The New World of Work a SLAP story
how a new business practice called the new world of work is adoptedin different organization structures
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
January 20, 2012
JOHN PHILLIP ROO, MSc Student number 1761064
Marten Oostwoudstraat 9, 8801 GB Franeker, The Netherlands Phone: +316-10254110
E-mail: john.p.roo@gmail.com
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Master Human Resource Management
Supervisor:
Dr. P.H. (Peter) van der Meer
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT 2
TABLE OF CONTENT 3
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. THE NEW WORLD OF WORK 6
2.1. The focus on telework within TNWoW 6
2.2. Defining the scope of TNWoW 7
2.3. TNWoW and managerial style 7
2.4. Impact of TNWoW on work 9
3. TNWOW AS A STRATEGIC ENDEAVOUR 11
3.1. The SLAP model 11
3.1.1. Why the SLAP model 11
3.1.2. STEC variables 13
3.2. TNWoW in organizations 15
4. METHODOLOGY 17
4.1. Procedure and participants 17
4.2. Measurements 18
4.3. Data Analyses 19
5. RESULTS 20
5.1. Selected organization characteristics 20
5.2. Structure 20
5.3. Technology 21
5.4. Environment 23
5.5. Culture 24
5.6. Human Resource Policy 25
6. DISCUSSION 27
6.1. Findings 27
6.1.1. Theoretical findings 27
6.1.2. Empirical findings 28
6.2. Practical implementation 30
6.3. Limitations and further research 31
REFERENCES 32
APPENDIX A: Mintzberg’s environmental components 36
APPENDIX B: Background information of the organizations 37
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays in the Netherlands a substantial amount of publicity is given to the new business practice called The New World of Work1. The theory behind The New World of Work (TNWoW) is not new. It comprises of well established theories developed by many different authors. According to practitioners that have written about this subject important aspects of TNWoW are the “Learning Organization” and “Telework” (Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010). Although these two aspects are not new, implementing these theories on a large scale lacked top management support. It was by Bill Gates’ Whitepaper (2005) that the current development is gaining more terrain in the Netherlands. In his document Bill Gates states that the current way of working is no longer sufficient.
“We are evolving toward a diverse yet unified global market, with customers, partners and suppliers that work together across cultures and continents. The global workforce is always on and always connected, requiring new tools to help people organize and prioritise their work and personal lives.” (Gates, 2005: 1)
Through technology organizations have more information at their disposal (Gates, 2005; McLean, 2006; Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010). It is the organization’s choice to use this information by developing ways for dealing with increasing amounts of data, or to neglect the information. Both are choices taken at a strategic level and must be taken in order to prevent a potential information overload. In this thesis the focus will be on the first strategic choice. The strategic choice, making use of information instead of cutting oneself of from the information, is supported by several scholars that believe developing ways for dealing with increasing amounts of data will enhance the organization’s competitive advantage (Karimi and Konsynski, 1991; Mclean, 2006; Lee, Huang, Barnes, and Kao, 2010). In this research paper TNWoW is characterized as a way to deal with increased amounts of data, in which it is defined as “a vision to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and enjoyability of work for the organization as well as the employee” (Bijl, 2009: 29).
As stated, TNWoW receives an enormous amount of publicity. This publicity increases the tendency to see TNWoW as a panacea for every organization. However, can TNWoW be implemented in every organization? Are there boundaries in applying TNWoW to different organization structures? Hence, it is important to acknowledge how organizations are organized and how this affects the adoption of TNWoW. Since, analysing organizational structures is the first step in acquiring information about how organizations are organized, organization structure is used to classify distinctive organizations.
The purpose of this research paper is to investigate if TNWoW can be institutionalised in every organization. Meaning that this paper will analyse how TNWoW is imbedded in the organization after the initial implementation phase. Including the focus on organization structure creates the following research question:
To what degree do organization structures have an effect on the institutionalisation of TNWoW?
1
In my research I use three organization structures that can be evenly positioned on the mechanic and organic continuum of Durkheim (1893). These three organizational structures are; the functional structure, the matrix structure, and the network structure. I assume that in the continuum mechanic can be linked to functional structures, organic towards network structures, and the part in the middle of the continuum can be characterized as matrix structures (See for corroborating research findings Bourgeois, Mcallister and Mitchell, 1978; Covin, Slevin and Schultz, 1994; Cummings and Worley, 2005).
It is important to acknowledge that an organization structure is not the only thing that influences how the organization is operating. The operations are heavily influenced by numerous aspects like; procedures, human resource strategy, environment, culture, but also the degree of available technology that is used and how it is used. In order to account for several of these aspects this thesis uses the STEC variables2 (Bax, 2006). The variables can be used to analyse if the organization is mechanic or organic. Moreover, through applying the Strategic Labour Allocation Process (SLAP) model3
(Bax, 2006), I provide a tool to analyse the synergism between the organization and the environment.
In order to answer the research question six organizations have been analysed. These organizations have implemented TNWoW or were strongly motivated to introduce TNWoW in their organization. Through a qualitative research approach all six organizations provided information that could be applied to the STEC variables. Moreover, through obtaining information about the organization’s human resource policy, a strategic analysis is made using the SLAP model.
With the analysis of six organizations in which I make use of the SLAP model, I strive to create some level of generalization. Hence, making TNWoW more transcendental. Classifying the six organizations within the three organization structures is the first step. After this, corroborating information about the remaining STEC variables are extracted from the interviews. From the interviews, detailed information about the experiences of implementing TNWoW contrive the barriers and successes of TNWoW in each organization. These barriers and successes are then extrapolated from a case study perspective and applied to one of the classified organization structures.
The content of this research paper comprises out of five additional chapters. First, I will explore the concept of TNWoW; focusing on telework, setting the scope of TNWoW, and addressing organizational implications. In chapter three TNWoW is discussed as being a strategic choice; introducing the SLAP model, STEC variables, and applying TNWoW to organizations. The fourth chapter discusses the methodology; the qualitative approach is elaborated and characteristics about the interviewed organizations are provided. The fifth chapter depicts the results, in which I use the HR and STEC variables as a structure to present the results. Finally, the sixth chapter discusses the results and provides an answer to the propositions and eventually the research question.
2
The original variables of Bax (2006) are the TOCS variables, however, through the translation from Dutch to English the ‘O’ of Omgeving is translated in the ‘E’ of Environment. Furthermore, this research paper emphasizes the variable structure therefore the ‘S’ of ‘Structure’ is the first letter of the abbreviation.
3
2. THE NEW WORLD OF WORK
Literature of TNWoW prescribe three pillars that formulate the foundation of TNWoW. These are; people, technology, and work environment (Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010; Haterd, 2010). These pillars can be linked with certain organizational departments; people to Human Resource department, technology to ICT department, the work environment to the facility department. Although the separation of these three pillars might be handy when implementing TNWoW, it can have a restricting effect on strategic decision making. The latter statement is based on the strong interconnection of these three pillars, on a strategic level all pillars should be included in one comprehensive strategy. This thesis will not focus on the separate pillars but on the entire concept.
Moreover, before one can adopt TNWoW within an organization one should have a clear understanding about what is considered to be TNWoW. Is it only a way to solve a specific business problem? For example; finding a balance between family and work life, saving valuable time through avoiding traffic jams, providing an overall cost reduction by minimizing office space. Or is TNWoW a strategic endeavour that strives for alignment between business practices and the organization’s environment? In this chapter I explore the aspects of TNWoW. Emphasis is placed on the focus and scope of TNWoW and how TNWoW affects the managerial style and impacts work.
2.1. The focus on telework within TNWoW
As stated in the introduction the primary factors in TNWoW are telework and creating a learning organization. However in this thesis, only the factor telework of TNWoW is explored. There are several reasons for departing the factor learning organization. First, when both aspects are compared from a literary standpoint these two aspects provide minor similarity. “Teleworking is the organization of work by using information and communication technologies in order to enable managers and employees to get access to their labour activities from remote locations” (Pérez, Sánchez, Carnicer, and Jiménez, 2005: 95). “A learning organization is an organization where everyone is involved in identifying and solving problems, enabling the organization to continuously experiment, improve, and increase its capability” (Cummings and Worley, 2005: 665). Since the definitions of both concepts are strikingly different, discussing them within one study could make the research obscure.
Since both factors are highly distinctive, one could see creating a learning organization as a second phase within TNWoW. Perhaps this is the reason why in several case studies the emphasis lies on teleworking instead of teleworking and creating a learning organization (Haterd, 2010; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010).
2.2. Defining the scope of TNWoW
An important aspect in defining the scope of TNWoW is that it prescribes a certain philosophy behind telework. TNWoW philosophy focuses on employee centred employment, which is based on a human relations view. “A human relations focus favours telework as a flexible work option that will increase moral commitment and ultimately productivity” (Daniels, Lamond, and Standen, 2000: 37). It applies the statement that “there is greater production, and hence profit, when workers are satisfied with their jobs” (Schwab and Cummings, 1976: 409). In practice this means that when organizations adopt TNWoW their policies are aimed to maximize value of human resources; creating greater job satisfaction, better working conditions, better balance between family and work, and reducing employee travel.
There are several reasons for implementing a more general style of telework. A widely adopted one is direct business need or cost reduction (Daniels et al., 2000). These two ideas focus on a rational goal model that is control oriented, which is different from the human relations focus within telework how it is adopted in TNWoW. Thus, although there are different reasons why organizations implement telework, telework in which it is used within TNWoW only associates teleworking with the focus on human relations.
Another important aspect in defining the scope of TNWoW is based on determining ways of work that are considered to be a form of telework. In literature the term telework is widely used. Some scholars are referring to home based telework, other refer to teleworking from remote offices or mobile telework (Daniels et al., 2000). In this thesis I define telework as having no fixed work station, but a wide range of work arrangements. This definition is based on prior work of Taskin and Bridoux (2010) combined with Wilks and Billsberry (2007). The role of the organization is to facilitate this flexibility in work arrangements.
2.3. TNWoW and managerial style
Telework literature associates teleworking with a new way of working, characterized by flexibility and autonomy (Manoochehri and Pinkerton, 2003; Kowalski and Swanson, 2005). Superfluously, these two factors are also of high importance within TNWoW (Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010). When managers are used to physically observing their employees work, they need to change their management style in order to contribute to the success of telework. When changing their management style, three interconnected aspects are of high importance.
The increase in costs consists out of the expansion of manager’s time and more monitoring technology. Hence, committing to a dialogue that is based on trust is more efficient and less expensive. The same is true for telework as it is applied in TNWoW. Haterd (2010) states that with TNWoW the employee does not have to earn trust, trust lies within the foundation of the relationship between supervisor and employee. An employee can deteriorate the trustfulness in this relationship by not upholding their end of the agreement, for example, a certain output. Such practices positively stimulate the employee’s self reliance through creating more responsibility for the employee.
The second aspect is about the importance of aligning the expectations and values between the employee and the organization. In the literature this is mentioned as person-organization fit (Chatman, 1989; Levesque, 2005). This type of fitness starts with the selection of the employee and continues throughout the entire employee’s employment at the organization. Many scholars have found positive effects when there is a high person-organization fit, for example; greater job satisfaction, increase in organization commitment, and higher interpersonal trust (Chatman, 1991; Vancouver and Schmitt, 1991; O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991). According to Daniels et al. (2000) a high level in person-organization fit result in teleworkers acting in organizationally approved ways. When the values between the employee and the organization are congruent, the values will shape the behaviour of the employees that are beneficial for the organization. The employer and employee are considered as partners, instead of two entities that have conflicting objectives as described in the principal agent literature (Hölmstrom, 1979; Herath and Rao, 2010). Emphasizing shared objectives instead of conflicting objectives supports a trustful relationship. This is facilitated by a managerial style that is interactive and team oriented (Li, 2006).
Secondly, the same is true for functions that are heavily influenced by external factors. If the employee receives a reward or penalty for an output that could not been influenced by the employee, the employer should not only pay attention to the output aspect but should emphasize on the aspects dialogue and trust. If there is dialogue and trust the employee can tell the employer how or why a certain output is not achieved.
Thirdly, not all employees have the same level of productivity. Employees deviate from each other in the sense that one employee needs to put less effort into work in order to reach a certain output than an other employee. Again, building a relationship of dialogue and trust between employer and employee is a way to resolve such an issue.
As discussed in the beginning of this paragraph telework is largely associated with flexibility and autonomy. It is prerequisite that managers engage into a managerial style that facilitates higher amounts of flexibility and autonomy. According to Daniels et al. (2000) this managerial style is already adopted by today’s modern manager, which focuses on participative decision making. Such a managerial style will be able to cope with changes that are made as TNWoW is implemented within the work design, as will be discussed in the next paragraph.
2.4. Impact of TNWoW on work
This paragraph explores the changes in work when TNWoW is adopted throughout the organization. I divide work into three aspects; work design, work patterns, and the actual work activities. There are two important influencing factors embodied in TNWoW that affect these aspects; the philosophy behind TNWoW and ICT developments. The impact of these factors are discussed within each aspect.
on personal and work outcomes. Since an in-depth discussion about the model is beyond this thesis, I will only discus the connection between the two influencing factors affecting the core job dimensions. As already discussed TNWoW philosophy enhances autonomy and flexibility (Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010). An increase in flexibility, which not only focuses on the location where the employee works but also on the sequence of performed tasks, can increase skill variety, task identity, and task significance (Jha, 2004). Moreover, through facilitating a dialogue between employer and employee the core job dimension “feedback” is supported. Together with higher levels of autonomy this creates job enrichment. Eventually job enrichment increases the core job dimensions, which will lead to higher personal and work outcomes (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Stone, 1976; Jha, 2004; Elanain, 2009).
Moreover, ICT developments, can facilitate the organization in its ability to give more autonomy to the employee (Daniels et al.,2000). “Technologies can fundamentally affect the nature of labour, as well as affecting social and interpersonal relationships” (Hoogervorst, Koopman, and Flier, 2002: 1246). ICT can help employees in cross functionally aligning their activities, which decreases the necessity of top down control.
Second, when TNWoW is implemented work patterns can change from activities organized around one fixed location towards many different locations (Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010). ICT performs a facilitating role in order to make these changes in work patterns possible. Depending on the current status of work patterns, the willingness of the organization to change these work patterns, and the possibilities that ICT can facilitate TNWoW philosophy can be implemented. Organizations can use Perlow’s methodology to clarify work activities. Perlow (1999) divides work into four categories; individual activities, interactive activities, social activities, and personal affairs. When implementing TNWoW the organization gives more freedom to the employee in arranging these four categories. TNWoW supports this classification process by managing on output.
However, increasing the autonomy about the work patterns puts pressure on the teleworker (Daniel et al.,2000). The teleworker might not be competent or have the discipline to effectively manage his or her work patterns autonomously, which leads to the inability to deliver a certain output. Therefore, when adopting TNWoW, management needs to facilitate the teleworker with training or coaching sessions where this is needed (Daniels et al.,2000; Bijl, 2009; Haterd, 2010; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010).
Third, the work activities are also influenced through TNWoW philosophy and ICT developments. In this aspect the two factors can be interpreted as the “will” to change (TNWoW philosophy) and the “way” to change (ICT developments). Restructuring work activities through using ICT can increase the ability to implement TNWoW. An example is changing from a paper intensive archive towards a digital storage system. Moreover, ICT supports asynchronous communication meaning that interaction among people does not require both to be present at the same time. Asynchronous communication allows the teleworker to access information when it is needed rather than having to react to large quantities of information simply because it is there (Pérez et al., 2005).
organization could consider not implementing TNWoW. Many scholars have stated that interactive and social activities need to be strongly supported by face-to-face communication, they are difficult to completely emulate (Carne, 1972; Galegher and Kraut, 1994; Taskin and Brideoux, 2010). However, work activities with an emphasis on these two factors may not automatically be ignored. Recent developments in groupware technologies have enhanced employees’ ability to stay connected for both work and social exchange (Hayne, Pendergast, and Greenberg, 1994; Watson, Narasimhan, and Rhee, 1998; Daniels et al., 2000; Annetta and Shymansky, 2006; Caballé, Lapedriza, Masip, Xhafa, and Abraham, 2009). Management needs to seriously consider technological developments in their decision about implementing TNWoW.
3. TNWoW as a strategic endeavour
As discussed in the in the introduction TNWoW is considered as a strategic choice. A choice that provides better opportunities for the organization to deal with the current dynamic environment (Bijl, 2009; Verbruggen-Letty and Thunnissen, 2010; Haterd, 2010). This environment is characterized as a complex, global and technologically advanced environment (Lau, Wong, Chan, and Law, 2001; Mclean, 2006; Lee, et al., 2010). “With the emergence of information technology, the environment is changing much faster than before. Organizations are facing not only the local fast-changing environment but also the turbulent global environment” (Lau et al., 2001: 267). TNWoW is a way to adapt swiftly to this fast changing environment by using novel technology in combination with providing more flexibility and autonomy to the workforce.
In this chapter the relationship between the environment and the organization is discussed using a model that emphasizes the importance of alignment. The model focuses on how the organization can improve its alignment with the labour market. Furthermore, the alignment between four organizational aspects and how the environment has its impact on these variables are discussed. Lastly, this chapter elaborates on the discrepancy that exists within the statements about using TNWoW in different organizations, characterized by specific organization structures.
3.1. The SLAP model 3.1.1. Why the SLAP model
The Strategic Labour Allocation Process (SLAP) model (Bax, 2006) is a descriptive model, it orders phenomena with similar characteristics in specific categories. This categorical model provides the ability to formulate constructed abstraction, which enhances the ability to implement TNWoW making it more easily applicable for organizations. Moreover, the SLAP model envisions the ability to change the organization as well as its surroundings. This makes the SLAP model one of few models that includes the possibility of changing the organization to adapt to its environment, instead of trying to change the environment to the organizational settings (i.e. increasing the skills, knowledge and competences of employees).
2006: 25). To provide an answer, one needs to manage human resources. This means that there needs to be an alignment between the demand of labour and the supply of labour. The demand of labour is constructed by the organization, the supply of labour is based on the labour market. Although the organization can influence both the demand as well as the supply of labour (Bax, 2006), this research paper focuses primarily on the demand of labour. I use the model to emphasize the potentiality of change within the manner of production, redesign of task and job descriptions. Such changes can be necessary because of changes within the environment as referred to in the introduction of this chapter. This focus is considered congruent with TNWoW. Furthermore, there is a relationship between the labour market and TNWoW in which TNWoW can increase the organization’s attractiveness for employees to work at the organization, because the organization is adopting a employee centred employment strategy.
Next to the division of labour, the SLAP model includes a grouped set of variables that provides internal consistency between several organizational aspects. These variables are Structure, Technology, Environment, and Culture, together they are abbreviated as the STEC variables. All variables have a reciprocal relationship with each other and are based on a continuum ranging from a mechanic regime towards an organic regime. Table 1 gives an overview of both ends of the continuum, representing the purest form of a mechanic and organic regime. How this continuum is related to the STEC variables will be discussed in the next paragraph.
3.1.2. STEC variables
The fist variable that will be discussed is “structure”. Since Bax (2006) does not provide a detailed description about the variety of organization structures and how each structure is imbedded in the model, the content of this variable is constructed by comparing definitions of several scholars. Through this comparison three organization structure came to emerge. The organization structure that is related mostly to the mechanic regime is the functional structure. It is one of the oldest organization structures, used since the mid 1800s. Characterizing features of this organization structure are the vertical hierarchical chain of command, the grouping of people into functions and departments, and the clear barriers between the organization and suppliers, customers, and competitors (Lucas and Baroudi, 1994; Anand and Daft, 2007).
The organization structure that comprises the middle of the mechanic- organic continuum is the matrix structure. The matrix structure is best suitable because it is adopted in organizations that tend towards mechanic regimes but can also incline organic regimes (Goold and Campbell, 2003; Anand and Daft, 2007). Although this organizational structure can be used within moderate mechanic regimes, this does not mean that the matrix structure is similar to the functional structure. It is different in the sense that it strengthens the relationship between the organization and its suppliers and customers (Anand and Daft, 2007). Moreover, this organization structure softens hierarchical and departmental internal boundaries that are restraining an effective business performance (Cummings and Worley, 2005; Buelens, Broeck, Van Den, Vanderheyden, Kreitner, and Kinicki, 2006; Anand and Daft, 2007).
in the past. Compared with classical organization structure, centralized and decentralized control merge as the firm focuses more on projects and processes than on standard procedures and tasks” (Lucas and Baroudi, 1994: 11). This ICT also contributes to the organizations’ ability to outsource, which makes the organization more efficient (Hagel and Singer, 2000; Labs, 2005). Moreover, the most advanced form of the network structure is the virtual organization, which creates a joint venture with competitors creating an organization specifically to respond to an exceptional market opportunity that is often temporary (Anand and Daft, 2007). The characteristics of an virtual organization, creating business ventures that respond to exceptional temporal market opportunities, can also be created within one organization through adopting an “holistic enterprise” (Ulieru and Unland, 2004).
The second variable that will be discussed is ‘Technology’. Bax (2006) uses the distinction between hardware, paperware and humanware of Laseur (1991). Hardware is considered to be the most visible. The hardware is used by the employee and consists out of user items or machines, for example; the personal computer, production robot, or telephone. Paperware are the rules, protocols, and procedures that prescribe the use of the hardware. Lastly, with humanware the employee is the one that decides how to use certain hardware. These employees are considered to be able to make the right decisions when it comes to using the hardware. Organizations with high levels of humanware are linked to a higher amount of autonomy compared to organizations that have a high level of paperware (Ramanathan,1994). In line with this reasoning, the mechanic regime consist primarily out of paperware and the organic regime beholds more humanware.
The third variable within the model of Bax (2006) is classified as ‘Environment’. Bax (2006) divides the environment in four components, which are acquired from Mintzberg’s work (1983). These four components are; stable versus dynamic, simple versus complex, integrated market versus diverse market, and gentle versus hostile environment (see appendix A for clarification of the components).
The fourth and final variable, culture, emphasizes the predictability of social connections between members of the organization that cooperate together. Organizations need to standardize behaviour in order to contain coordination problems. A coordination problem can be caused by hidden needs, goals, and agenda’s that members and groups within an organization have when they need to cooperate with each other (Bax, 2006). The behaviour of organizational members can be standardized through human resource policies (Aggarwal and Bhargava, 2009). Another important aspect within this variable is person-organization fit and is influenced by the socialization of employees in the organization. When the socialization phase of employees is long and intense, the necessity of external behavioural control decreases. On the other hand, if the socialization phase is short and shallow, behavioural control is essential (Bax, 2006).
characterized as a long and intense socialization phase. Table 2 provides an overview of the variables and their aspects.
Moreover, it is important to strive for synergy between the STEC variables (Bax, 2006; Zeng, Shi, and Lou, 2007). Norms and values need to be consistent with the structure of the organization. A hierarchical structured mechanical organization cannot function properly when the organizational culture focuses on individual responsibility and individual development. The other way around, an organic network structured organization is unlikely to exist when the culture is focused around obedience and detailed prescriptions about everyone’s responsibilities. The same is true for the other variables (Bax, 2006).
3.2. TNWoW in organizations
As stated in the introduction there is some discrepancy about which types of organizations are suitable for TNWoW. On the one hand, there are scholars that state TNWoW can be implemented in every organization. On the other hand, some scholars believe that TNWoW can only be implemented within organization that tend towards an organic regime.
The first group of scholars, those who believe TNWoW can be implemented within every organization, are convinced that implementing TNWoW and moving towards a network organization are two completely different things (Daniels et al., 2000; Hameeteman, Kuiken, and Vink, 2009; Haterd, 2010). “Teleworking is not exclusive to certain kinds of new work and certain kinds of new organizational structures” (Daniels et al., 2000: 28). In order to implement telework, organizations only need to change their human resource policies (Daniels et al., 2000; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010). Thus, TNWoW can be implemented in organizations where there is synergy between the human resource policies and telework.
I believe that this discrepancy between these two groups of scholars is worth investigating. Can TNWoW be best implemented in network organizations or can it be implemented in every organization? Since this question does not only involve organization structures but also the context in which organizations operate, the STEC variables of Bax’s SLAP model (2006) are used. Furthermore, in order to answer this question an analysis is made about the degree to which TNWoW can be implemented in every organization structure. My initial believe is that in order to implement the full form of TNWoW, as described in chapter 2, can only be obtained when adopting an organic organization structure. Therefore, I propose that the contribution of TNWoW within mechanical organizations characterized by a functional organization structure are minimal.
Proposition 1: The positive effects that are the result of implementing TNWoW within a mechanical organization, characterized by a functional structure, are minimal.
In which the positive effects are a higher degree of autonomy, better work life balance, higher productivity, and a higher level of job satisfaction. Moreover, to give more insight about the effect that TNWoW has on organizations I included two additional propositions. One is about the way that TNWoW is implemented in mechanical organizations versus organic organizations. I propose that during the institutionalization process different barriers try to inert the change process between mechanistic organizations and organic organizations. Therefore, it is important to discuss the different barriers that uphold the change process.
Proposition 2: Barriers encountered from institutionalizing TNWoW in mechanical organizations, characterized by a functional structure, originate from other organizational variables than barriers encountered in organic organizations, characterized by a network structure.
The last proposition is based on the evolution of organization structures. ICT played a substantial part in the development of organizations. Moreover, ICT represents one of the three pillars within TNWoW. Because of this prominent role of ICT I am curious if there are differences in adopting ICT technology within different organization structures. The third proposition is based on the assumption that there is a difference in ICT usage between mechanical and organic organizations when adopting TNWoW.
4. Methodology
This section will explain the methodology behind the research that needed to be conducted in order to find an answer to the research question. Through allowing the reader to acknowledge the methodology, future research can incorporate the findings of this study. This section contains the following topics: the procedure, the participants, measurements, and the analysis of the data.
4.1. Procedure and participants
The research contained a qualitative technique that was used for discussing several factors that affect the degree that TNWoW can be integrated in a mechanic organization structure compared to a organic organization structure. Through using exploratory theory building paradigm (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), views were gathered from managers who had firsthand experience with introducing TNWoW in their organization. I used semi-structured interviews, which provided an open framework that facilitated a two way communication dialogue (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). Through this technique it became possible to have in-depth discussions about sensitive information, which for example had to do with the organization’s failure to adopt TNWoW, the conflicting organization’s policies, or a destructive culture within the organization.
After asking the interviewee for permission, all interviews were recorded. The recordings were then transcribed into documents. Through recording the conversation no information is lost. This enables the participant to control whether the arguments were interpreted in the right way. This process strengthens the internal validity of the semi-structured interviews (Baarda and de Goede, 2006). The duration of the interviews ranged between 50 and 80 minutes. One of the interviews was held over the telephone because it was not possible to arrange a face to face meeting. However, having no non verbal cues deprives information that is gained through observation. This is the main reason why other interviews were face to face.
To enhance the validity of the research, two levels within the organizations were interviewed. Hence, the experiences of implementing TNWoW were measured on top managerial level where the organizational policies were developed and on the level of operational management. In order to get in contact with operational management, a snowball method of sampling was adopted (Singleton and Straits, 1999; Yeo and Marquardt, 2010). Top managerial level respondents were asked to recommend one or more subordinates. I wanted to interview at least two managers at each organization, one in top management and the other in operational management.
4.2. Measurements
As in the theoretical section, the empirical part of this thesis uses the SLAP model (Bax, 2006). Based on the STEC variables in the SLAP model, questions were developed around institutionalizing TNWoW. Next to the STEC variables, the interviews included question about HR policy. The answers on these questions gave the interviewer insight in how the organization tries to create balance between the demand and supply side of labour. It provided information about the organization’s interpretation of the SLAP model.
Structure: This measurement indicates how the organization is structured, hence, how the information flows through the organization (Aoki, 1986). The structure represents the formal communication and coordination patterns through the organization. Some organization structures facilitate more autonomy to operational management than others. In the interviews I explored this measurement by asking questions like: “How is information communicated within the organization?”, “Do all employees know what they contribute to the organization’s business goals?”, and “To what extend can employees coordinate their own tasks?”
Technology: This measurement is based on the typology of Laseur (1991). Through linking TNWoW with technology use classified as paperware or humanware, an analysis could be made about the difference in use of ICT. During the interviews this measurement was transformed in questions like: “How is the distribution of information within the organization supported by ICT?” and “How does ICT contribute to formalizing certain procedures and practises or how does ICT support autonomy?”
Environment: In this thesis I based “environment” on the typology of Mintzberg (1983). I first discussed the stability, complexity, hostility and predictability of the environment in which the organizations operates and how these aspects are related to the business strategy. The second step was to analyses how this environment affects the organization, more precisely, how it affected work. The type of work was discussed and categorized within the four categories of Perlow (1999). In the interviews the following questions were asked: “Did the type of work changed over the recent years?” and “How did this affect the composition of work patterns?”
Culture: The measurement ‘culture’ is about behavioural conformation (Bax, 2006). In case of TNWoW such behavioural conformation supports high levels of autonomy and an environment that does not fear open discussion. Questions that were used during the interviews are: “How did employees and managers react on higher amounts of autonomy?” and “Did TNWoW facilitate an open discussion about the duties and rights of employees?”
4.3. Data Analyses
The qualitative data analysis started with translating the recorded interviews in key documents. Within these key documents, data is analysed by using content analysis and evaluating the overall qualitative data for salient patterns, trends, and themes (Patton, 1980). The concepts that emerged from the data were than compared to the discussed literature in order to develop research issues, which are then used to develop theory (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In addition, the questions in the semi-structured interviews were categorized using codes based on the literature review. Through using this method it became clear what questions were related to which category, moreover, it made it easier to analyse the data and to find a relationship between data and literature (Boeije, 2004). I used a qualitative research programme Atlas.ti to analyse the coded data. The answers of the operational and managerial interviewees were compared and then linked to the theory discussed in the previous section. Based on the findings the result section was written.
5. Results
This section beholds the main findings from the interviews that were conducted at the six organizations, which have or wanted to adopt TNWoW within their organization. In order to remain transparent throughout this document the findings are categorized according to the variables of the SLAP model, hence the HR and STEC variables. For reasons of clarity, the propositions are listed within the discussion instead of being appointed in the result section. Before the variables of the SLAP model are discussed, the characteristics of the six interviewed organizations are highlighted.
5.1. Selected organization characteristics
As mentioned in the methodology, six organizations are categorized in three organizational structures; functional, matrix, and network. Each category contains two organizations. Because of privacy reasons the names of the organizations are not mentioned but are classified as organization A to F. Organization A and B are representing the functional organization structure, organization C and D the matrix organization structure, and organization E and F the network organization structure. This classification is based on the organizational chart together with other information about coordination and organizing within the organization. This information was extracted from the organization’s website (i.e. annual reports), conclusions of the categorization process were assessed during the interviews. In table 3 (see appendix B) each organization is briefly described, discussing; the product/service that is produced by the organization, the size of the organization (in full time equivalent), the sector in which the organization operates (private or public), why TNWoW was introduced, and what is implemented and considered as TNWoW.
5.2. Structure
surrounding two topics, namely communication and coordination. The findings of these topics are further addressed within each classified organization structure.
First, the findings extracted from interviews with functional organizations show that functional organizations communicate their information from a top-down angle. This top-down angle of communication provides information in great detail. However, this does not include information about the business goals. In both interviewed organizations, employees are not aware of the business goals, let alone, how these business goals affect an individual’s tasks.
Information that is transferred from this top-down angle focuses on operational tasks. In both functional organizations the manager gives the employee detailed instructions in what and how he or she should perform the task. Moreover, the manager wants to have a weekly or sometimes daily update about the progress of the employee’s tasks. These findings show that functional organizations are micro-managing their employees, this minimizes the ability for employees to coordinate their own tasks.
Second, the organizations classified as matrix organization presented a slight discrepancy in findings. Although both organizations coordinate with a dual focus, coordinating through the functional line as well as the process line, findings show that organization D emphasizes the functional line, whereas organization C emphasizes the process line. This distinction lies primarily in how information is communicated. In organization D cross functional teams are required to communicate on a frequent basis with the functional line. This increases the level of bureaucracy and slows down decision making. In addition, as decision making slows down important information takes too long to arrive at lower level management.
In comparison, organization C uses the functional line primarily to transfer the organization’s business goals throughout the organization. This creates clarity in what is expected of the employee. How the employee needs to operate is not discussed, the only thing that needs to be reported through the hierarchical line are the employee’s targets. The singular purpose of the hierarchical line and the efficient communication of other information through the process line, gives employees high degrees of autonomy.
Moreover, because of the high level of transparency in the network organizations, every employee is aware of their contribution to the organization’s business goals.
Furthermore, the network organizations provide high amounts of autonomy, this does not mean that employees can make all decisions by themselves. The employees need to communicate with their teams.
5.3. Technology
Within the variable technology, emphasis lies on how ICT is used in different organizations. Before one can answer such a question information needs to be available about what kind of ICT is used by the organization. After this, the functionality of the ICT is assessed. Furthermore, we need to know how ICT influences the organization; does ICT contribute to formalizing certain procedures and practices or does it supports autonomy?
Table 4 depicts a clear distinction of the used ICT within different organizational structures. Functional organizations prefer ICT that can be used to create procedures and protocols in order to control employee´s input. For example, both interviewed organizations were using a time registration system, hence managing on input instead of output. Because this time registration system is strongly imbedded in the organization it is difficult to change the management style from input towards output. Organization A made an effort in decreasing the level of control by telling their employees that they could fill in fictitious work hours, which can be interpreted as moving the variable “culture” towards a more organic regime. However, this made the work of inspecting the work hours and putting the work hours into the payment system superfluous, as a result the HR manager opposed the practice of entering fictitious work hours and managers ones again started to strictly measuring employee’s presence.
Next to this example there are other indications (see statement below) that provide evidence to conclude that functional organization structures are using ICT for abiding procedures and protocols. Hence, functional organizations use ICT usage as paperware.
Although the usage of ICT in matrix organizations can both be interpreted as humanware, there is an interesting difference between both organizations in how ICT is accepted in the organization. Organization C beliefs that without having ICT the current level of autonomy would not be possible, this belief is supported by the high adoption rate of the ICT. Organization D on the other hand, struggles with motivating employees to use the ICT.
Interestingly, within matrix and network organizations there is one ICT tool that cannot be interpreted as humanware, which is a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. When using a CRM system the importance of standards overrules the autonomous use of ICT by employees. The CRM system cannot function properly if information is submitted in different ways or at different times, it is important to standardize this use, hence it can be categorized as paperware.
Findings show that the network organizations did not perceive ICT as a key contributor to autonomy. ICT positively affects the possibilities for supporting autonomy but is not a main contributor to increasing autonomy. According to the interviewees this is primarily because autonomous teams remain relatively small. In network organizations the complexity of cooperating with other organizational members is reduced, which reduces the importance to use ICT.
5.4. Environment
This variable focuses on how the environment influences the organization. Before this can be assessed the organization needs to define its environment. Interestingly, all interviewed organizations stated that the current environment is more complex compared to the last few years. More and more variables need to be taken into account, competition rises, and predictability of how the environment is changing in the near future decreases. Although this trend runs through all the interviewed organizations, there are distinctive strategies in dealing with this more complex environment.
Functional organizations deal with high levels of competition and increased costs (i.e. purchase of commodities) by changing their production process. Through cost-cutting, the production process becomes more efficient. In the current environment cost reductions are enough, however, when competition rises on a global scale the organization cannot solve these problems by improving the factory’s production process.
Overall both functional organizations are relatively hesitant to change work patterns to improve efficiency. Although organization B recently started a program in which they analyse to what degree the job and task descriptions are relevant to the organization’s mission statement, up to now these programs are not systematically repeated.
Furthermore, both matrix organizations are aware of the importance of their personnel. Through enhancing employee’s autonomy, they become more able to change their work patterns.
The interviewed network organizations adopt quickly to the highly dynamic environment, they expect no severe problems in the near future. Not even if the environment becomes highly hostile. The findings suggest that having a network organization does not mean that there is no chain of command. This chain of command provides the accountability that facilitates the decision making in highly hostile environments.
As well as matrix organizations, the network organizations are also aware of the importance of autonomy for their personnel. The employee is seen as the organization’s most valuable asset.
5.5. Culture
The variable culture discusses how the organizational members within each organization structure react on higher amounts of autonomy and how their interactions facilitate autonomy. This includes the relationship between manager and subordinate, as well as the relationship among subordinates.
The findings show that both functional organizations have cultures that primarily focus on control. Managers and employees do not trust each other. Managers believe that employees will exceed deadlines if they receive more autonomy, because they fear that employees will rather do personal tasks than work related tasks. Subsequently, employees do not trust their managers because they fear reprisals if they do not follow orders by the letter. This distrustful relationship moderates how employees react on higher degrees of autonomy. In the current situation employees react negatively on autonomy, some employees find it difficult when other employees adopt a different behaviour;
On the other hand, findings in organization A showed that there are a few managers that try to be a good “people manager” by trusting the employee and giving them more autonomy. However, for creating higher degrees of autonomy these mangers need to engage into a political battle against the majority of the organization. As long as these managers achieve results they are tolerated, but as soon as they achieve disappointing results they are forced to change their management style.
autonomy and decision power, but also through translating this in the architectural design of the building (i.e. no locks on doors and notebooks). Employees are highly positive about the implementation of TNWoW. This is different in organization D, where interactions among organizational members are overshadowed by fear. Through implementing TNWoW aspects in policy, procedures, and technology became conflicted.
The two network organizations represents cultures that support high degrees of autonomy. Both network organizations see all employees as equal, there is no formal nor political power play. The employee who decides on important decisions, is the one who owns the most information to make the decision. Because the organization focuses strongly on culture it is of great importance that there is unity within the culture. One of the interviewed organizations also stated that maintaining this unity is sometimes difficult when hiring new personnel.
5.6. Human Resource Policy
As with the STEC variables the main findings about HR policy are discussed between the three different organization structures in which HR policies are either linked to supporting control or facilitating autonomy. Moreover, an assessment is made about the potential increase in person-organization fit when TNWoW was implemented.
Both functional organizations stated that implementing TNWoW did not affect the human resource policy within the organization. There is no extra attention for creating a person-organization fit.
The two matrix organizations showed essential differences in how they arranged their HR policy. The findings show that the HR policy of organization C emphasizes primarily on autonomy, while organization D focuses more on control. Within organization C policies and procedures are designed in a broad framework, how the employee operates within this framework is their own responsibility. This openness within the framework creates autonomy for the employee. However, operating in a broad framework does not mean that there are no boundaries. There are some controlling aspects within the HR policy, for example, employees need to produce certain predefined deliverables. If employees cannot accomplish a predefined output they timely need to inform their manager, in order for them to take corrective actions. In such cases, the manager assists the employee when he or she asks for help.
Organization D deviates in two ways compared to the other matrix organization. Firstly, employees are not only managed on output. How employees need to perform their tasks is discussed in the job description. The detail in which these job description discuss how to perform the tasks, deprives the employee for exerting initiative and becoming self reliant. Secondly, there are many departments that deviate from the general TNWoW policy. These exceptions are also formalized in policy and procedures. Moreover, these exceptions are not based on bottom up information, but on top down assumptions. This creates complex policies that are sometimes counterproductive in practice.
The two network organizations provide the most autonomy compared to the other organization structures. Both network organizations minimize the amount of formal policy and procedures. If they do have document policy or procedures this is because it is required by third parties (i.e. the government or clients). Both network organizations state that it is not necessary to define duties and rights if there is a possibility for an open discussion. Therefore, duties and rights are in a constant flux. Although these organizations attach great importance to trusting employees, this does not mean that their HR policy facilitate blind trust. Social control prevents the employees from enacting excessive behaviour (i.e. personal welfare). This social control is facilitated by small-scaled autonomous teams. Moreover, both network organizations stated that it is of high importance that there is a strong fit between the employee and the organization. The employee needs to tolerate a high amount of transparency. Adjustment to an higher degree of transparency is not evident. Both organizations provided plenty of examples in which the newly hired employee could not cope with the fact that everything is transparent.
6. Discussion
In this section the responses from the interviews are incorporated into the theory. The five variables; structure, technology, environment, culture, and human resource policy provide data that is used to answer the propositions. The aim of this research was to analyse the degree of impact of organization structures when implementing TNWoW. By assessing six organizations about their introduction and implementation of TNWoW I strive for constructed abstraction. This research will facilitate a baseline on which organization can measure the level of harmony between their organization and TNWoW.
6.1. Findings
6.1.1. Theoretical findings
The second theoretical finding is based on the SLAP model (Bax, 2006). As stated by Bax (2006) the HR and STEC variables need to be in alignment. Theory dictates that non congruent variables negatively influence the organization’s effectiveness (Bax, 2006; Zeng et al., 2007). Thus, it is important to have synergy between each variable. There are two perspectives that can be linked to lack of synergy of these HR and STEC variables. First, if these variables operate in a status quo and are counteracting each other, this results in conflicting practices (Bax, 2006; Zeng et al., 2007). Second, when changing one of the variables this can result in an increase of contrast between other variables. Making changes within the variables to adapt to a more organic environment can cause for severe disruption within the synergism between the HR and STEC variables. The difference between these variables can cause an interaction effect, meaning that the changed organizational variable (HR,S,T,or C) is returned to its original state by the influence of other organizational variables, which are not changed. This perspective is supported by Perlow (1999), which states that changing an organizational aspect is influenced by the temporal context and the social context that is present in the organization. The data extracted from the interviews also support this finding, for example, the actual use of technology differs with the intentional usage, which was to increase autonomy (i.e. by using a social intranet). Therefore, when applying TNWoW one should not try to only implement tools that are used within TNWoW, because this can cause for a stronger misalignment among the HR and STEC variables. Through implementing TNWoW as a strategic decision, misalignment can be prevented because top management possess the overview of all variables.
6.1.2. Empirical findings
The empirical findings provide supporting or rejecting evidence for the propositions and the research question. After discussing the three propositions an answer is given to the research question.
Proposition 1: The positive effects that are the result of implementing TNWoW within a mechanical organization, characterized by a functional structure, are minimal.
The first proposition is supported by the results extracted from the interviews. Of the functional organizations merely one organization implemented TNWoW, moreover, this implementation included only an architectural change that created flexible workspaces. Based on this, one could state that these organizations are bad examples of functional organizations that implemented TNWoW. However, I believe they wanted to implement TNWoW but did not accomplish this because of the distance between the current state of the organization and the expected end result envisioned by TNWoW. The functional organization that implemented “TNWoW” had problems adopting the philosophy behind TNWoW. They expressed difficulties in adopting and aligning the changes in architectural design with other organizational practices and processes. One example is that the flexibility of workspaces translated into a cultural change about the work hours, employees started to fill in fictitious work hour in the time registration system. However, due to the strong link between the time registration system and the salary department and the lack of motivation to change these processes, they were forced to re-use this technology which puts emphasis on control.
functional and matrix structure and are similar to some degree. Therefore this proposition is partially supported.
Proposition 2: Barriers encountered from institutionalizing TNWoW in mechanical organizations, characterized by a functional structure, originate from other organizational variables than barriers encountered in organic organizations, characterized by a network structure.
The functional organization shows many barriers towards institutionalizing TNWoW. The organization structure is focused on control and uses detailed descriptions about how employees should perform, which deprives the employee from autonomy. This barrier is in fundamental conflict with TNWoW and strongly influences the other organizational variables. Basically all organizational variables are conflicting with TNWoW; HR policy is strict and de-motivates employees in becoming self reliant; because the employer and employee are seen as two separate parties the organization culture is based on fear and suspicion not on trust; since there is no trust between employer and employee the technology needs to be used according to specific procedures.
For matrix organizations the degree of power placed on the hierarchical lines or process lines have extensive effect on the institutionalization of TNWoW and the barriers the organization faces during this process. If an organization puts high power on the hierarchical line within its organization structure this facilitates control instead of autonomy. This focus on control is also present within HR policy. Interestingly, the dual focus of the matrix organization creates problems within the HR policy when there is a emphasis on control. On the one hand the process line wants to give more autonomy while on the other hand the hierarchical line wants to stay in control, this can cause for conflicting HR policy. A strong tension between the process line that facilitates autonomy and the hierarchical line that emphasizes control also affects the culture of the organization, in which it diminishes a trustful relationship between employer and employee. The lack of trust influences the employee’s use of technology.
Barriers in the network organization are not based on institutionalizing TNWoW. Their barriers are more in line with maintaining their network organization. Barriers that may unfold are maintaining person-organization fit and constantly searching for the person that can make the best decision.
Proposition 3: ICT that is used within mechanical organizations is broadly adopted by all employees and usage is based on paperware, ICT in organic organizations is ad hoc and used as humanware.
The findings show that there are few differences in functions of technological tools between the investigated organizations. All organizations had the ability to use videoconferencing, possessed technology that supported chat functions and micro blogs. However, there are differences in usage of technology. Functional structured organizations use technology as paperware, whereas, matrix and network organizations are using technology primarily as humanware.
of organizational variables and what is implemented as TNWoW. The interviewed network organizations stated that although technology possess a prominent role in TNWoW it does not create or restrict human relation practices within their organization, such as creating more autonomy. Confirming the proposition, network organizations use their technology more ad hoc.
Research question: To what degree do organization structures have an effect on the
institutionalisation of TNWoW?
The findings suggest that organization structures have indeed an affect on the institutionalization of TNWoW. Since the organization structure is the foundation of the organization, all variables in the SLAP model rely on its design. When adopting TNWoW one needs to possess an organization structure that facilitates autonomy and is capable of dealing with dynamic processes and practises. This conclusion is in contrast with authors that state TNWoW can be implemented within every organization. However, there is also a theoretical loophole in their proposition. Daniels et al. (2000) state that although telework can be implemented in every organization they cannot deny that mechanistic cost cutter organizations will crush telework. Thus, business strategies have an impact on the applicability of TNWoW. Moreover, some organization structures support certain business strategies better than others (Jones, 2007). Therefore, one could claim that because business strategy can be linked to organization structure, some organization structures are not capable to support TNWoW. This is in accordance with my empirical evidence and scholars that believe TNWoW can only be implemented within organizations that tend towards the organic regime.
Furthermore, the evidence of the propositions showed that functional structures are too rigid to adopt TNWoW. If such organizations want to adopt TNWoW they need to make many changes within all organizational variables. Based on the importance of technology within TNWoW, I believe TNWoW is best applied within a matrix organization. Although network organizations facilitate high levels of autonomy their business concept allows them to operate in small autonomous teams, which makes technology superfluous. Moreover, transforming into a network organization is undesirable for most organizations because their environment does not require such high amounts of autonomy and organizational flux.
6.2. Practical implementation
This thesis assesses TNWoW and analyses the implications for organizations when they adopt an abundant change process. Through adopting the SLAP model organizations can analyse their organization and make decisions about starting major changes in their organization.
