DOI: 10.1002/joe.

21800

F E AT U R E

Workforce agility: Examining the role of organizational

practices and psychological empowerment

Ashutosh Muduli

Despite broad recognition of the importance of agility in the workforce, little re-
search has been conducted on the organizational characteristics and initiatives that
engender it. Rooted in organizational and cognitive theory, a study of 524 employees
in India’s manufacturing and service sectors proposes that workforce agility is the re-
sult of specific organizational practices and psychological empowerment. Contribut-
ing to both management theory and practice, the findings show that an environment
that encourages teamwork has the most influence in promoting agility, followed by
programs that address reward systems, employee involvement, organizational learn-
ing and training, and information systems. In addition, the study found that agility
is fostered by the psychological empowerment variable of impact, followed by self-
determination, meaning, and competence.

1  |   IN T RO D U C T ION 2009; Sherehiy & Karwowski, 2014). Research on agility

For decades, business leaders and researchers have been grap-
pling with unpredictable, dynamic, and constantly changing
environments (Sherehiy, Waldemar, & Layer, 2007). The
economic turmoil resulting from the financial crisis of 2008
only intensified these challenges, leaving managers strug-
gling to cope with unpredictable changes in their organiza-
tional environment (Nijssen & Paauwe, 2012). Increasingly,
organizational leaders are incorporating agility into their
enterprise-wide strategies for responding to their competitive
and evolving business environment.
An agile organization, of course, requires an agile work-
force (Breu, Hemingway, & Bridger, 2002; Muduli, 2013).
Recent research shows that manufacturing flexibility depends
much more on people than on technologies and the ability of
workers at various levels to communicate effectively (Upton,
1995). In a survey of workforce agility, Beatty (2005)
observed that agile workforce management allows companies
to achieve their goals through innovation, enhances strategic
capabilities, and can reduce structural workforce expenses on
both a fixed and contingent basis.
There is an absence of systematic studies on the concept
of workforce agility, however (Gunasekaran, 1999; Muduli,
has mainly focused on the operational perspectives of speed
and flexibility (Muduli, 2013). Little attention has been
devoted to identifying the organizational characteristics that
are conducive to the agile employee performance (Sherehiy
& Karwowski, 2014). When pinpointing the organizational
practices that can promote workforce agility, the literature
is largely limited to untested prescriptions (Alavi, Wahab,
Muhamad, & Behrooz, 2014; Muduli, 2013; Sumukadas &
Sawhney, 2004).
Employee cognition can either support or distort agile
attitudes and behavior. Psychological empowerment in the
form of intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy can produce
proactive, adaptive, and resilience behavior among workers,
thereby promoting workforce agility. When individuals feel
empowered, proactive behavior, such as flexibility, resilience,
and persistence ensues (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). It has
been suggested that intrinsically oriented people have little
trouble accepting failures because they view failures as natu-
ral occurrences en route to solutions.
In addition to empowerment, autonomy in decision-
making is another key to making the workforce truly agile
(Kidd, 1994; Van Oyen, Gel, & Hopp, 2001). Decentralized
decision-making among largely autonomous organization

46 © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 2017;36(5):46–56.
MUDULI
members will facilitate the speedy coordination and action
that are essential to workforce agility (Gunasekaran, 1998).
Psychological empowerment in the form of
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy can
produce proactive, adaptive, and resilience
behavior among workers, thereby promoting
workforce agility.
2  |   L E V E R AG ING T R A ITS TO
PRO M OT E AG IL IT Y
Developing an agile workforce requires an understand-
ing of the organization’s basic characteristics (Alavi et al.,
2014; Sherehiy, 2008). Managers must then leverage the
organizational practices that facilitate agility. At the same
time, they must bear in mind that employee empowerment
has been recognized as a facilitator of proactive behavior,
such as flexibility, resilience, and persistence (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990).
2.1  |  Organizational practices and
workforce agility
There is no single definition of workforce agility. While some
researchers have defined it from an ability perspective, oth-
ers have defined it from the perspective of the attitudes or
behaviors demonstrated by or required of workers in a vola-
tile global business environment.
From the ability perspective, workforce agility has been
described as the ability to properly respond to change in
timely fashion and to exploit the benefits of change (Kidd,
1994). In a similar vein, others have defined agile workers as
having a broad vision and being capable of taking advantage
of turbulent marketplace conditions, such as shifting cus-
tomer preferences (Zhang & Sharifi, 2000).
In terms of attitude, Plonka (1997) observed that agile
workers are inclined toward learning and self-development,
good problem-solvers, comfortable with change and new
concepts and technologies, able to come up with innovative
ideas, and ever ready to take on new responsibilities. As for
behavior, Dyer and Shafer (2003) defined workforce agility
in terms of being proactive, adaptive, and generative.
• Proactive behavior—searching for opportunities to con-
tribute to organizational success and taking the lead in
pursuing opportunities that appear promising —entails
two abilities: initiating and improvising.
47
• Adaptive behaviors require the assumption of multiple
roles to perform in different capacities across levels. In
adaptive environments, employees often move from one
role to another very quickly. Adaptive employees simul-
taneously learn in multiple competency areas and get
educated by actively sharing information and knowledge.
• Generative behaviors require employees to simultane-
ously learn multiple competencies areas and actively
share information and knowledge (Sherehiy, 2008).
Sherehiy and Karwowski (2014) grouped the behavior of
agile workforce into the following three dimensions.
• Proactive behavior includes anticipating problems
related to change and initiating activities that lead to a
solution of those problems and to overall improvements
in work.
• Adaptive behavior requires professional flexibility,
which is the ability to take on multiple responsibilities,
shift easily from one role to another, and work simulta-
neously on different tasks in different teams.
• Resilient behavior includes a positive attitude regarding
changes, new ideas, and technology; tolerance of uncer-
tain and unexpected situations, differences in opinions,
and approaches; and tolerance to stressful situations and
coping with stress.
Organizational practices can influence workforce agil-
ity. Specifically, an organization’s culture, methods of col-
laboration, information systems, and other competencies
can determine its level of agility (Chonko & Jones, 2005).
According to Beatty (2005, p. 3), an agile environment is
one “where skills are valued over jobs, where cross-sector
collaboration is encouraged, where not all functions and
processes need to be ‘owned,’ and where data becomes
business intelligence that can drive decision making.” Key
HR programs, such as selection, induction, training, per-
formance management, promotion, and rewards and recog-
nition, also have an effect (Shafer, Dyer, Kilty, Amos, &
Ericksen, 2001), and researchers have examined the extent
to which supportive HR practices, such as performance
appraisal and job enrichment influence employee flexibility
(Martin & Roca-Puig, 2013).
According to a study by Bersin & Associates (2014), bal-
ancing future and current needs in HR staffing, investing in
improving the performance of the HR group, continuous eval-
uation of HR’s customer service, and reducing the layers of
authority within HR can contribute to agility. Organizational
learning and an organic structure characterized by decentral-
ized decision-making, low formalization, and a flat structure
also can promote workforce agility (Alavi et al., 2014). For
Sherehiy and Karwowski (2014), employee autonomy is one
of the most important determinants of workforce agility.
48
2.1.1  |  Organizational learning and
training
Agility cannot be achieved without leveraging employees’
knowledge and skills (Hopp & Van Oyen, 2004; Plonka,
1997). The most agile workers capitalize on their skills by
proactively innovating just ahead of need (Yusuf, Sarhadi,
& Gunasekaran, 1999). Cross-training has been shown to be
a powerful strategy for ensuring workforce agility (Hopp &
Van Oyen, 2004), and a study in the repair and maintenance
environment reiterated the crucial role of training in work-
force agility (Iravani & Krishnamurthy, 2007). Firms that
want to become agile should also train workers in the use of
technology (Gunasekaran, 1999).
Organizational learning and an organic
structure characterized by decentralized deci-
sion-making, low formalization, and a flat
structure also can promote workforce agility.
Effective training requires that the organization nurture
and develop a learning environment in which employees are
encouraged to be open and innovative in seeking new ideas.
Such a climate facilitates the acquisition of knowledge and
skills, thereby enhancing strategic flexibility and the ability
to adapt and to respond to changes in the market and work
environments (Alavi et al., 2014). Organizations that are
committed to learning develop employees and managers who
can manage and cope with changes. These individuals are
more comfortable in assuming new and proactive behaviors
(Gunasekaran, 2001).
2.1.2  |  Reward systems
Nontraditional rewards, such as skill-based pay systems,
improvement-based incentives, and nonmonetary rewards,
have been shown to be more effective in promoting work-
force agility than traditional compensation practices, such as
profit-sharing, gainsharing, and employee stock options plans
(Sumukadas & Sawhney, 2004). For example, in a skill-
based pay system, employees are rewarded for the number
and depth of skills acquired, which is consistent with ensur-
ing workforce agility.
2.1.3  |  Employee involvement
While studying the contribution of employee involve-
ment practices to workforce agility, Sumukadas and Sawh-
ney (2004) showed that high-order employee involvement
practices (such as job enrichment, job enlargement, and
MUDULI
self-managed teams) are more effective in promoting work-
force agility than low-order employee involvement practices
(such as quality circles, quality of work life programs, and
suggestion systems). The researchers also observed that
although low-order employee involvement practices have the
potential to directly promote workforce agility, they serve pri-
marily as a foundation for it; only high-order practices built
on top of that groundwork lead to workforce agility. Hopp
and Van Oyen (2004) concluded that power-sharing practices
offer the greatest potential to support the workforce agility
architecture by making training, multitasking, and collabora-
tion more efficient. Sherehiy and Karwowski (2014) found
that employee autonomy is one of the most important deter-
minants of workforce agility.
2.1.4  | Teamwork
Found to promote workforce agility, an organizational focus
on teamwork entails attention to the internal, external, intra-
group, and cross-functional team working environments
(Breu et al., 2001). The synergy generated from cross-sector
collaboration can help organizations in the timely comple-
tion of projects. An effective and congenial team environ-
ment provides workers with the accurate, comprehensive,
and meaningful business intelligence with which they can
make informed business decisions.
2.1.5  |  Information systems
Efficient information systems (IS) are fundamental to pro-
moting operational speed and flexibility among the work-
force. By providing access to timely information related
to customer, accounting, business performance, and
management, organizational leaders may help employees
feel more informed and ready to be flexible and collabo-
rate. Various communications and mobile technologies,
including computer-aided technology and group decision
support systems, can be used to support and enhance an
organization’s operational speed and flexibility (Yusuf
et al., 1999).
Given these findings, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
Hypothesis 1a Organizational learning and
training as organizational practices are positively
and significantly related to workforce agility.
Hypothesis 1b Reward systems as organiza-
tional practices are positively and significantly
related to workforce agility.
Hypothesis 1c Employee involvement as an
organizational practice is positively and sig-
nificantly related to workforce agility.
MUDULI
Hypothesis 1d  Teamwork as an organizational
practice is positively and significantly related to
workforce agility.
Hypothesis 1e Information systems as an
organizational practice are positively and sig-
nificantly related to workforce agility.
2.2  |  Psychological empowerment and
workforce agility
The psychological approach to empowerment defines it as “an
individual’s experience of intrinsic motivation that is based on
cognitions about him- or herself in relation to his or her work
role” (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1444). Thomas and Velthouse (1990)
defined psychological empowerment more broadly as increased
intrinsic task motivation manifested in four cognitions that
reflect an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: mean-
ingfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact.
• Meaningfulness refers to the value of the task goal or
purpose, judged in relation to the individual’s own ide-
als or standards (Thomas & Velthhouse, 1990). Low
degrees of meaningfulness are believed to result in apa-
thy and detachment from significant events. High levels
of meaningfulness result in commitment, involvement,
and concentration of energy.
• Competence, or self-efficacy, is an individual’s belief
in his or her capability to mobilize the motivation, cog-
nitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet
a given situational demand (Muchinsky, 2006). A low
level of self-efficacy leads people to avoid situations
that require the application of relevant skills (Bandura,
1977). This avoidance behavior, in turn, prevents indi-
viduals from confronting fears, building competencies,
and improving competence. In contrast, a high level of
self-efficacy tends to result in initiating behaviors, a high
degree of effort, and persistence in the face of obstacles.
• Self-determination is represented by behaviors that are
initiated and regulated through choices as an expression
of oneself, rather than behaviors that are forced by the
environment. Self-determination reflects autonomy in
the initiation and continuation of work behaviors and
processes, such as making decisions about work meth-
ods, pace, and effort (Bell & Staw, 1989).
• Impact is the degree to which an individual can influence
strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work
(Ashforth, 1989). Impact refers to the degree to which
behavior produce intended effects in one’s task environ-
ment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
Psychological empowerment as an employee cognition
can promote workforce agility. In the form of intrinsic moti-
vation and self-efficacy, it can produce proactive, adaptive,
49
and resilient workforce behavior. Research has shown that
the degree of intrinsic reward orientation among salespeo-
ple is related to their motivation to practice adaptive selling
(Weitz, Sujan, & Sujan, 1986). That is, intrinsically oriented
salespeople are likely to be motivated to learn more about
selling by varying their behavior from customer to cus-
tomer in an attempt to adapt effectively to customer needs.
In addition, intrinsically oriented people have little trouble
accepting failures because they view them as natural occur-
rences en route to solutions (Condry & Chambers, 1978).
When individuals feel empowered, proactive behavior, such
as flexibility, resilience, and persistence, ensues (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990).
Empowerment and autonomy in decision-making are seen
to be key in making the workforce truly agile (Kidd, 1994;
Van Oyen, Gel, & Hopp, 2001). Decentralized decision-
making among largely autonomous organization members
fosters speedy coordination and action (Gunasekaran, 1998).
In studying the contribution of employee involvement prac-
tices to workforce agility, Sumukadas and Sawhney (2004)
observed that only high-power practices, such as job enrich-
ment, job enlargement, and self-managed teams, contribute
to workforce agility. Higher-order employee involvement
practices have also been found to support plant flexibility.
Moreover, power-sharing practices offer the greatest poten-
tial for supporting workforce agility by improving efficien-
cies of training, switching, multitasking, and collaboration
(Kathuria & Partovi, 1999).
2.2.1  |  Meaningful tasks
High levels of meaningfulness result in high levels of com-
mitment and involvement and prepare workers for speed
and flexibility (Sjoberg, Olsson, & Salay, 1983). Agility is
directly related to intrinsically motivated and satisfied peo-
ple. Management attention to various elements of job design
(such as job enlargement, enrichment, and rotation), perfor-
mance management systems, employee counseling, and feed-
back helps ensure agility via the alignment of workers’ goals,
beliefs, values, and behavior.
2.2.2  | Competency
Agile workers capitalize on skills by proactive innovation
ahead of need (Yusuf et al., 1999). Indeed, some research-
ers recognize workforce agility as synonymous with cross-
training (Hopp & Van Oyen, 2003). Employees can perform
a flexible range of tasks only if they have the necessary
skill sets. Certainly, cross-training and job rotation can help
workers adapt better to new jobs. Managerial actions like
competency assessment, training, and development serve to
enhance the competency level of the workforce.
50
2.2.3  | Self-determination
A strong sense of self-determination prepares workers to
immediately respond to unexpected customer requests
(Chonko & Jones, 2005). Further, self-determination presup-
poses intelligence. This concerns the collective environmen-
tal responsiveness of a workforce in terms of its ability to
read and interpret external change (for example, customer
needs, market conditions, emerging business opportunities,
and competitor strategies), adjust objectives accordingly, and
act speedily in line with shifting strategic direction.
2.2.4  | Impact
Defined as the degree to which an individual can influence
strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work,
impact can influence workforce agility (Ashforth, 1989). A
study of the characteristics of agile salespeople found that
workers’ willingness to collaborate across project, functional,
and organizational boundaries increased when they felt that
they had an influence on the work environment (Chonko &
Jones, 2005).
Moreover, power-sharing practices offer the
greatest potential for supporting workforce
agility by improving efficiencies of training,
switching, multitasking, and collaboration.
In accordance with the factors outlined above, the follow-
ing hypothesized relationships between workforce agility and
empowerment are proposed:
Hypothesis 2 Empowerment is significantly
related to workforce agility.
Hypothesis 2a  Meaningfulness is significantly
related to workforce agility.
Hypothesis 2b Competence is significantly
related to workforce agility.
Hypothesis 2c Self-determination is signifi-
cantly related to workforce agility.
Hypothesis 2d  Impact is significantly related
to workforce agility.
3  |  T E STING T H E H Y P OT H E SES
To test these hypotheses, a survey instrument was designed
that included 20 items to assess organizational practices, 12
items concerning psychological empowerment, and 7 items
on workforce agility.
MUDULI
Organizational practices refer to managerial practices
capable of promoting workforce agility. The 20 items included
in the organizational practices assessment were divided into
five subscales: organizational learning and training, com-
pensation, involvement, teamwork, and information system.
Respondents are asked to share their experiences regarding
the extent to which their organization facilitates each of these
by using a 3-point rating scale (1 = never, 2 = sometimes,
3 = very often). A sample item from the scale is: “My orga-
nization encourages and facilitates learning and training to
enhance our adaptability and flexibility in the changing busi-
ness environment.”
Psychological empowerment was measured by “an indi-
vidual’s experience of intrinsic motivation based on cogni-
tions about him- or herself in relation to his or her work role”
through a 12-item scale having four subscales: meaning,
competence, impact, and self-determination. The 12-item
psychological empowerment scale (Spreitzer, 1995) was
divided into four subscales: meaning, competence, impact,
and self-determination. Here, too, participants were asked to
use a 3-point rating system (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = neither
agree nor or disagree, 3 = strongly agree). Items included:
“The work I do is very important to me” (meaning); “I am
confident about my ability to do my job” (competence); “I
have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job”
(self-determination); and “My impact on what happens in my
department is large” (impact).
Workforce agility was measured through respondents’
self-assessment of their agility attributes, attitude, and
behavior in terms of seven subscale items: adaptability, flex-
ibility, development, collaboration, competence, speed, and
informative, which is the ability to take personal interest in
collecting information. Each of these was rated on a 3-point
scale (1 = low, 2 = medium, and 3 = high). A sample item
from the scale is: “I am flexible to quickly change from task
to task, job to job, and place to place”.
3.1  | Sampling
A total of 640 questionnaires were distributed to executives
and nonexecutives working in public and private sector enter-
prises in various manufacturing and service sectors of India.
Of these, 524 responses were returned (see Exhibit 1).
Controlling for sector type, which may also influence
workforce agility, the researcher coded responses from the
E X HI B I T 1  Distribution of sample respondents
Distribution of
Sector Questionnaires Total Respondents
Manufacturing 152 (23.8%) 142 (41.3%)
Service 488 (76.2%) 382 (58.7%)
TOTAL 640 524
MUDULI 51

manufacturing sector as 1, and those from the service sector
as 2.
Principal component factor analysis was applied to con-
dense the collected data into certain factors. Exhibit 2 presents
the results of factor loadings for the measurements of orga-
nizational practices, psychological empowerment, and work-
force agility. Of the 39 items, 36 had significantly high loading
scores (higher than .6). Only items I-1, TW-5, and IS-3 did not.
The content validity of the questionnaire was ensured
through expert comments from industry and academia, and a
pilot study was conducted in 40 Indian firms (20 manufactur-
ers and 20 service firms) to test for any construct weaknesses
and for weaknesses in the research design (Collis & Hussey,
2003). The convergent validity was measured through factor
analysis (Park, Robertson, & Wu, 2006; Parasuraman, Berry
& Zeithaml, 1991), which was performed on all 39 items.

EXH IB IT 2   Principal component factor analysis

Organizational Practices
Organizational learning and training (OLT)
OLT-1 My organization encourages and facilitates learning and training to enhance my adaptability and flexibility in the changing .63
business environment.
OLT-2 My organization systematically lays out individuals’ training requirements. .67
OLT-3 My organizational culture does not make employee learning a top priority. .74
Reward system (RS)
RS-1 My organization’s reward system encourages us to acquire and demonstrate agility attributes and behavior. .72
RS-2 My organization promotes skill-based pay systems. .78
RS-3 My organization encourages people through improvement-based incentives. .69
RS-4 My organization has adopted nonmonetary rewards. .71
Involvement (I)
I-1 My organization involves us in higher-level decision-making, including goal setting, work procedures, and other important .47
areas of responsibility.
I-2 Management in my organization encourages input and feedback from employees, especially on decisions that affect employee .68
services and well-being.
I-3 Employees in my organization are encouraged to involve in decision-making .74
I-4 Employees in my organization are given opportunities to be involved in decision-making. .75
Teamwork (TW)
TW-1 My organization encourages me to work in teams. .73
TW-2 My organization promotes internal teamwork. .74
TW-3 My organization encourages external teamwork. .69
TW-4 My organization promotes intragroup teamwork. .78
TW-5 My organization encourages cross-functional teamwork. .49
Information sharing (IS)
IS-1 My organization shares information on the company’s overall operating results, the business unit’s operating results, new .67
technologies that may affect employees, business plans/goals, and competitors’ relative performance.
IS-2 My organization encourages frequent organizational conversation that keeps alive the lessons learned from history. .78
IS-3 My organization promotes specific mechanisms for sharing lessons learned in organizational activities from department to .34
department (unit to unit, team to team).
IS-4 Top management repeatedly emphasizes the importance of knowledge sharing in my organization. .76
Psychological Empowerment (PE)
PE-1 The work I do is very important to me. .77
PE-2 My job activities are personally meaningful to me. .62
PE-3 The work I do is meaningful to me. .61
PE-4 I am confident about my ability to do my job. .69
PE-5 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities. .80
PE-6 I have mastered the skill necessary to perform my job. .71
(Continues)
52 MUDULI

EXH IB IT 2   (Continued)
PE-7 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job. .61
PE-8 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work. .70
PE-9 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job. .75
PE-10 My impact on what happens in my department is large. .73
PE-11 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department. .65
PE-12 I have significant influence over what happens in my department. .72
Workforce Agility (WA)
WA-1 I am comfortable with change, new ideas, and new technologies in my organization. .69
WA-2 I am flexible to quickly change from task to task, job to job, and place to place. .78
WA-3 I map my skills, benchmark for skill assessment, and develop skills. .81
WA-4 I am comfortable with cross-functional project teams, collaborative ventures with other companies, or with a virtual .64
organization.
WA-5 I am tech-savvy and have knowledge in advanced manufacturing technologies, IT skills, use of mobile technologies, etc. .78
WA-6 I quickly develop skills, adjust to new environments, and collect information. .67
WA-7 I take personal interest in collecting information about my organization and other related organizations. .64

Cronbach’s α test was applied to the research variables
of organizational practices, psychological empowerment,
and workforce agility to judge reliability. The results—.703,
.625, and .714, respectively—meet the minimum acceptable
level ranging from .60 to .80 (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Sala-
nova, 2006). Exhibit 3 outlines the results of the reliability
analysis.
3.2  |  Results of the analysis
To assess the data, descriptive analysis, canonical correla-
tion analysis, and multiple regression analysis were used on
a standardized data set with SPSS version 19.0. Correlation
analysis was done to investigate the relationship between orga-
nizational practices and workforce agility and psychological
empowerment and workforce agility. As shown in Exhibit 4,
both organizational practices and psychological empowerment
were found to be significantly related to workforce agility.
Thus, the proposed hypotheses that organizational practices
(hypothesis 1) and psychological empowerment (hypothesis 2)
would be positively related to workforce agility are accepted.
This means that organizational practices and psychological
empowerment can have a significant positive effect on the
agile attributes and behavior of the workforce.
Multivariate regression analysis (see Exhibit 5) was done
to test the influence of organizational practices (organizational
learning and training, compensation, involvement, teamwork,
EXH IB IT 3   Reliability analysis
Constructs Cronbach’s α
Organizational practices .703
Psychological empowerment .625
Workforce agility .714
and information systems) and psychological empowerment
variables on workforce agility. As shown in Model 1 and
Model 2, the adjusted R2 of organizational practices and
psychological empowerment are .380 and .231, respectively,
indicating that the model has a good explanatory level. The
β value indicates the magnitude of effect of organizational
practices and psychological empowerment variables on
workforce agility (hypotheses 1.a to 1.e and hypotheses 2.a.
to 2.d.). When it comes to organizational practices, teamwork
(β = .440) was found to be the most influential parameter, fol-
lowed by compensation (β = .436), involvement (β = .390),
training (β = .221), and information systems (β = .196). In
terms of psychological empowerment, the impact (β = .547)
variable was found to be the most influential, followed by
self-determination (β = .289), meaning (β = .223), and com-
petence (β = .148). As shown in Exhibit 5, the control vari-
able (sector type) does not have any significant impact on
workforce agility (β = .012; R2 = .018, F = .566, p < .05).
4  |   STUDY POINTS TO
FACILITATORS OF AGILIT Y
The results of this study showed that organizational practices
explained 38% of variance in workforce agility. This supports
previous research that has suggested that organizational prac-
tices can act as facilitator of agile ability and behavior. The
study results also align with cognitive process theories that
suggest that employees’ intensity of effort depends on man-
agement’s efforts to foster motivation. Therefore, employees’
inclination to acquire agile skills and indulge in agile behav-
ior depends on organizational practices, such as learning and
training, compensation, involvement, teamwork, and infor-
mation systems.
MUDULI 53

EXH IB IT 4   Correlations for scale variables

1 Workforce agility 1
2 Psychological empowerment .568(*) 1
3 Organizational learning and training .148(*) .308(*) 1
4 Compensation .293(**) .217(**) .503(**) 1
5 Involvement .513(**) .378(*) –.028 .016 1
6 Teamwork .460(**) .440(**) .160(*) –.069 .394(**) 1
7 Information systems .295(**) .178(*) .483(**) .534(**) –.138(*) –.193(**)
Note: **Correlation is significant at .01 level. *Correlation is significant at .05 level.

EXH IB IT 5   Regression results for organizational practices and practices, the present study found that information sharing
psychological empowerment (β = .196) had little direct or indirect impact on workforce
Variables Model 1 β Model 2 β
agility. This suggests that while information sharing is a basic
factor in promoting workforce agility, it alone is sufficient to
do so.
Training .221 (**)
Regarding psychological empowerment and workforce
Compensation .436 (*)
agility, the results of the present study support previous
Involvement .390 (**) findings and suggest that psychological empowerment is as
Teamwork .440 (**) an important employee cognition that facilitates workforce
Information systems .196 (*) agility. The analysis of the effect of various psychological
Impact .547 (**) empowerment variables on workforce agility shows that
Self-determination .289 (*) impact promotes workforce agility (β = .547). Therefore,
Meaning .223 (**) when individuals feel that they can influence the strategic,
administrative, or operating outcomes at work, they are more
Competence .148 (**)
likely to be agile.
Sector Type .012
As in earlier research (Moller, Ryan, & Deci, 2006), self-
R 2
.380 .231 .018
determination also was found to be strongly related with
F 311.703(**) 282.823 (**) .566(*) workforce agility (β =.289). In other words, employees with
Notes: Dependent variable: workforce agility. a strong sense of self-determination tend to be intrinsically
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. motivated to proactively contribute to the organization and to
be flexible. The result agrees with the organismic perspective,
In particular, this study showed that organizational team- which holds that humans are inherently motivated to develop
work promotes workforce agility (β = .440), a finding that their interests and skills and work toward their fullest poten-
is consistent with earlier research (Alavi et al., 2014; Breu tial when they are intrinsically motivated—that is, when they
et al., 2002; Shafer et al., 2001). Compensation (β = .436), enjoy or are particularly interested in an activity (Angyal,
as well as employee involvement practices (β = .390), also 1941). When engaged in an activity, self-determined
were found to be strongly related with workforce agility. individuals may view their behavior as self-initiated rather
These results are consistent with the notion that power- than as instigated in response to an external inducement
sharing practices offer the greatest potential to support the (Dholakia, 2006).
workforce agility architecture by improving efficiencies of Also as in previous studies, a high level of meaningful-
training, switching, multi-tasking, and collaboration (Hopp ness was found to be strongly related with speed and flex-
& Van Oyen, 2004). ibility among workers (Sjoberg, Olsson, & Salay, 1983).
The results of this study are also consistent with previous Surprisingly, however, the competency dimension, which
research that showed that human capital-enhancing practices previous studies have identified as a key dimension of
foster certain characteristics that resemble those of an agile agility (Yusuf et al., 1999), was found to be less related
workforce (Youndt, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). Organizational to workforce agility (β = .148). It is important to point out
learning and training also were found to promote workforce that research has shown that managerial attention to areas
agility (β = .221). Consistent with the work of Alavi et al. such as training and development, cross-training, and job
(2014), the study results showed that an organizational envi- rotation can enhance workers’ competency and ultimately
ronment of skill acquisition and development can enhance the contribute to an agile environment (Sumukadas & Sawhney,
capability of workforce. Finally, in terms of organizational 2004).
54
4.1  |  Managerial implications
Knowing that organizational practices can facilitate work-
force agility, managers would be well advised to design and
effectively implement suitable policies and practices con-
cerning learning and training, reward systems, employee
involvement, teamwork, and information system. Specifi-
cally, practitioners should promote a culture of organizational
learning and training that encourages agile behavior (Muduli,
2015). For example, they could adopt a system that focuses
on cross-training, which engenders flexibility. According to
Hopp and Van Oyen (2004), such a system could entail:
• Training workers by skill type. For example, welders
could be trained to perform assembly tasks.
• Managing entities. For instance, customer service rep-
resentatives could be trained to handle all the needs of a
particular group of clients, from initial inquiry onward.
• Certifying workers to operate various resources in the
system. An example would be training pilots to fly more
than one type of aircraft.
Since cross-training can play an important role in sup-
porting organizational goals, it is important for decision-
makers to align training initiatives with the organization’s
overall strategy to ensure an effective and efficient fit. Par-
ticular attention should be paid to promoting a working
environment that encourages autonomous action, including
the development of a clear vision, goals, work procedures,
and areas of responsibility that promote agility. Further-
more, practitioners might consider improving collaborative
efficiency by measuring how grouping workers on tasks
improves productivity.
Regarding psychological empowerment and
workforce agility, the results of the present
study support previous findings and suggest
that psychological empowerment is as an
important employee cognition that facilitates
workforce agility.
To further promote workforce agility, managers can
leverage their organization’s reward system by focusing on
performance-based rather than fixed pay. Traditional pay
systems—for example, those that stress seniority—may not
suit the imperatives of competitive strategies because they
reward employees regardless of any initiatives they may
take, thereby potentially discouraging workers from being
adaptable and flexible. Thus, managers may want to explore
individual-based, group-based, and companywide incentive
MUDULI
programs. The leaders of teams that share work should con-
sider incentive systems that reward individuals at least partly
in accordance with their team performance in addition to
individual performance (Sumukadas & Sawhney, 2004).
To respond to the emergent information-sharing and col-
laboration requirements of an agile workforce, managers also
need to ensure flexible IT infrastructures to support the rapid
introduction of new systems. Novel technologies need to be
deployed to technological connect workers, thereby improv-
ing their ability to collaborate, share knowledge, and access
corporate information resources (Breu et al., 2002).
The study findings from the psychological empowerment
perspective also have important managerial implications.
They suggest that managers should seek to both understand
and create a work environment that fosters employee empow-
erment. In particular, they should develop an appropriate
work context suitable to promoting the psychological feeling
of impact among employees. For instance, equitable reward
systems and practices that encourage team accountability,
autonomy across boundaries, and flexibility ought to be con-
sidered (Muduli, 2008).
Furthermore, managers should investigate any con-
ditions that can undermine intrinsic motivation, such as
performance-contingent rewards, time pressures, threat of
punishment, and certain types of competition. In addition,
managerial initiatives to improve competency assessment,
training and development, cross-training, and job rotation
can enhance workers’ competency level, leading to agility.
Managerial concerns regarding the delegation of authority,
however, should also be considered when developing pro-
grams to empower employees (Lyons, 2016). For example,
if managers do not trust their employees’ technical or com-
munication skills or their ability to follow-through and inter-
act effectively with others, they will tend to be reluctant to
delegate tasks to their teams. If managers feel that they ulti-
mately will be held accountable for poor employee perfor-
mance, they may be hesitant to empower them beyond the
basic parameters of their jobs.
To respond to the emergent information-
sharing and collaboration requirements of
an agile workforce, managers also need to
ensure flexible IT infrastructures to support
the rapid introduction of new systems.
Given the limitation of the sample size, it may not be
possible to generalize the findings of this study in a global
context. Nonetheless, they offer direction for designing both
future research and organizational practices focused on
understanding and promoting workforce agility.
MUDULI
REFERENCES
Alavi, S., Wahab, D. A., Muhamad, N., & Behrooz, A. S. (2014).
Organic structure and organizational learning as the main ante-
cedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production
Research, 52(21), 6273–6295.
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York:
Common Wealth Fund.
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organiza-
tions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
43(2) 207–242.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav-
ioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Beatty, R. (2005). Workforce agility: The new frontier for competitive
advantage. New York: Price Waterhouse Coopers, LLP.
Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture.
In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook
of career theory (pp. 232–251). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Bersin & Associates. (2014). Enabling HR agility. http://www.bersin.
com/News/Details.aspx?id=15618.
Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., & Bridger, D. M. S. (2002). Workforce
agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy.
Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), 21–31.
Chonko, B. L., & Jones, E. (2005). The need for speed: Agility selling.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25(4), 371–382.
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research (2nd ed.). Basing-
stoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dholakia, U. M. (2006). How customer self-determination influences
relational marketing outcomes: Evidence from longitudinal field
studies. Journal of Marketing Research, XLIII, 109–120
Dyer, L. & Shafer, R. (2003). Dynamic organizations: Achieving market
place and organizational agility with people. In: R. S. Peterson &
E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Leading and managing people in the dynamic
organization. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Gunasekaran, A. (1998). Agile manufacturing: Enablers and an
implementation framework. International Journal of Production
Research, 36(5), 1223–1247.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for
research and development. International Journal of Production
Economics. 62(1), 87–105.
Gunasekaran, A. (2001). Agile manufacturing: The 21st century com-
petitive strategy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hopp, W. J., & Van Oyen, M. P. (2003). Agile workforce evaluation:
A framework for cross training and coordination. Working paper.
Evans, IL: IEMS Department of Northeastern University.
Hopp, W. J., &Van Oyen, M. P. (2004). Agile workforce evaluation:
A framework for cross-training and coordination. IIE Transactions,
36(10), 919–940.
Iravani, S. M., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2007). Workforce agility in repair
and maintenance environments. Manufacturing & Service Opera-
tions Management, 9(2), 168–184.
Martin, I. B., & Roca-Puig, V. (2013). Promoting employee flexibil-
ity through HR Practices. Human Resource Management, 52(5),
645–674.
Kathuria, R., & Partovi, F.Y. (1999). Work force management practices
for manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management,
18(1), 21–39.
Kidd, P. T. (1994). Agile manufacturing: Forging new frontiers. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
55
Lyons, P. R. (2016). Making the case for manager delegation of
authority. Human Resource Management International Digest,
24(5), 1–3
Moller, A. C., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-determination
theory and public policy: Improving the quality of consumer deci-
sions without using coercion. American Marketing Association,
25(1), 104–116
Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work: An introduc-
tion to industrial and organizational psychology. Delhi: Thomson
Cengage Learning.
Muduli, A. (2008). Exploring the determinants of empowerment cli-
mate in Indian industry. Management and Labour Studies, 33(3),
354–372.
Muduli, A. (2009). Understanding the critical attributes of workforce
agility and exploring its determinants: An empirical study. Man-
power Journal, XLIV(3), 25–48.
Muduli, A. (2013). Workforce agility: A review of literature. The IUP
Journal of Management Research, 12(3), 55–65.
Muduli, A. (2015). High performance work system, HRD climate and
organizational performance: An empirical study. European Journal
of Training and Development, 39(3). 239–257
Nijssen, M., & Paauwe, J. (2012). HRM in turbulent times: How to
achieve organizational agility? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23(16), 3315–3335.
Park, J. W., Robertson, R., & Wu, C. L. (2006). Modelling the impact of
airline service quality and marketing variables on passengers’ future
behavioural intentions. Transportation Planning and Technology,
29(5), 359–381.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement
and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,
67(4), 420–450.
Plonka, F. S. (1997). Developing a lean and agile work force. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 7(1), 11–20.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The mea-
surement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-
national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4),
701–716.
Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Craft-
ing a human resource strategy to foster organizational agility: A case
study. Human Resource Management, 40(3), 197–211.
Sherehiy, B. (2008). Relationships between agility strategy, work orga-
nization and workforce agility. Lexington, KY: ProQuest.
Sherehiy, B., & Karwowski, W. (2014). The relationship between work
organization and workforce agility in small manufacturing enter-
prises. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(3),
466–473.
Sherehiy, B., Waldemar, K. & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise
agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. Department of Indus-
trial Engineering, Center for Industrial Ergonomics, Louisville, KY:
University of Louisville.
Sjoberg, L., Olsson, G., & Salay, F. (1983). Cathectic orientation,
goal setting and mood. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(3),
307–313.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Social structural characteristics of psycho-
logical empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2),
483–504.
Sumukadas, N., & Sawhney, R. (2004). Workforce agility through
employee involvement. IIE Transactions, 36(10), 1011–1021
Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of
empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–81.
56 MUDULI

Upton, D. M. (1995). What really makes factories flexible? Harvard Petroleum Management, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum Uni-
Business Review, July-August, 74–84. versity in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. He has more than 21
Van Oyen, M. P., Gel, E. G. S., & Hopp, W. J. (2001). Performance years of teaching, research, and industry experience and has
opportunity for workforce agility in collaborative and noncollabora-
published several empirical and conceptual research papers in
tive work system, IIE Transactions, 33(9), 761–777.
Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation,
peer-reviewed journals in the areas of empowerment, work-
and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effective- force agility, strategic human resource management, learning
ness. The Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 174–191. methodology, and high-performance management practices.
Youndt, M. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource He can be reached at ashuhrm@gmail.com.
management, Strategy, and firm performance, Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39(4), 836–866.
Yusuf, Y., Sarhadi, M. & Gunasekaran, A. (1999), Agile manufactur-
ing: The drivers, concepts and attributes. International Journal of
Production Economics, 62(1–2), 33–43.
Zhang, Z., & Sharifi, H. (2000). A methodology for achieving agility in
manufacturing organizations. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, 20(4), 496–513.
How to cite this article: Muduli A. Workforce agility:
Examining the role of organizational practices and psy-
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY chological empowerment. Global Business and Orga-
nizational Excellence. 2017;36:46–56. https://doi.org/
Ashutosh Muduli, PhD, is an associate professor of human 10.1002/joe.21800
resources and organizational behavior at the School of