce to assume multiple roles
(Dove and Willis, 1996) and a generative workforce is a workforce with multiple competencies
and multitasking abilities (Hopp and Oyen, 2004). Sherehiy and Karwowski (2014), Hamed
(2010) identified job autonomy and employee empowerment as crucial enablers that enhance
the problem-solving abilities of employees, which is an essential characteristic of an agile
workforce. The enablers identified are presented in Table 1.

2.2 Literature review on total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) approach

TISM is an interpretive method used to crystallize ill-structured mental models into well-
articulated hierarchically structured conceptual models (Sushil, 2018a, 2018b). It is an
advanced method and is designed in such a manner that it enables not only in identifying the
enablers but also in understanding the logic behind the relationship between the enablers.
TISM has been widely applied by researchers for conceptualization and theory-building
(Dubey et al., 2015, 2017; Menon and Suresh, 2019). TISM answers the key questions what,
how and why of theory-building (Sushil, 2012). The method is also argued to offer a better
solution when compared to the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique, as it can
establish causality with limited data and can be applied to both cross-sectional and
longitudinal data (Luo et al., 2018). A number of researchers have used the TISM method to
 agility
Table 1.
JARHE

Enablers of workforce
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

1. Management Refers to the practices and methods
support adopted by the management to improve the
effective working of faculty members
2. New capability Refers to upgrading the existing skills and
competencies of the faculty members or
developing new skills and competencies in
response to changes in the educational
environment
Relationship-oriented practices like team-building, networking, Kathuria and Partovi
rewarding and participative leadership can be effective practices (1999)
in managing work involving high flexibility
Practices like teamwork, rewards and recognition, organizational Muduli (2016); Shafer
learning, involving employees in decision-making, training, et al. (2001)
performance management and information systems influence
workforce agility
Capability to understand the diverse learning styles and abilities Dove and Willis (1996);
of students and plan the curriculum, pedagogical approach, Paulson (2002)
evaluation and assessment criteria accordingly
Capability to read and interpret external environmental changes Breu et al. (2002)
and capability for independent and collaborative learning
The agile workforce should have the ability to solve problems, Sherehiy et al. (2007)
negotiate, work under stress and non-routine circumstances,
generate new ideas, have a positive attitude toward learning and
show readiness to accept new roles and responsibilities
Workforce with multiple competencies and multitasking abilities Sherehiy and
Karwowski (2014)
The ability of the workforce to renew its capacity and capability Qin and Nembhard
in response to the changes in the environment makes the (2015)
workforce agile

(continued )
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

3. Knowledge Is exchanging, processing and transferring
sharing of ideas, information and knowledge among
individuals within and among teams,
departments and institutions facilitating
the creation of new knowledge
4. Renewing Technological skills and competencies that
technological facilitate communication, collaboration,
capabilities knowledge sharing and learning.
Technological know-how to design
learning activities incorporating
Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) tools in enhancing
teaching–learning effectiveness
Continuous dialogue between the tacit and explicit knowledge Nonaka (1994)
helps in creating new ideas and knowledge
Knowledge sharing creates opportunities for faculty members to Seonghee and Boryung
exchange and share ideas and engage in cooperative learning (2008); Yasir and Majid
activities (2017)
Lack of management commitment , technology literacy, Singh and Kant (2008);
incentives, time, collaboration, interpersonal skills and trust are Dhamdhere (2015); Al-
some of the factors that impede faculty members from sharing Kurdi et al. (2018)
knowledge
Knowledge sharing has a positive impact on the dimensions of Suofi et al. (2014)
workforce agility: intelligence, maturity, hardworking, creativity,
responsiveness, flexibility and communication
Knowledge sharing helps employees develop proactive, adaptive, Almahamid (2018)
flexible and resilient behavior that are characteristics of an agile
workforce
Information technology (IT) and software skills to sense the Breu et al.(2002);
environment, respond to stakeholders needs, share information McCully and McDaniel
and enhance learning (2007)
IT competencies (appropriate and flexible infrastructure and Breu et al. (2002);
capabilities) act as enabler and facilitator of organizational agility Chakravarty et al.
(2013)
Digital capability of using technology in education, designing and Kukulska-Hulme
developing open online courses, blending face-to-face teaching (2012); Mukerjee (2014);
with ICT-enabled learning and use of mobile technology in Philbin (2015)
delivering courses
Capability to use information radiators (Kanban boards) to Philbin (2015)
improve communication and track the progress of research
projects that are multidisciplinary in nature
Capability to leverage collaborative networks for education and Tan (2016); Lal and
research purposes Paul (2018)

(continued )
workforce
agility
Enablers of

Table 1.
 Table 1.
JARHE
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

5. Learning and Refers to the institution’s collective ability Higher education should support inquiry and dialogue (team Boyce (2003); Veisi
innovation to leverage individual learning to create learning), systems thinking, continuous learning opportunities (2010); Voolaid and
practices, procedures and systems that and leadership for promoting learning Ehrlich (2017)
reflect new knowledge Learning organizations encourage developing skills of Giesecke and McNeil
employees, allow employees to take the risk and explore new (2004)
opportunities, support communication and a culture that is open
to change
Organizations that support learning and teamwork cohesion Montes et al.(2005)
facilitate learning and innovation
Sharing of knowledge facilitates the transformation of collective Yang (2007); Sandhu
individual knowledge to organizational knowledge when this new et al. (2011)
knowledge is used in improving organizational behavior,
effectiveness and innovation capability
Assimilation of new knowledge across the departments and Gunsel et al. (2011)
synthesizing it toward new projects enhance organizational
learning. The synergy of knowledge management and
organizational learning capabilities drive innovations
Informal platforms like communities of practice, peer learning Reilly et al. (2012)
facilitate the exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge promoting
learning
Personal attributes (openness to experience, cognitive abilities DeRue et al. (2012)
and goal orientation), cognitive and behavioral processes and
environmental and contextual factors facilitate learning agility
Participation of faculty members in decisions related to teaching– Ngoc and Huy (2016)
learning can foster a learning environment in higher education

(continued )
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

6. Collaboration/ Corresponds to the cooperation and
networking networking between institutions, faculty
members, stakeholders, research scholars
and students within and across the campus
boundaries
7. Communication Indicates the process of exchanging ideas
and information with the goal of achieving
mutual understanding between
management and faculty members,
between and within departments, between
faculty members and students and between
the institution and external stakeholders
Collaboration between the team members of cross-functional Mohamed et al. (2004)
teams (physical and virtual) fastens the process of decision-
making and helps seek the support of employees during the
change process
University–industry collaborations for the purpose of research, Mukerjee (2014)
placements, funding. etc., partnership with technology providers
for providing solutions to teaching–learning innovations
,collaborating with alumni and with national and international
universities are ways universities leverage from partnerships
Online teacher collaboration enables teachers to improve their Romeu et al.(2016)
teaching practice and enriches their learning as a result of sharing
and exchanging of ideas and knowledge
Design and delivery of communication that is persuasive, Thornhill et al. (1996)
credible, consistent and integrated with other personnel policies
promote employee commitment and quality in higher education
Agile management systems support open communication that is Owusu (1999)
informative, interactive and coordinated
Communicating the purpose and mission of the organization, Shafer et al.(2001)
roles and responsibilities of employees give a sense of direction to
the employees and the organization’s expectations from them
Informal and formal communication between the management Hamed (2010)
and employees enhances trust in the management
Communication at the foundational level gives clarity and sense Bunton (2017)
of organization’s course in meeting its goals, and at the
operational level, facilitates interaction between departments
essential for reaching consensus

(continued )
workforce
agility
Enablers of

Table 1.
 Table 1.
JARHE
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

8. Expanding role of Corresponds to the constant reskilling and
faculty members upskilling of faculty skillsets to assume a
spectrum of roles, including teaching,
research, administration and serving the
institution and community
The agility of educational institutions lies in the ability of the Dove and Willis (1996)
faculty members to adopt new roles such as practicing
interdisciplinary teaching, working in cross-disciplinary teams
and collaborating with industry in researching the current job
requirements and placement opportunities
Faculty members act as facilitator, guide and counselor to Dove and Willis (1996);
students and serve as members of committees/academic bodies Flores et al. (2016)
within and outside the institution
Designing and developing course/program and aligning it with Dove and Willis (1996);
appropriate instructional methods incorporating creative use of Paulson (2002)
technology in the teaching–learning process
Commit to lifelong learning as they act as role models for students Rogers (2000);
and for prospective faculty members Kukulska-Hulme (2012)
Participate in community development/outreach programs Hearn et al. (2012)
Engage in academic entrepreneurship initiating new ventures Astebro et al. (2012)
Reap financial benefits from academic research by producing new Dusen (2013)
knowledge that translates into intellectual property
Design online programs, learning activities, course material, Philbin (2015); Habib
assessment and evaluation tools (2017)

(continued )
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

9. Training and Refers to the set of activities/programs
development aimed at developing the required skills,
competencies and level of knowledge of
faculty members vital in improving their
performance in teaching, research and
other educational activities
Workshops on cooperative learning, on cross-training faculty Dove and Wills (1996)
members with the help of interdisciplinary teams that have
successfully applied the method
Adequate technical support and training in preparing faculty Dove and Wills (1996);
members to use digital technology in education and research Rogers (2000); Furco
and Moely (2012)
Training on working in teams and on the art of communication Sumukadas and
Sawhney (2004)
Cross-training promotes flexibility and enables employees to Hopp and Oyen (2004)
switch between work
Abreast faculty members of the developments in a specific Reilly et al. (2012)
discipline
Faculty development programs and learning communities help Kukulska-Hulme
enhance collegiality and collaboration between peer faculty (2012); Furco and Moely
members and provide a platform for faculty members to discuss (2012); Kramer and
and reflect on new teaching practices and other related matters Benson (2013)
Training develops the desired capabilities, knowledge and skills Elnaga and Imran
of employees improving their performance (2013)
Training programs nurture a learning environment that Muduli (2016)
encourages employees to adapt to change and explore new
opportunities

(continued )
workforce
agility
Enablers of

Table 1.
 Table 1.
JARHE
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

10. Rewards and Refers to the incentives (monetary/non-
recognition monetary) over remuneration
acknowledging and appreciating faculty
members efforts in achieving
organizational goals
Incentives for incorporating creativity and innovation in Dove and Wills (1996);
teaching, designing and delivering online courses and research Paulson (2002)
can facilitate agility in faculty members
Reward systems may include: payment in part (profit sharing, Dyer and Shafer (2003)
stock options) for achieving organizational results, base pay
within wide bands based on individual marketability, bonuses for
keeping commitments, recognition and awards for taking on
challenging assignments/innovations and providing
commensurate returns
Rewards for anticipating and accepting change and quickly Crocitto and Youssef
adapting to it or making changes in the market conditions that (2003)
favor the organization
Non-traditional compensations such as knowledge-/skill-based Sumukadas and
pay, incentives for improvement and non-monetary rewards or Sawhney (2004)
recognition for performance can facilitate workforce agility
Rewards for sharing knowledge in higher education can help Seonghee and Boryung
institutions retain faculty members with the desired knowledge, (2008); Tan (2016)
skills and expertise vital for achieving the organization’s goals
and objectives
Performance-based pay that is individual- or team-based Muduli (2016)
A study at Kenyatta University revealed extrinsic and intrinsic Ndungu (2017)
rewards and recognition systems motivate faculty members to
improve their performance

(continued )
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

11. Autonomy Is the academic freedom given by the
management to the faculty members in
planning, organizing and performing their
work of designing course/programs,
adopting instructional methods that can
facilitate student learning and outcome and
the freedom of adopting assessment and
evaluation tools
12. Employee Refers to the power/autonomy delegated by
empowerment the management to the faculty members or
teams, entrusting the faculty members/
teams with the accountability of the tasks
assigned
Contingent/floating workforce/flexible working hours Hopp and Oyen (2004)
Autonomy is one of the essential elements for successful Yang and Choi (2009)
empowerment of employees
Autonomy describes employees as owners of assignments and Tolf et al. (2015)
through the functioning of self-autonomous/self-organizing
teams are expected to deliver the desired outcome
Autonomy at work is the most important enabler of an agile Sherehiy and
workforce. Job autonomy enhances problem-solving skills of the Karwowski (2014)
workforce
Organizational structures with less formalization and few levels Alavi et al. (2014);
of hierarchy support autonomy Huumonen (2011)
Social structures that have high employee involvement create Spreitzer (1996)
more empowerment opportunities and give more voice to
employees in decision-making
Autonomy, access to information, adequate training and making Yang and Choi (2009)
employees accountable and responsible for their work are
dimensions of empowerment that improve team performance and
fastens decisions
Trust enhances employee empowerment as the employees believe Hamed (2010)
in management’s competency in providing employees with
opportunities to achieve their personal goals and objectives
Employee empowerment boosts employees to use their existing Berraies et al. (2014)
as well as newly acquired skills to explore new opportunities
leading to innovation
Empowered employees are more productive and efficient as their Hanaysha (2016)
personal goals are in sync with the organization’s goals and
objectives

(continued )
workforce
agility
Enablers of

Table 1.
 Table 1.
JARHE
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

13. Employee Refers to the institutional structure that
involvement supports few hierarchical levels, cross-
functional teams responsible and
accountable for decisions at the functional
level and management practices that
promote shared decision-making
14. Employee Explains the attachment that the faculty
commitment members have toward their work and the
institution
Structures with less top-down control, flexible and dynamic Ford and Randolph
systems that support well-managed teams facilitate collaborative (1992); Olson and
and collective decision-making Eoyang (2001)
Agile management systems that follow a participative Owusu (1999)
management style enhance employee involvement. Participation
involves decision-making and problem-solving by teams and
nurtures the cooperative relationship between management and
employees
High-order employee involvement practices such as self-managed Sumukadas and
teams, job enlargement and enrichment have a greater impact on Sawhney (2004)
workforce agility than the low-order practices like quality circles,
suggestions and feedback
Job characteristics: teamwork, interest in job and autonomy at job Nijhof et al. (1998)
show strong and positive relationship with commitment.
Organization characteristics: leadership style and human
resource practices have positive influence on commitment.
Personal characteristics: younger employees are more committed
than older employees
Perceived management support and empowerment enhances Sahin et al. (2014)
physical, cognitive and emotional attachment to work and
enhances employee commitment
Employee empowerment, training and working in a team improve Hanaysha (2016)
employee’s productivity, which leads to increased commitment
toward work and the organization

(continued )
Sr.
no. Enablers Description Literature References

15. Emotional Refers to the ability of faculty members to
intelligence recognize their own and others’ emotions
demonstrating judicious and empathetic
handling of interpersonal relationships
16. Psychological Is the psychological state of faculty
empowerment members that make them believe in their
abilities to perform the task efficiently and
effectively
Interpersonal emotional competencies (self-motivation, self- Hosein (2012)
awareness and self-control), intrapersonal emotional
competencies (empathy and managing relations), education of
employees and the position of the employee in the organization
positively impact workforce agility
Faculty members should possess emotional competencies like Sharma and Arora
self-awareness, self-motivation, empathy and ability to skillfully (2012)
handle situations to develop emotional competencies in students
Educational programs should focus on developing and enhancing Kamp (2016)
both the professional and personal attributes of students.
Personal attributes such as organizational sensitivity, self-
management, self-awareness, empathy, social and emotional
intelligence are some of the attributes that employers seek in
graduates
Self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation increase individuals’ Thomas and Velthouse
orientation toward work based on the four cognitions: (1990)
meaningfulness, self-determination, competence and impact
A survey of hotels in Taiwan revealed trust and organizational Chiang and Jang (2008)
culture correlates positively to all dimensions of psychological
empowerment, and the variable “self-determination” strongly
affects job satisfaction
Support from the organization improves psychological capital of Sahin et al. (2014)
employees
Management practices that integrate dimensions of Muduli (2016)
psychological empowerment foster workforce agility
Psychological empowerment develops agile behavior and attitude Muduli (2017)
in employees
A survey of employees from the manufacturing and service sector Muduli and Pandya
(public and private in India) found “impact” to be the most (2018)
influential among the psychological empowerment variables in
facilitating agility
Practices by management can stimulate faculty members Meng and Sun (2019)
enthusiasm toward work and increase their level of engagement
in activities related to teaching and research
workforce
agility
Enablers of

Table 1.
JARHE identify and understand the interrelationship between the enablers. The method was
predominantly applied in the manufacturing sector, but lately, the method has found
grounding in supply chain management, in healthcare, ICT, in higher education and other
fields. Some of the latest studies conducted using TISM are shown in Table 2 given below.

3. Research methodology
An extensive literature review helped in identifying the enablers that can facilitate agility in
faculty members. After the enablers were identified, five academic experts with more than 15
years of teaching experience in engineering institutions were contacted for any revision to the
enablers list. Expert opinion helped in finalizing the list of enablers and in developing the
model’s feasibility and face validity. In total, 41 faculty members were approached, out of
which 30 agreed to be interviewed, including the five experts contacyted initially. Each
respondent was interviewed for 40–60 min. A closed-ended questionnaire using a five-point
Likert scale was used for collecting data. The pairwise comparison where each enabler is
compared with all the other enablers captured the influence of an enabler on other enablers
(e.g. management support influences new capabilities, management support influences
employee empowerment and so on). The respondents consisted of principal, heads of
departments, professors, associate professors and assistant professors from engineering
colleges in India. The respondents belonged to different engineering disciplines with
experience of respondents varying between 6 and 35 years (Appendix Table A7).
The study used the TISM approach for analyzing the workforce agility enablers in
engineering educational institutions. The steps involved in the TISM approach are
explained below:
(1) Identify and define the enablers: An extensive literature review in the context of
workforce agility in manufacturing and higher education helped to shortlist the
enablers. The opinion of academic experts from engineering colleges further helped to
identify and finalize the factors compatible with workforce agility in engineering
educational institutions. The identified enablers with references are listed in Table 1.
(2) Establish contextual relationship between enablers: A questionnaire consisting of paired
comparison between the factors helped to establish and comprehend the relationship
between the factors. The relationship between the elements is explained on the basis of
intent, priority, dependence and enhancement. If enabler P influences Q, then the
strength of the relationship is defined either very strong, strong, moderate, light or no
influence. Only those enablers that have very strong or strong influence are considered,

Sl. No. Authors Area of research

1 Sindhwani and Malhotra (2017) Agile manufacturing systems

2 Bag (2017) Manufacturing sector in South Africa
3 Sandeepa and Chand (2018) Sustainable flexibility supply chain management
4 Shibin et al. (2016) Green supply chain management
5 Vaishnavi et al.(2019b) Agility in healthcare
6 Patri and Suresh (2017) Performance in healthcare organizations
7 Patil and Suresh (2019) Workforce agility in internet-of-things (IoT) projects
8 Prasad et al.(2018) Block chain cloud service enablers
9 Kashiramka et al.( 2019) Success factors affecting technical higher education
Table 2. 10 Sehgal and Nasim (2018) Factors affecting employability of graduates
Research using the 11 Yeravdekar and Behl (2017) Branding of management education institutions
TISM approach 12 Patil et al. (2018) Solid waste management
 and the respective cells in the initial reachability matrix are labeled 1, while all other cells Enablers of
are labeled 0. The initial reachability matrix for workforce agility is presented in Table 3. workforce
(3) Develop the final reachability matrix: The final reachability matrix is developed agility
through transitivity check, as shown in Table 4. The entries in the initial reachability
matrix that are denoted by 0 become eligible for transitivity check. If transitivity is
present, the respective cells will be represented by 1* or 1**, and if transitivity is not
established, the cell will be denoted by 0.
Illustration: First-level transitivity is presented by 1*: P 5 Q; Q 5 R, then P 5 R
Second-level transitivity is presented by 1**: P 5 Q; Q 5 R; R 5 S, then P5S
(4) Partition of the final reachability matrix: Partitioning of the variables into different
iteration levels takes place at this level. The partition matrix consists of a reachability
set, an antecedent set and an intersection set. The final reachability matrix is used to
assign elements to the reachability and antecedent sets. The row elements
corresponding to a particular variable are presented in the reachability set, and
likewise, the column elements are presented in the antecedent set. The common elements
between these two sets enter the intersection set. In iteration 1, all the factors that have
the same elements in the reachability set and the intersection set are assigned the first
level and are not considered in the next level. The process goes on until all the factors are
assigned to different levels. These matrices are presented in Appendix (Tables A1–A6).
(5) Develop the interaction matrix: The interaction matrix is designed using the direct and
the significant transitive links. All places with such links are coded with the binary
value of 1, and all the other places that have no connection are coded with the binary
value of 0. This is presented in Table 5.
(6) Digraph creation and TISM model preparation: The last step is creating a digraph, an
acronym for the directed graph. The final reachability matrix and the level partitions
are used for creating the digraph. For crafting the digraph, all the direct and the
significant transitive links are considered. The factors at the top of the model are
called the first-level factors. Subsequently, coming down the digraph, the numeric
value of each level increases in ascending order, one at a time. The results from the
interpretative matrix and the digraph are used to design the TISM model. The TISM

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

F1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
F2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F7 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F9 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
F11 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
F12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
F13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 Table 3.
F14 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Initial reachability
F15 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 matrix for workforce
F16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 agility
JARHE F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

F1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1* 0 1 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1*
F2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F3 0 1 1 1* 1 1 0 1* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F6 0 1* 1 1* 1* 1 0 1** 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F7 0 1* 1 1** 1* 1 1 1** 1* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F8 0 1* 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F9 0 1 0 1 1* 0 0 1* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F10 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 1** 0 1 1* 1 1 1* 1* 1
F11 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
F12 0 1* 0 0 1 0 0 1* 0 0 1* 1 1 1* 1 1
F13 0 1 0 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Table 4. F14 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Final reachability F15 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1* 1 0
matrix for workforce F16 0 1 0 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 1 0 1 1* 1 1
agility Note(s): *, ** represents transitive links

model is shown in Figure 1 and the interpretative–interaction matrix, which offers

qualitative notes on the direct as well as the transitive links, is presented in Table 6.

4. Results
This study aims at identifying the enablers that can facilitate workforce agility in engineering
institutions. In total, 16 enablers were identified and were assigned hierarchical levels depending
on the final reachability matrix given in Table 4. The enablers are then arranged in a hierarchical
structure in the TISM digraph model, as in Figure 1. The enablers placed at the top are assigned
the first level. These enablers influence each other and have no influence or impact on other
enablers, whereas the enabler at the bottom of the structure, in this study, the one at level 6, is the
enabler that can influence all the other enablers, but does not get impacted by other enablers. All
the other enablers between these two levels can impact enablers at their level and the ones above
but can get impacted only by the enablers that are below them in the structure (Jain et al., 2018).
The uni- and bi-directional arrows in the digraph relate to the direction of influence of an enabler
on other enablers, and the dotted lines represent the transitive links. The interpretation of the
relationship between the enablers is discussed below.

4.1 Interpretation of total interpretive structural modeling digraph

4.1.1 Level VI: management support (F1). Management support occupies this level, and this
enabler is seen to influence a number of other enablers like new capabilities, learning and
innovation, rewards and recognition, autonomy, employee empowerment and employee
involvement. The study revealed the changing engineering educational scenario has a
growing thrust on the institutions to provide for the reskilling and upskilling of faculty
members. Organizing training and development programs on current gaps in skills and
competencies of the faculty members enhance and develop their capabilities (Elnaga and
Imran, 2013). Training sessions and workshops help faculty members share their ideas,
discuss, reflect, learn and innovate. Management can influence rewards and recognition by
adopting an innovative reward system that motivates faculty members to perform. Passing
on the freedom of designing and developing the syllabus, adopting innovative instructional
methods, deciding on the adoption of assessment and evaluation tools will influence and
make faculty members empowered and autonomous. Management practices such as
 Enablers of
workforce
agility

Figure 1.
TISM model for
workforce agility for
engineering
institutions

participative decision-making, inviting suggestions from faculty members, giving faculty

members’ freedom at work and rewarding and acknowledging their contributions make the
faculty member feel valued and indirectly influence employee involvement (Boudrias
et al., 2009).
4.1.2 Level V: communication (F7) and rewards and recognition (F10). The enablers’
communication and rewards and recognition fall in the second level in the hierarchy
JARHE F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

F1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1* 0 0 0
F2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F6 0 0 1 1* 1* 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F7 0 0 1 1** 1* 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F8 0 1* 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F9 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F10 0 0 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1* 1* 1
F11 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
F12 0 1* 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1 1 0 1 1
F13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
F14 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
F15 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1* 1 0
Table 5. F16 0 1 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
Interaction matrix Note(s): *, ** star(s) represents significant transitive links

structure. Communication influences knowledge sharing and collaborations directly.

Communication and interactions between educators, researchers, scholars and students
within the institution and with alumni, industry experts and community outside the
institution facilitate the exchange of ideas, information and knowledge (Tan, 2016). This
sharing of ideas, information and knowledge can indirectly lead to new learning, as faculty
members get to know the latest practices in academia and industry, get multiple perspectives
on issues concerning engineering and societal challenges and an insight into the latest
advancements and developments in the engineering field. Communication can also influence
the renewing of the technological capabilities of faculty members as ICT know-how would
help faculty members connect with the engineering fraternity and others in a faster and more
effective way. Rewards and recognition directly influence employee empowerment and
involvement. Rewards and recognition can encourage and boost the confidence of an
individual as the responsibility that the employee is entrusted with is acknowledged and
appreciated, reinforcing personal competence for participating and affecting decision-
making (Spreitzer, 1995). Rewards indirectly influence learning, employee commitment and
emotional intelligence. Faculty members show the willingness to learn in anticipation of
rewards and recognition. Recognizing faculty members for their contribution in achieving the
organization’s goals and objectives makes them feel valued and boosts their emotional
competence (Crocitto and Youssef, 2003). The faculty members feel more committed to their
work and toward the organization.
4.1.3 Level IV: knowledge sharing (F3), collaborations (F6) and employee empowerment
(F12). At level 4, there are three enablers: knowledge sharing, collaborations and employee
empowerment. Knowledge sharing and collaboration have a two-way relation. Knowledge
sharing happens when educators, researchers and scholars across the globe collaborate (Tan,
2016), and collaboration fosters knowledge sharing. Collaboration facilitates training for
establishing a network with others. Faculty members need to be acquainted with
technological know-how and training provides faculty members with this new capability;
as a result of this, faculty members use technology-enabled platform for collaborations and
knowledge sharing to explore new learning. The third enabler at this level is employee
empowerment, which directly influences learning and innovation, employee involvement,
emotional and psychological empowerment. Empowered faculty members are aware of
 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

F1 Management support Management support

influences new influences learning and
capabilities innovation
F2 New capabilities influence New capabilities influence the
learning and innovation expanding role of faculty
members
F3 Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing
influences new influences learning and influences
capabilities innovation collaborations
F4 Renewing technological Renewing technological Renewing technological
capabilities influences capabilities influences capabilities influences
new capabilities learning and innovation expanding role of faculty
members
F5 Learning and innovation Learning and innovation
influences new influences the expanding role
capabilities of faculty members
F6 Collaboration Collaboration influences Collaboration influences
influences knowledge technological capabilities learning and innovation
sharing
F7 Communication Communication influences Communication influences Communication
influences knowledge technological capabilities learning and innovation influences
sharing collaboration
F8 Expanding role of faculty Expanding role of faculty
members influences new members influences learning
capabilities and innovation
F9 Training and Training and development
development influences influences technological
new capabilities capabilities
F10 Rewards and recognition
influence learning and
innovation
F11 Autonomy influences new Autonomy influences Autonomy influences the
capabilities learning and innovation expanding role of faculty
members

(continued )
workforce
agility
Enablers of

interaction matrix
Interpretive–
Table 6.
 Table 6.
JARHE
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

F12 Employee empowerment Employee empowerment

influences new capabilities influences learning and
innovation
F13 Employee involvement
influences new
capabilities
F14 Employee commitment Employee commitment Employee commitment
influences new influences learning and influences the expanding role
capabilities innovation of faculty members
F15 Emotional intelligence Emotional intelligence Emotional intelligence
influences new influences learning and influences the expanding role
capabilities innovation of faculty members
F16 Psychological Psychological empowerment
empowerment influences influences learning and
new capabilities innovation

F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

F1 Management Management Management Management

support influences support influences support influences support influences
rewards and autonomy employee employee
recognitions empowerment involvement
F2
F3 Knowledge
sharing influences
training and
development
F4
F5
F6 Collaboration
influences training
and development
F7
F8

(continued )
 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

F9
F10 Rewards and Rewards and Rewards and Rewards and Rewards and
recognition recognition recognition recognition recognition
influence employee influence employee influence influence emotional influence
empowerment involvement employee intelligence psychological
commitment empowerment
F11 Autonomy Autonomy
influences influences
employee emotional
commitment intelligence
F12 Employee Employee Employee Employee
empowerment empowerment empowerment empowerment
influences influences influences influences
autonomy employee emotional psychological
involvement intelligence empowerment
F13 Employee Employee Employee Employee
involvement involvement involvement involvement
influences influences influences influences
autonomy employee emotional psychological
commitment intelligence empowerment
F14 Employee Employee
commitment commitment
influences influences
autonomy emotional
intelligence
F15 Emotional Emotional
intelligence intelligence
influences influences
autonomy employee
commitment
F16 Psychological Psychological Psychological
empowerment empowerment empowerment
influences influences influences
autonomy employee emotional
involvement intelligence
Note(s): The sentences in italics represent the significant transitive links
workforce
agility
Enablers of

Table 6.
JARHE organizational goals and objectives, their roles and responsibilities and enjoy the freedom
given by the management to carry out their work in the way they want to, without any
interference. Empowerment acts as an intrinsic motivator and influences faculty members to
perform better, as they are made accountable for their work, resulting in new learning and
greater worker involvement. Employee empowerment is found to influence new capabilities
and autonomy indirectly. The freedom, accountability and responsibility entrusted can drive
the willingness of the faculty members to perform better by learning and embracing new
capabilities (Berraies et al., 2014; Hanaysha, 2016). Empowerment facilitates employees to
become autonomous in their jobs (Chiang and Jang, 2008)
4.1.4 Level III: training and development (F9), employee involvement (F13) and
psychological empowerment (F16). Training and development, employee involvement and
psychological empowerment are assigned to level 3. Technology cannot be ignored as the
current generation is tech-savvy, and they need to be taught in the way they are most
comfortable. Educating and training faculty members regarding the new instructional
methods would help secure their support and equip them with the technological know-how of
incorporating technology in the teaching–learning process (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).
Employee involvement influences new capabilities, autonomy, employee commitment,
emotional intelligence and psychological empowerment. Involving faculty members in the
decision-making process and practicing participative leadership influence autonomy
(Kathuria and Partovi, 1999). The belief and trust that management shows by entrusting
the faculty members and teams with tasks boosts their self-confidence and self-efficacy and
enhances their commitment toward the organization. To realize the personal and
organizational goals, faculty members discuss, reflect and learn. Psychological
empowerment influences new capabilities, autonomy, emotional intelligence and employee
involvement directly and learning indirectly. Psychologically empowered faculty members
feel in charge of their work physically and emotionally. To perform work effectively, faculty
members keep upgrading their skills and competencies, and in the process, learn new things.
4.1.5 Level II: renewing technological capabilities (F4), autonomy (F11), employee
commitment (F14) and emotional intelligence (F15). Level 2 consists of enablers: renewing
technological capabilities, autonomy, employee commitment and emotional intelligence.
Learning new technological skills enables the faculty members to use them in teaching–
learning, collaborating with others inside and outside the institution and for other
administrative purposes (Keengwe et al., 2009; Romeu et al., 2016; McCully and McDaniel,
2007), equipping the faculty take up different roles. Autonomy in education gives freedom to
the faculty members in designing and developing new programs/courses that are in
streamline with industry requirements (Kashiramka et al., 2019) and adopting new
instructional, assessment and evaluation tools. Freedom at job encourages faculty
members to acquire and refresh knowledge and skills to be able to carry out the activities
effectively. Autonomy enhances learning and equips the faculty members to take up multiple
roles in the institution. Increase in job autonomy enhances emotional competence (Kim et al.,
2009). Autonomy gives employees freedom to make decisions and solve problems related to
their work without any interference, and this leads to job satisfaction and influences
commitment (Berraies et al., 2014). Employee commitment influences developing new skills
and competencies in faculty members, as they are motivated to contribute to the success of
the institution. Commitment influences autonomy, emotional competence, and this
encourages the faculty members to assume multiple roles. People with high emotional
intelligence are autonomous learners, and this leads to commitment as the beliefs and values
of the employees and institution are aligned.
4.1.6 Level I: new capabilities (F2), learning and innovation (F5) and expanding role of
faculty members (F8). The last level enablers influence each other and have no impact on any
other enabler. New capabilities, learning and innovation and expanding role of faculty
members are the top-level enablers. New skills and abilities enhance learning and innovation Enablers of
(Mohamed et al., 2004), and learning influences imbibing new capabilities. Learning enhances workforce
the competencies of the faculty members and enables them to assume multiple roles (Dove
and Willis, 1996). Executing different roles enhances new learning indirectly embracing new
agility
skills and capabilities.

5. MICMAC analysis
Matrice d’Impacts croises-multipication applique’ a classment, or MICMAC, also commonly
known as the cross-impact multiplication matrix is used to classify factors on their driving
and dependency power (Vaishnavi et al., 2019a; Vaishnavi and Suresh, 2020; Lakshmi
Priyadarsini and Suresh, 2020). The MICMAC graph is represented by the dependence power
on the y-axis and driving power on the x-axis (Suresh et al., 2019a, 2019b). The clustering of
the factors into autonomous, independent, linkage and dependent zones is presented in
Figure 2 below.

5.1 Interpretation of MICMAC analysis

Zone I – Consists of autonomous enablers that have low driving and low dependence power.
F3 (knowledge sharing), F4 (renewing technological capability), F6 (collaboration/
networking), F7 (communication), F9 (training and faculty development), F11 (autonomy),
F13 (employee involvement), F14 (employee commitment), F15 (emotional intelligence) and
F16 (psychological empowerment) are the autonomous enablers.
Zone II – Consists of enablers that have weak driving power but strong dependence. These
enablers are called dependent enablers. The dependent enablers in this study are F2 (new
capabilities), F5 (learning and innovation) and F8 (expanding role of faculty members).
A change in any other enabler can influence these enablers.

Zone –IV:Independent Zone–III:Linkage

16
15
14
13
12
11 F1
Driving Power Î

10 F10
9 F12
8 F7 F13,
F16
7 F3,F6
6 F11,F14,
F15
5 F9
4 F4
3 F2,
F5, F8
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 13 14 1 16 Figure 2.
Diagram of MICMAC
Zone –I:Autonomous Zone–II:Dependent analysis
Dependence power Î
JARHE Zone III – Enablers with both high driving power and dependence are classified as linkage
enablers, and they occupy the third zone. They establish links between lower- and higher-
level enablers and act as the mediator between enablers. There are no linkage enablers in
this study.
Zone IV – This zone consists of enablers with strong driving power but weak dependence.
These are called independent enablers. In this case, the driving enablers are F1 (management
support), F10 (reward and recognition) and F12 (employee empowerment). The driving
enablers are the key enablers.
The MICMAC ranking of all workforce agility enablers is mentioned in Table 7.

6. Discussion
According to the MICMAC analysis, management support is found to have the highest
driving power, and this makes management support the most crucial enabler (Muduli, 2016).
A small change or modification to this enabler can bring changes in all other enablers,
especially the ones with high dependence power, and ignoring this enabler would put other
enablers in imbalance. Apart from management support, the other two enablers that have a
strong driving force are rewards and recognition and employee empowerment. Rewards and
recognition can motivate employees to perform better in anticipation of appreciation in
monetary or non-monetary form (Ndungu, 2017; Sumukdas and Sawhney, 2004).
Acknowledging suggestions and contributions made by the employees to the
organization’s success and rewarding and appreciating them can alter the behavior of the
employees and secure their support during the process of change (Crocitto and Youssef,
2003). Some of the suggestions for improving the reward structure suggested by faculty
members include incentives for securing research projects and publications (Mittal et al.,
2018), implementing an innovative consultancy policy that shares the revenue generated with
the faculty member motivating faculty members to engage in more consultancy work,
incentives for innovation, for including new and innovative instructional method in
teaching–learning, initiating online or distance learning, developing e-content (McCully and

Driving Driving power/ MICMAC

Enabler power Dependence dependence rank

Management support 11 1 11.00 1

New capabilities 3 16 0.19 10
Knowledge sharing 7 3 2.33 5
Renewing technological 4 5 0.80 8
capability
Learning and innovation 3 16 0.19 10
Collaboration/networking 7 3 2.33 5
Communication 8 1 8.00 2
Expanding role of faculty 3 16 0.19 10
members
Training and faculty 5 4 1.25 7
development
Rewards and recognition 10 2 5.00 3
Autonomy 6 8 0.75 9
Employee empowerment 9 3 3.00 4
Table 7. Employee involvement 8 5 1.60 6
MICMAC analysis Employee commitment 6 8 0.75 9
rank for workforce Emotional intelligence 6 8 0.75 9
agility Psychological empowerment 8 5 1.60 6
McDaniel, 2007; Phlibin, 2015), initiating sustainable practices on campus, providing young Enablers of
researchers the seed money to carry out research and considering student evaluation and workforce
performance for promotion. Employee empowerment, yet another enabler with a high driving
force, promotes self-efficacy among faculty members and motivates them to perform
agility
efficiently for accomplishing personal and organization’s goals and objectives (Hamed, 2010).
Empowered faculty members are aware of organizational goals and objectives, their roles and
responsibilities and enjoy the freedom given by the management to carry out their work in the
way they want to, without any interference.
The variables new capabilities, learning and innovation and expanding role of faculty
members exhibit very low driving power but high dependence. These enablers need to be
triggered by enablers that have a high driving force. The right strategy, practices and
processes adopted by the management can trigger them. Support from the management in
the form of education and training (Elnaga and Imran, 2013), embracing a culture of lifelong
learning (Giesecke and McNeil, 2004), entrusting employees with responsibility and
providing IT infrastructure for collaborating with stakeholders within and outside campus
can influence faculty members to embrace new learning and help them execute different roles
effectively. Management practices facilitating human resource capabilities can motivate and
drive employees to be more productive influencing the organizational performance
(Hanaysha, 2016). Although the study has no linkage factor, according to the TISM
digraph model, autonomy (F11), employee commitment (F14) and emotional intelligence (F15)
can be considered as linkage factors, as they have high dependence power and moderate
driving power. Linkage factors link the dependent factors with the independent factors, and
their high dependence makes these enablers sensitive to change. Strategic and effective
management of these factors can foster the agility of the system. The model identified 13
significant transitive links with a majority of enablers influencing the dependent variables’
new capabilities and learning, which explains the influence of other variables in activating
the dependent variables. Other significant transitive links are:
(1) management support influences employee involvement (Boudrias et al., 2009);
(2) communication and collaboration influence renewing technological capabilities and
learning (Philbin, 2015);
(3) rewards and recognition influence emotional intelligence and employee commitment
(Crocitto and Youssef, 2003);
(4) employee empowerment influences autonomy (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Menon and
Suresh, 2020); and
(5) Emotional intelligence influences employee commitment.
Understanding of the direct and significant transitive linkages can help institutions focus on
weak areas and facilitate the decision-making process of promoting agile workforce.

7. Managerial and social implications

The framework proposed in this study would help top management of engineering colleges
and universities adopt strategies that can facilitate faculty members’ agility. The structured
model has incorporated and prioritized all the crucial drivers and the significant transitive
links of workforce agility. Reformulating strategies, processes and practices by focusing on
variables with strong driving force can promote workforce agility in engineering institutions.
Changing demands of the employers have left engineering colleges rethinking on the courses/
programs offered and the use of alternative instructional methods for effective learning.
Engineering graduates apart from having domain knowledge and competency should also
have critical and analytical skills, creative and innovative skills, communication skills,
JARHE systems thinking, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary thinking, ability to work in cross-
cultural teams and a diverse and global mindset (Kamp, 2016). One of the biggest challenges
faced by engineering colleges is the lack of employability skills in students. Strengthening the
academia–industry relationship by collaborating with industry experts in developing
curriculum, visiting industries to understand the latest practices adopted by the industries,
joint faculty–student–industry collaboration on research projects and internship programs
(Debnath and Shankar, 2012) are some of the practices that can bridge the gap between
students’ skills and industry expectations.
Faculty members are the backbone of any institution and shoulder the responsibility of
producing globally competent future workforce. Equipping faculty members with new skills
and competencies is inevitable and needs to be prioritized. Engineering institutions need to
invest in training and development programs that leverage the potential of faculty members.
Faculty development programs that enhance teaching effectiveness, train faculty members to
design and develop entrepreneurial, interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary programs,
incorporate innovative instructional methods and learning activities (Kamp, 2016) that
promote collaborative and experiential learning (Valdivia, 2013) would enable faculty
members to blend technical knowledge, human factor and business acumen in balance
equipping students to meet the industry requirements. Realizing the importance of quality of
faculty members and the need to enhance their knowledge, AICTE (All India Council for
Technical Education) initiated and introduced the Quality Improvement Program (QIP) in
which faculty members from different engineering institutions are deputed to institutions like
IIT, Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and other renowned institutions to pursue MTech and
PhD (Biswas et al., 2010). A successful venture like this and more of such initiatives by the
policymakers, accreditation bodies and regulatory authorities that focus on improving the
quality of faculty members and a curriculum that prioritizes competence and collaboration
over compliance and competition, employability and marketability over syllabus and marks
and attitude and learning skills over aptitude and degree (Kamat, 2012) can be detrimental in
producing a globally competent workforce with the required employability skills.

8. Conclusion
For engineering educational institutions to stay competitive in this constantly changing
environment, investing in human capital has become imperative. A change in the educational
environment may require the upskilling of existing skills or the development of new skills
and competencies of faculty members. Management should adopt policies and practices that
leverage the potential of faculty members. Continuous training and development programs,
coupled with innovative human resource practices and strategies, can catalyze agility. These
practices can improve the cohesion between the management and the employees and
empower them to act flexibly and speedily when faced with unpredictable change.
The study has certain limitations. The study was restricted to small sample size. The
enablers of workforce agility in engineering institutions were validated using the TISM
approach at a fundamental level. This prelim qualitative validation can be further empirically
validated using statistical techniques like SEM. The study can be extended to other
disciplines to get a comprehensive picture of the enablers that can promote workforce agility
in higher education institutions.

References
Alavi, S., Abd.Wahab, D., Muhamad, N. and ArbabShirani, B. (2014), “Organic structure and
organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 21, pp. 6273-6295.
Al-Kurdi, O., El-Haddadeh, R. and Eldabi, T. (2018), “Knowledge sharing in higher education Enablers of
institutions: a systematic review”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 226-246. workforce
Almahamid, S. (2018), “Knowledge management processes and workforce agility: a theoretical
agility
perspective”, International Journal of Management and Applied Science, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 28-33.
Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N. and Braguinsky, S. (2012), “Startups by recent university graduates and
their faculty: implications for university entrepreneurship policy”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 663-677.
Bag, S. (2017), “Identification of green procurement drivers and their interrelationship using total
interpretive structural modelling”, Vision, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-142.
Berraies, S., Chaher, M. and Yahia, K.B. (2014), “Employee empowerment and its importance for trust,
innovation and organizational performance”, Business Management and Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 82-103.
Biswas, G., Chopra, K.L., Jha, C.S. and Singh, D.V. (2010), “Profile of engineering education in India:
status, concerns and recommendations”, Published by NK Mehra for Narosa Publishing House,
New Delhi, ISBN 978-81-8487-061-9.
Boudrias, J., Gaudreau, P., Savoie, A. and Morin, A.J.S. (2009), “Employee Empowerment: from
managerial practices to employees’ behavioral empowerment”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 625-638.
Boyce, M.E. (2003), “Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher
education”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 119-136.
Breu, K., Hemingway, C.J., Strathern, M. and Bridger, D. (2002), “Workforce agility: the new employee
strategy for the knowledge economy”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 21-31.
Bunton, T.E. (2017), Agility within Higher Education it Organizations: A Loosely Coupled Systems
Perspective, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Theses and Dissertations, Vol. 1451, available
at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/1451.
Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R. and &Sambamurthy, V. (2013), “Information technology competencies,
organizational agility, and firm performance: enabling and facilitating roles”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 976-997.
Chiang, C.F. and Jang, S. (2008), “The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment:
the case of Taiwan’s hotel companies”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 40-61.
Crocitto, M. and Youssef, M. (2003), “The human side of organizational agility”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 388-397.
Debnath, R.M. and Shankar, R. (2012), “Improving service quality in technical education: use of
interpretive structural modeling”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 387-407.
DeRue, D.S., Ashford, S.J. and Myers, C.G. (2012), “Learning agility: in search of conceptual clarity and
theoretical grounding”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 258-279.
Dhamdhere, S.N. (2015), “Importance of knowledge management in the higher educational institutes”,
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 162-183.
Dove, R. and Wills, D. (1996), Transforming Faculty into an Agile Workforce, To Improve the
Academy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 195-207.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Sushil and Singh, T. (2015), “Building theory of sustainable
manufacturing using total interpretive structural modelling”, International Journal of Systems
Science: Operations and Logistics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 231-247.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218.
JARHE Dusen, V. (2013), “Intellectual property and higher education: challenges”, Administrative Issues
Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 3.
Dyer, L. and Shafer, R.A. (1998), “From human resource strategy to organizational effectiveness:
lessons from research on organizational agility”, CAHRS Working Paper Series, No.
125, Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced
Human Resource Studies, Ithaca, NY, available at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/
cahrswp/125.
Dyer, L. and Shafer, R.A. (2003), “Dynamic organizations: achieving marketplace and organizational
agility with people”, CAHRS Working Paper Series, No. 27, Cornell University, School of
Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Ithaca, NY,
available at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/27/.
Elnaga, A. and Imran, A. (2013), “The effect of training on employee performance”, European Journal
of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 137-147.

del-Arco, I. and Silva, P. (2016), “The flipped classroom model at the university: analysis
Flores, O.,
based on professors’ and students’ assessment in the educational field”, International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 21.
Ford, R.C. and Randolph, W.A. (1992), “Cross-functional structures: a review and integration of matrix
organization and project management”, Journal of management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 267-294.
Friedman, H.H. and Friedman, L.W. (2018), “Does growing the number of academic departments
improve the quality of higher education?”, Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 96-114.
Furco, A. and Moely, B.E. (2012), “Using learning communities to build faculty support for
pedagogical innovation: a multi-campus study”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 128-153.
Gambhir, V., Wadhwa, N.C. and Grover, S. (2016), “Quality concerns in technical education in India: a
quantifiable quality enabled model”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 2-25.
Giesecke, J. and McNeil, B. (2004), Transitioning to the Learning Organization, Graduate School of
Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, In Library
Trends, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Gunsel, A., Siachou, E. and Acar, A.Z. (2011), “Knowledge management and learning capability to
enhance organizational innovativeness”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24,
pp. 880-888.
Habib, H. (2017), “A study of reflective practice and its role for teachers”, International Journal of
Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 944-947.
Hamed, S.S. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of employees empowerment”, Management
Review: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 64-94.
Hanaysha, J. (2016), “Examining the effects of employee empowerment, teamwork, and employee
training on organizational commitment”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 229,
pp. 298-306.
Hearn, W.M., Thomas, J.L. and Cobb, R. (2012), “University outreach programs: service to the
surrounding communities while developing faculty”, Research in Higher Education Journal,
Vol. 16, p. 1.
Hopp, W.J. and Oyen, M.P. (2004), “Agile workforce evaluation: a framework for cross-training and
coordination”, Iie Transactions, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 919-940.
Hosein, Z.Z. (2012), “The role of emotional intelligence on workforce agility in the workplace”,
International Journal of Psychological Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 48.
€
Howells, J.R., Karataş-Ozkan, M., Yavuz, Ç. and &Atiq, M. (2014), “University management and
organisational change: a dynamic institutional perspective”, Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 251-270.
Huumonen, J. (2011), “Conceptualizing agility of enterprises”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Enablers of
Manufacturing and Service Industries, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 132-146.
workforce
Jain, A., Sharma, R. and Ilavarasan, P.V. (2018), “Total interpretive structural modelling of innovation
measurement for Indian universities and higher academic technical institutions”, Flexibility in
agility
Resource Management, Springer, Singapore, pp. 29-53.
Johnson, L., Becker, S.A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. and Hall, C. (2016), “NMC horizon
report: 2016 higher education edition”, The New Media Consortium, NMC Horizon Report: 2016
Higher Education Edition, Austin, Texas, pp. 1-50, ISBN 978-0-9968527-5-3.
Kamat, V. (2012), “Agile manifesto in higher education”, 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference
on Technology for Education, IEEE, pp. 231-232.
Kamp, A. (2016), Engineering Education in the Rapidly Changing World: Rethinking the Vision for
Higher Engineering Education, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace
Engineering, ISBN 978-94-6186-609-7.
Kashiramka, S., Sagar, M., Dubey, A., Mehndiratta, A. and Sushil, S. (2019), “Critical success factors
for next generation technical education institutions”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-06-2018-0176.
Kathuria, R. and Partovi, F.Y. (1999), “Work force management practices for manufacturing
flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. and Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009), “Faculty and technology: implications for faculty
training and technology leadership”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 23-28.
Kim, T.Y., Cable, D.M., Kim, S.P. and Wang, J. (2009), “Emotional competence and work performance:
the mediating effect of proactivity and the moderating effect of job autonomy”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 983-1000.
Knott, G., Crane, L., Heslop, I. and Glass, B.D. (2015), “Training and support of sessional staff to
improve quality of teaching and learning at universities”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, Vol. 79 No. 5, p. 72.
Kramer, S. and Benson, S. (2013), “Changing faculty use of technology-one cohort at a time”, Journal of
Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 202-221.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012), “How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in
technology for teaching and learning?”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 247-254.
Lakshmi Priyadarsini, S. and Suresh, M. (2020), “Factors influencing the epidemiological
characteristics of pandemic COVID 19: a TISM approach”, International Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Lal, K. and Paul, S. (2018), “New educational technologies in tertiary education in India: adoption and
consequences”, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 2-14.
Luo, Z., Dubey, R., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B. and Roubaud, D. (2018), “Explaining environmental
sustainability in supply chains using graph theory”, Computational Economics, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 1257-1275.
McCully, M.S. and McDaniel, E.A. (2007), “College transformation through enabling agility”, Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 703-712.
Meng, Q. and Sun, F. (2019), “The impact of psychological empowerment on work engagement among
university faculty members in China”, Psychology Research and Behavior Management, Vol. 12,
p. 983.
Menon, S. and Suresh, M. (2019), “Total interpretive structural modelling: evolution and applications”,
International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application,
Springer, Cham, pp. 257-265.
JARHE Menon, S. and Suresh, M. (2020), “Organizational agility assessment for higher education institution”,
The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 561-573.
MHRD, G. (2016), “National policy on education 2016: report of the committee for evolution of the new
education policy”, Government of India, Vol. 30 No. 04, p. 2016.
Mittal, R.K., Garg, N. and Yadav, S.K. (2018), “Quality assessment framework for educational
institutions in technical education: a literature survey”, On the Horizon, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 270-280.
Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M. and Murray, A. (2004), “Applying knowledge management principles to
enhance cross-functional team performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 127-142.
Montes, F.J.L., Moreno, A.R. and Morales, V.G. (2005), “Influence of support leadership and teamwork
cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination”,
Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1159-1172.
Muduli, A. (2016), “Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: an empirical study”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 1567-1586.
Muduli, A. (2017), “Workforce agility: examining the role of organizational practices and
psychological empowerment”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 46-56.
Muduli, A. and Pandya, G. (2018), “Psychological empowerment and workforce agility”, Psychological
Studies, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 276-285.
Mukerjee, S. (2014), “Agility: a crucial capability for universities in times of disruptive change and
innovation”, The Australian Universities’ Review, Vol. 56 No. 1, p. 56.
National Science Board (2018), 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, available at: https://www.nsf.
gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf.
Ndungu, D.N. (2017), “The effects of rewards and recognition on employee performance in public
educational institutions: a case of kenyatta university, Kenya”, Global Journal of Management
and Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 43-68.
Ngoc, P.T.B. and Huy, T.Q. (2016), “Organizational learning in higher education institutions: a case
study of A public university in Vietnam”, Journal of Economics and Development (JED), Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 88-104.
Nijhof, W.J., de Jong, M.J. and Beukhof, G. (1998), “Employee commitment in changing organizations:
an exploration”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 243-248.
Nijssen, M. and Paauwe, J. (2012), “HRM in turbulent times: how to achieve organizational agility?”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 16, pp. 3315-3335.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Olson, E.E. and Eoyang, G.H. (2001), Facilitating Organization Change, Lessons from, Complexity
Science, Wiley Publisher, ISBN:978-0-787-95330-0.
Owusu, Y.A. (1999), “Importance of employee involvement in world-class agile management systems”,
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-115.
Patil, M. and Suresh, M. (2019), “Modelling the enablers of workforce agility in IoT projects: a TISM
approach”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 157-175.
Patil, Y.B., Shibin, K.T. and Prakash, A. (2018), “Conceptual frameworks for the drivers and barriers of
integrated sustainable solid waste management”, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal.
Patri, R. and Suresh, M. (2017), “Modelling the enablers of agile performance in healthcare
organization: a TISM approach”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 251-272.
Paulson, K. (2002), “Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings”, The Journal of Higher Education, Enablers of
Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 123-140.
workforce
Philbin, S.P. (2015), “Exploring the application of agile management practices to higher education
institutions”, Proceedings of the International Annual Conference of the American Society for
agility
Engineering Management, pp. 1-1.
Plonka, F.E. (1997), “Developing a lean and agile work force”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing and Service Industries, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-20.
Prasad, S., Shankar, R., Gupta, R. and Roy, S. (2018), “A TISM modeling of critical success factors of
blockchain based cloud services”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 434-456.
Qin, R. and Nembhard, D.A. (2015), “Workforce agility in operations management”, Surveys in
Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 55-69.
Reilly, J.R., Vandenhouten, C., Gallagher-Lepak, S. and Ralston-Berg, P. (2012), “Faculty development
for e-learning: a multi-campus community of practice (COP) approach”, Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 99-110.
Rogers, D.L. (2000), “A paradigm shift: technology integration for higher education in the new
millennium”, AACE Journal, Vol. 1 No. 13, pp. 19-33.
Romeu, T., Guitert, M. and Sangr
a, A. (2016), “Teacher collaboration network in Higher Education:
reflective visions from praxis”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 53
No. 6, pp. 592-604.
Sahin, D.R., Çubuk, D. and Uslu, T. (2014), “The effect of organizational support, transformational
leadership, personnel empowerment, work engagement, performance and demographical
variables on the factors of psychological capital”, Emerging Markets Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, p. 1.
Sandeepa, S. and Chand, M. (2018), “Analysis of flexibility factors in sustainable supply chain using
total interpretive structural modeling (T-ISM) technique”, Uncertain Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Sandhu, M.S., Jain, K.K. and &bte Ahmad, I.U.K. (2011), “Knowledge sharing among public sector
employees: evidence from Malaysia”, International Journal of Public Sector Management.
Sehgal, N. and Nasim, S. (2018), “Total Interpretive Structural Modelling of predictors for graduate
employability for the information technology sector”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-based
Learning, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 495-510.
Seonghee, K. and Boryung, J. (2008), “An analysis of faculty perceptions: attitudes toward knowledge
sharing and collaboration in an academic institution”, Library and Information Science
Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 282-290.
Shafer, R.A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J. and &Ericksen, J. (2001), “Crafting a human resource strategy
to foster organizational agility: a case study”, Human Resource Management: Published in
Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in
alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 197-211.
Sharma, S. and Arora, S. (2012), “Teaching with emotional intelligence in higher education”, Opinion:
International Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 52-57.
Sharma, P. and Pandher, J.S. (2018), “Quality of teachers in technical higher education institutions in
India”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 511-526.
Sherehiy, B. (2008), Relationships between Agility Strategy, Work Organization and Workforce Agility,
Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Louisville, UMI Number
3308333.
Sherehiy, B. and Karwowski, W. (2014), “The relationship between work organization and workforce
agility in small manufacturing enterprises”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 466-473.
JARHE Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), “A review of enterprise agility: concepts,
frameworks, and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 445-460.
Shibin, K.T., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Singh, M. and Wamba, S.F. (2016),
“Enablers and barriers of flexible green supply chain management: a total interpretive
structural modeling approach”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 171-188.
Shurville, S. and Browne, T. (2007), “Introduction: ICT-driven change in higher education: learning
from e-learning”, Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 245-250.
Sindhwani, R. and Malhotra, V. (2017), “A framework to enhance agile manufacturing system: a total
interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 467-487.
Singh, M.D. and Kant, R. (2008), “Knowledge management barriers: an interpretive structural
modeling approach”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 141-150.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Sumukadas, N. and Sawhney, R. (2004), “Workforce agility through employee involvement”, IIE
Transactions, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1011-1021.
Suofi, H., Hosnavi, M. and Mirsepasi, N. (2014), “A study on relationship between workforce agility
and knowledge sharing”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 1015-1020.
Suresh, M., Ganesh, S. and Raman, R. (2019), “Modelling the factors of agility of humanitarian
operations”, International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 108-123.
Suresh, M., Mahadevan, G. and Abhishek, R.D. (2019), “Modelling the factors influencing the service
quality in supermarkets”, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 1474-1486.
Sushil, S. (2012), “Interpreting the interpretive structural model”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-106.
Sushil (2018), “How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models?”, Annals of Operations
Research, Vol. 270 Nos 1-2, pp. 473-487.
Sushil (2018), “Incorporating polarity of relationships in ISM and TISM for theory building in
information and organization management”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 43, pp. 38-51.
Tan, C.N.L. (2016), “Enhancing knowledge sharing and research collaboration among academics: the
role of knowledge management”, Higher Education, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 525-556.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an “interpretive”
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-681.
Thornhill, A., Lewis, P. and Saunders, M.N. (1996), “The role of employee communication in achieving
commitment and quality in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 12-20.
Tolf, S., Nystr€om, M.E., Tishelman, C., Brommels, M. and Hansson, J. (2015), “Agile, a guiding
principle for health care improvement?”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 468-493.
Vaishnavi, V. and Suresh, M. (2020), “Modelling of readiness factors for the implementation of Lean
Six Sigma in healthcare organizations”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 597-633, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2017-0146.
Vaishnavi, V., Suresh, M. and Dutta, P. (2019a), “A study on the influence of factors associated with Enablers of
organizational readiness for change in healthcare organizations using TISM”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1290-1313. workforce
Vaishnavi, V., Suresh, M. and Dutta, P. (2019b), “Modelling the readiness factors for agility in
agility
healthcare organization: a TISM approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 2372-2400.
Valdivia, W.D. (2013), University Start-Ups: Critical For Improving Technology Transfer, Center for
Technology Innovation at Brookings, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Veisi, H. (2010), “Organizational learning in the higher education institutions (a case study of
agricultural and natural recourses campus of university of Tehran)”, International Online
Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
€ (2017), “Organizational learning of higher education institutions: the case
Voolaid, K. and Ehrlich, U.
of Estonia”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 340-354.
Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 301-326.
Yang, J.T. (2007), “The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 83-90.
Yang, S.B. and Choi, S.O. (2009), “Employee empowerment and team performance”, Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 289-301.
Yasir, M. and Majid, A. (2017), “Nexus of knowledge-management enablers, trust and knowledge-
sharing in research universities”, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 424-438.
Yeravdekar, S. and Behl, A. (2017), “Benchmarking model for management education in India: a total
interpretive structural modeling approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 666-693.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 496-513.
JARHE Appendix

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,5,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1 1
2 2,5,8 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 2,5,8 I
3 2,3,4,5,6,8,9 3,6,7 3,6
4 2,4,5,8 3,4,6,7,9 4
5 2,5,8 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 2,5,8 I
6 2,3,4,5,6,8,9 3,6,7 3,6
7 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 7 7
8 2,5,8 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 2,5,8 I
9 2,4,5,8,9 3,6,7,9 9
10 2,5,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,10 10
11 2,5,8,11,14,15 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 11,14,15
12 2,5,8,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,10,12 12
13 2,5,8,11,13,14,15,16 1,10,12,13,16 13,16
Table A1. 14 2,5,8,11,14,15 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 11,14,15
Iteration 1 level 15 2,5,8,11,14,15 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 11,14,15
partition matrix 16 2,5,8,11,13,14,15,16 1,10,12,13,16 13,16

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1 1
3 3,4,6,9 3,6,7 3,6
4 4 3,4,6,7,9 4 II
6 3,4,6,9 3,6,7 3,6
7 3,4,6,7,9 7 7
9 4,9 3,6,7,9 9
10 10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,10 10
11 11,14,15 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 11,14,15 II
12 11,12,13,14,15,16 1,10,12 12
13 11,13,14,15,16 1,10,12,13,16 13,16
Table A2. 14 11,14,15 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 11,14,15 II
Iteration 2 level 15 11,14,15 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 11,14,15 II
partition matrix 16 11,13,14,15,16 1,10,12,13,16 13,16

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,10,12,13,16 1 1
3 3,6,9 3,6,7 3,6
6 3,6,9 3,6,7 3,6
7 3,6,7,9 7 7
9 9 3,6,7,9 9 III
10 10,12,13,16 1,10 10
Table A3. 12 12,13,16 1,10,12 12
Iteration 3 level 13 13,16 1,10,12,13,16 13,16 III
partition matrix 16 13,16 1,10,12,13,16 13,16 III
 Enablers of
workforce
agility
Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,10,12 1 1
3 3,6 3,6,7 3,6 IV
6 3,6 3,6,7 3,6 IV
7 3,6,7 7 7 Table A4.
10 10,12 1,10 10 Iteration 4 level
12 12 1,10,12 12 IV partition matrix

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,10 1 1 Table A5.

7 7 7 7 V Iteration 5 level
10 10 1,10 10 V partition matrix

Enablers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level Table A6.
Iteration 6 level
1 1 1 1 VI partition matrix

Respondents Principal:1
Professors: 4
Associate professors: 5
Assistant professors: 17 Table A7.
Experience 6–35 years Profile of respondents
Age 29–57 years for workforce agility in
Engineering Mechanical, computer science, electronics and communication, civil, electrical and technical higher
disciplines computer applications education

About the authors

Shalini Menon is a Research Scholar at Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,
Coimbatore, India. She holds a master’s degree in Business Administration from Bharathiyar
University, India. Her field of study is agility in higher education. Her research interests include agile
systems, sustainability, service operations. She is currently working on agility and sustainability in
higher education.
M. Suresh is an Associate Professor at Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,
Coimbatore, India. He holds a PhD in Project Management from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay,
JARHE India, and Master’s in Industrial Engineering from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. His
research interests include issues related to lean and agile operations and performance management. He
has authored several papers in operations management and currently working on lean and agile
healthcare operations management. He is also a member of International Society on Multiple Criteria
Decision Making. M. Suresh is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: m_suresh@cb.
amrita.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com