An agile organization: The influence of trust and ... · MASTER THESIS An agile organization: The influence of trust and empowerment on the agility of an organization Inge van Meurs

MASTER

THESIS

An agile organization:

The influence of trust and empowerment on

the agility of an organization

Inge van Meurs

351568

Rotterdam School of Management

MSc. Human Resource Management

Coach:

Dr. W.P. van Ginkel

Department of Organisation and Personnel Management

Co-reader:

Dr. M. van Oosterhout

Department of Decision and Information Sciences

Rotterdam, September 5th 2012

Interpersonal trust, empowerment, and agility Inge van Meurs

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This master thesis is the final result of my career at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

Directly after graduation at the Hogeschool Rotterdam, I decided to obtain a master’s degree in

Human Resource Management (HRM) at the Erasmus University. In order to get permission to start

the master in HRM, I had to follow a pre-master in Business Administration first. Although the pre-

master in Business Administration was a tough year, good grades motivated me to finish it. The HRM

master consists of a small group of motivated students, in which every student felt comfortable to

take part in discussions. Due to this we were able to learn a lot from each other. Therefore, I would

like to thank my professors for their effort to motivate us and thank my colleagues because we

learned a lot from each other. After the courses, the most challenging part started: writing a master

thesis. By writing this acknowledgement, it almost comes to an end. And although there were a lot of

learning moments, I am proud of the result: this thesis.

The research question for this master thesis is ‘Do trust and empowerment influence the

agility of an organization and how does agility in turn influence the productivity?’ In my adventure to

find an answer to this question, many people helped and supported me. First, my parents who gave

me the opportunity to obtain a master’s degree. Second, a special word of thanks to my boyfriend,

Barry Berkhout, who supported me during the period I was working on my thesis. Not only in times

when the thesis went well, but especially during hard times when I experienced some difficulties. He

always supported me to reflect on what went wrong and to look for new options. Third, I owe a

great word of thanks to my coach, Wendy van Ginkel, who was willing to help me out even though I

came to her in the middle of writing my master thesis. The same applies to my co-reader, Marcel van

Oosterhout, who always had some critical notes, additional to the feedback of Wendy. I highly value

their feedback on my work, which always was clearly explained and argued. Further, I want to thank

Janieke Bouwman, Nick van der Meulen and the other participants of the New World of Work

(NWOW) project team for their feedback during the monthly NWOW meetings. Finally, for the

opportunity to gather the data, receive input and feedback on my written work and have discussions

about the practical side of my thesis; I would like to greatly thank Mariёlle Roozemond and Jetske

Roetman of PMtD.

I hope you all will enjoy reading my thesis.

Inge van Meurs

Rotterdam, August 2012


2

The author declares that the text and work presented in the Master thesis is original and that

no sources other than those mentioned in the text and the references have been used in creating

this Master thesis.

The copyright of the Master thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its

contents. RSM, Erasmus University is only responsible for the educational coaching and beyond that

cannot be held responsible for the content.


3

ABSTRACT

Today’s highly dynamic environments require organizations to act quickly and adequately in

responding to changes in these environments. In order to do so, organizations should be agile. While

the traditional response to uncertainty and risk was to increase control by either collecting more

information or by reducing organizational complexity (i.e. avoid uncertainty) (van Fenema & van

Baalen, 2005), within the new worlds of work the response is based on adequately dealing with the

uncertainty and risk situations (i.e. adapt to uncertainty) (Dove, 2001).

Besides, within the new worlds of work, there is a tendency toward teleworking, which refers

to a way of working in which a person is able to work place independent and to work flexible in time

(Hill et al, 2003; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Kurland & Bailey, 1999). By taking this into account, the

main question of this research was to find out what effect the relational dimension (i.e. trust and

empowerment) will have on the agility of an organization, and what effect agility in turn has on

performance.

To test the research question and the underlying hypotheses, a survey was conducted by

collecting surveys in 28 companies, all business relations of the company PMtD. As a result from the

analysis, conclude can be that empowerment and trust in colleagues do not directly lead to an agile

organization, while trust in management and trust from management positively influence the agility

of an organization.

Agility does influence the performance* of an organization (i.e. aggregated productivity), but

this relationship is not strengthen by the moderator environmental turbulence though. The dataset

on the organizational level found a moderating effect of environmental turbulence on the

relationship between agility and performance.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................... 1

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Literature ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Agility ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2. Empowerment ...................................................................................................................... 8

1.3. Trust ..................................................................................................................................... 10

1.4. Performance ....................................................................................................................... 12

2. Conceptual model ......................................................................................................................... 13

2.1. Independent variables ..................................................................................................... 13

2.2. Dependent variables ........................................................................................................ 15

2.3. Overview conceptual models ......................................................................................... 16

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.1. Sample ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.2. Data collection ................................................................................................................... 18

3.3. Measurements ................................................................................................................... 19

3.4. Validity and reliability analysis ..................................................................................... 22

4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 25

4.1. Preliminary analysis ......................................................................................................... 25

4.2. Individual level of analysis ............................................................................................. 26

4.3. Organizational level of analysis .................................................................................... 27

4.4. Aggregate level of analysis ............................................................................................. 27

4.4.1. Step 1 Regression model of independent variables on dependent variable ................ 29

4.4.2. Step 2. Regression model of independent variables on the mediating variable .......... 30

4.4.3. Step 3. Regression model of mediating variable on dependent variable ..................... 31

4.4.4. Step 4. Regression model of mediating effect .............................................................. 32

4.5. Hypotheses overview ....................................................................................................... 34

5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 35

5.1. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 35

6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 38

6.1. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 38

6.2. Theoretical implications ....................................................................................................... 38

6.3. Practical implications ............................................................................................................. 38


1

6.4. Limitations and future research ............................................................................................ 39

Bibliografie ............................................................................................................................................ 41

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 47

Appendix A: Survey on individual level ................................................................................... 47

Appendix B: Survey on organizational level ........................................................................... 50

Appendix C: Factor analysis ....................................................................................................... 52

Appendix D: Reliability analysis ................................................................................................ 55

Appendix E: Regression analysis organizational level ......................................................... 56

Appendix F: Regression analysis step 1 ................................................................................... 57

Appendix G: Regression analysis step 2 .................................................................................. 58

Appendix H: Regression analysis step 3 .................................................................................. 59

Appendix I: Regression analysis step 4 ................................................................................... 60

Appendix J: PROCESS analysis .................................................................................................... 62


2

INTRODUCTION

Today’s highly dynamic environment requires dynamic business environments as well.

Throughout the last decades an economic shift took place from an industrial based national economy

to an information or knowledge based national economy (Drucker, 1969; Hill, Ferris, & Martinson,

2003). In a knowledge based economy, the input of employees is more about theories, concepts, and

ideas than manual skills and/or muscle power (Drucker, 2007). In the information technology (IT) for

instance, knowledge workers are systems analysts, computer programmers, and IT consultants. By

the improved information technology, which made mobile internet possible, the business world

experienced a great boost. Communication and decision making can be done faster and thus the

predictability decreased. Uncertainty and risk are factors that arose and organizations had to learn

how to deal with it, since in the current changing environment stability and predictability have

decreased (Baalen, Fenema, & Huysman, 2006). While the traditional response to uncertainty and

risk was to increase control by either collecting more information or by reducing organizational

complexity (i.e. avoid uncertainty) (Fenema & Baalen, 2005), within the new worlds of work the

response should be based on adequately dealing with the uncertainty and risk situations (i.e. adapt

to uncertainty) (Dove, 2005). Organizations should act quickly, involve their consumers, and become

more flexible in adjusting to new situations.

As a consequence of these developments, the internal business environment of an

organization must be able to adapt toward change. An organization must be able to react fast and

flexible in adapting to the continuously changing demands of this environment. Sherehiy, Karwowski,

& Layer (2007) argue that one of the methods to do this is by being an agile enterprise. Besides

becoming more flexible, responding quickly, and involving your partners and customers is getting

more important as well. This means that organizations must be more agile in order to respond to

those changes. However, being agile does not only include reactive behavior, it includes proactive

behavior as well, and thus actively follow and anticipate on trends and developments in the external

environment.

Another consequence of the upstream of mobile internet is the possibility of teleworking.

Telework refers to a way of working in which a person is able to work place independent and to work

flexible in time (Hill, Ferris, & Martinson, 2003; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Kurland & Bailey, 1999).

Telework is one of the important aspects of the new worlds of work, identified by practitioners as Bijl

(2009). Within the new worlds of work, three pillars are identified. The first pillar is called ‘bytes’ and

refers to technology. A lot can be regulated or can be replaced by new and mobile technology.

Therefore, only the tasks where people are essential for the process will not be replaced by

technology. In this knowledge economy people are key in the processes. While in the industrial based


3

economy the processes were the central points. The second pillar focusses on the ‘behavior’ of the

people in organizations. Besides the pillars bytes and behavior, there is a third pillar ‘work

environment’. As described earlier, telework is one of the main characteristics of the new worlds of

work, which means that working time and place independent is possible. Due to the before

mentioned changes and developments, it is no longer needed for employees, and in particular

knowledge workers, to work from the traditional office or desk. Telework claims that working from

different places is possible: working from the traditional office, working from home, or working from

any other possible place (Hill, Ferris, & Martinson, 2003). The new worlds of work is a method to be

agile.

Although some voices may argue that if the elements regarding technology are available

within an organization, the rest will follow automatically. Opponents of new worlds of work

challenge this statement, they argue that two additional aspects exist in the context of new worlds of

working, namely behavior and work environment. For this master thesis the focus will be on the

relational dimension (Baalen P. v., 2011). Human behavior is regulated by intrinsic and/or extrinsic

motivation. Intrinsic motivation is, according to Ryan & Deci (2000), the inherent tendency to seek

out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore and to learn. Extrinsic

motivation refers to the performance of an activity to attain some separable outcome in contrast

with intrinsic motivation, which means to perform an activity for the inherent satisfaction of the

activity itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although extrinsic motivation always plays a role in performing

one’s task, in the context of working place and time independent intrinsic motivation is seen as more

important to enhance this phenomenon. Combining this with the fact that being agile means that

organizations should be able to make decisions quickly, empowering of employees can be an

antecedent of agility. Making decisions quickly as an organization is easier when an organization is

more flat structured and the decision rights are established lower within the hierarchical pyramid.

Besides empowerment, a supervisor is no longer able to physically observe employees due to

the greater physical distance between supervisor and employee. When supervisors are used to this

type of control, they need to change their management style in order to successfully contribute to an

agile organization. A less costly and more efficient solution in many ways is committing to a trust

based requisite within the organization. In this context, trust is essential to get the work done. Thus,

instead of managing on ‘input’, a supervisor in the agile firm should focus more on output and thus

on trust.


4

Agile organizations are able to face the changes in their industry and react quicker on those

changes and/or opportunities. In order to respond quickly to the identified changes in the external

environment, the internal environment of the organization must be able to respond to this. Trust and

empowerment are indicated as drivers for this agile organization. It seems to be logical that being

agile leads to a higher performance. Hence, the following research question is formulated:

Do trust and empowerment influence the agility of an organization and how does agility in

turn influence the productivity?

To investigate the main question above, some knowledge about agility must be gained at

first to see what agility exactly is and what research is done before. The same applies to the terms

trust, empowerment, and productivity. This will be described in chapter 1, the literature review.

Next, the literature will also provide outcomes of earlier research. Argumentation based on

the literature and outcomes of earlier research will be explained in chapter 2.

Chapter 3 contains the methodology section of this research. Here will be discussed how the

research is done: what sample is used, how the data is collected, what methods are used, and how

the conceptual model is measured. The validity and reliability tests are displayed in this chapter as

well.

The results of the surveys will be discussed in chapter 4. First, a preliminary analysis, second

descriptions and a small analysis of the sample on individual level is done followed by descriptions

and a small analysis of the sample on organizational level. Finally, regression analyses are done to

test the aggregate model.

Chapter 5 contains the discussion of the results. Besides the discussion, theoretical and

practical implications will be given. Also the limitations of this research are discussed and some

suggestions for future research are provided.


5

1. LITERATURE

This chapter will position the study in the literature and give an overview of what research

already has been done, regarding the main variables mentioned in the introduction. First, the

variable agility will be discussed to gain a better understanding of this unknown concept. Second,

empowerment is outlined. Third, the variable trust is described. Finally, the dependent variable

performance is described.

1.1. AGILITY

Agility is more than just flexibility or adaptability. According to Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss

(1995) and Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer (2007), it comprises the enrichment of the customer,

cooperation to enhance competiveness, leveraging the impact of people and information, and

organizing to master changes through flexible organization structures. Enrichment of the customer

does not mean delivering products, but focusing on (product) solutions. Internally, cooperation

means working together, but this could be extended by usage of all external sources to enhance

competitive advantages. In the knowledge economy, people, skills, and experience are the main

differentiators for competiveness and thus according to Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss (1995) people and

information can also possitively influence an agile organization. The last sub element of agility is that

an organization must have a flexible structure to master changes.

The degree of flexibility depends on three elements: the predictability of an event, the rate

of change, and the predetermined response (Oosterhout, 2010). Flexibility is defined by Volberda &

Rutges (1999) as the degree in which an organization has (potential) managerial capabilities, and also

the speed at which these capabilities can be activated to increase this managerial capacity and

controllability to adjust its internal environment to respond to changes in the external environment

(Reed & Blunsdon, 1998; Volberda & Rutges, 1999). As Oosterhout (2010) argues as well: being able

to act quickly to unpredictable changes and uncertainty, requires a new and extended level of

flexibility, which could be referred to as agility. Agility can be seen as the extension of the concept of

strategic flexibility (Overby, Bharadwaj, & Sambamurthy, 2005), one of the three dimensions of

flexibility. More general, one can refer to agility as a concept that incorporates the ideas of flexibility,

balance, adaptability, and coordination under one umbrella (Tsourveloudi & Valavanis 2002).

1.1.1. Definition

Agility is a concept which has traditionally been used in the manufacturing industry. Since the

beginning of the twenty-first century, agility is also used in the business industry. In terms of the

three dimensions of Volberda (1997), operational, structural, and strategic flexibility: agility requires


6

a more creative and innovative response to unpredictable events, and high rates of change

compared to flexibility. Because agility includes the ability to radically and innovatively change

organizational processes as a response to an external change. According to Oosterhout (2010) being

agile means being able to swiftly change businesses and business processes beyond the normal level

of flexibility to effectively manage highly uncertain and unexpected but potentially consequential

internal and external events, based on the capabilities to sense, respond, and learn (page 17).

Looking to it in a more practical manner, what is an internal or external event that would call

for agility instead of flexibility? Oosterhout (2010) has categorized the events in seven categories, a

few examples of those categories are: business network events (such as takeovers by competitors,

partnerships and collaboration between competitors), competitive environment events (such as

responsiveness of competitors to change, cost pressure), and customer needs events (such as

fundamental shifts in taste of customers, demand for customized products).

1.1.2. Three types of Agility

Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover (2003) describe three types of agility that are based on

three interrelated capabilities; customer agility, partnering agility, and operational agility.

Customer agility means the co-opting of customers in the innovation process of an

organization. By involving customers in the process of thinking, creating, and producing, the

demands of the customers will be better aligned with the strategy of the firm. To strengthen this,

Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover (2003) argue that the involvement of customers is valuable for

three reasons: being a source of creative ideas, co-creator in the development and design process for

products/services, and user in testing products/services or helping other users to learn about the

products/services.

Partnering agility is the ability of an agile firm to leverage the assets, knowledge, and

competences of their suppliers, distributors, contract manufacturers, and logistic providers through

diverse forms of commitment. Through a partnership with a supplier or contract manufacturer for

instance, a firm could explore opportunities for innovation in the supply chain.

Operational agility reflects the ability to accomplish speed, accuracy, and cost efficiency in

the daily processes. This third form of agility ensures that an organization can rapidly redesign the

existing processes in responding to changes in the external environment (i.e. the industry where an

organization is active in).

In addition to these three types of agility, three dimensions of capabilities are identified by

Oosterhout (2010). Sensing, responding, and learning are the three dimensions, which can be applied

to each form of agility.


7

1.1.3. Three dimensions of capabilities of agility

As mentioned by Teece, Pisano, & Shuen (1997) an organization within a turbulent

environment needs to show capabilities of the Dynamic Capabilities Perspective (DCP) in order to

achieve congruence with the changing environment. Those capabilities are called dynamic because

the organization must integrate, build, and reconfigure the capabilities continually to respond to the

rapidly changing environment. Oosterhout (2010) adapted three categories of dynamic capabilities

by Dove (2001): sensing, responding, and learning capabilities.

As noted in many conferences (i.e. TEDxMaastricht conference of 2012), listening to and

observing your customers can provide you with very useful information. This is in line with the

sensing capability, which can be defined as the ability of an organization to gather usable data,

transform this into information, interpret and analyze the urgency, causes and impact, and as such,

anticipate or detect opportunities and threats in the business environment (Oosterhout, 2010).

Moreover, responding is characterized by the ability to collaborate with customers and

partners in the business network and to rapidly (re)configure combinations of capabilities to easily

shape innovative moves. Being agile expands the options of an organization to respond when an

unpredictable event happens. In this context it means that agility requires firms to re-engineer or

modularize their processes and systems in order to add something on top of the existing variety, or

to quickly (dis)connect to other partners (Oosterhout, 2010).

The last dynamic capability is learning. There are two concepts named in literature in

accordance with this concept: organizational learning and knowledge management. Organizational

learning means that people constantly learn from what they did and how to expand their capacity to

gain new knowledge, while knowledge management comprises how to handle and keep the

knowledge that is acquired in a certain way (Oosterhout, 2010). This can be done by codification in IT

systems for instance. Both knowledge concepts agree that knowledge is an extremely important

requisite for agile organizations. According to Locke (1999) a competitive advantage of a firm can be

obtained by constantly discovering new knowledge and communicating this knowledge by

codification and later utilize this acquired knowledge.


8

1.2. EMPOWERMENT

Since 1980, empowerment is a widely described concept in the human resource literature.

The concept of empowerment got more complicated over the years. Conger & Kanungo (1988) took

an important step by defining empowerment not only in terms of delegation of decisions from higher

management to lower levels and access to information and sources, but they started to define it in

terms of motivational processes. Those motivational processes show the workers’ effort-

performance expectancies. By looking at the literature more, it indeed, empowerment is not only be

based on empowerment of work practices (Spreitzer, 1995), but empowerment is based on the

psychological level as well (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

1.2.1. Definition

In literature, a distinction between the two types of empowerment is made: structural

empowerment (Laschinger, 2004), also referred to as situational empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995;

Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), and psychological empowerment. Structural empowerment is limited to

the workplace conditions; it depends on the perceived actual conditions of empowerment within the

workplace. Structural empowerment is mainly about the empowering of management/work

practices, delegation of decision rights from higher to lower levels and giving them/employees access

to needed information or diverse resources to accomplish tasks autonomously. The second type,

psychological empowerment, is more employee-focused. Psychological empowerment, which is

intrinsically focused, is the reaction of employees to structural empowering conditions. Therefore,

this type of empowerment is referred to as increased intrinsic task motivation, reproduced in a set of

four dimensions which reflects the individual’s orientation to his or her work role. The distinction is

made in the following four components of empowerment: meaning, competence, self-

determination, and impact (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995). One can define

psychological empowerment as the intrinsic motivation manifested in meaning, competence, self-

determination, and impact, in which an employee feels able to shape his role in work and context

(Spreitzer G. M., 1995). This definition based on Spreitzer (1995) will be used in this research.

1.2.2. Four dimensions of Empowerment

As described above, Thomas & Velthouse (1990) conceptualize psychological empowerment

into four dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. All cognitions are


9

mentioned below to provide a more detailed overview. Measurement from Spreitzer (1995) confirms

that these four dimensions contribute to an overall construct of empowerment.

Empowerment meaning is the fit between the needs of one’s work and one’s values, beliefs,

and behaviors (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997; Brief & Nord, 1990). An employee should get

energized about work, because if one does not feel enthusiastic about the job (i.e. if work activity

conflicts with their value system), an employee will not feel empowered (Thomas & Velthouse,

1990). Literature shows that no direct relationship is found between meaning and productivity

(Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997), while a positive relationship is found between meaning and job

satisfaction (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Bass, 1985; Bennis &

Nanus, 1985).

Empowerment competence, often referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), is an

individual’s belief in his capability to perform a set of tasks or activities with his skills, when he or she

tries (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Although limited research is done on the relationship between

empowerment competence and performance, Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason (1997) found a positive

relationship between competence and productivity. On top of that, looking at self-efficacy, Locke

(1991) argues that self-efficacy beliefs have a powerful direct effect on task performance. Multiple

empirical studies reviewed by Gist & Mitchell (1992), report a positive relationship between self-

efficacy and a variety of work-related performance measures, such as sales and research productivity

and adaptability. However differences between self-efficacy and empowerment competence exist,

those differences are not fundamental, and thus empowerment competence is seen as positive

influencing productivity.

Empowerment self-determination is the degree to which employees experience freedom,

independence, and discretion within the organization (Hackman, 1987; Susman, 1976). Self-

determination is referred to as the ability of an individual to have a choice to regulate actions by

their self (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). It is about enabling an employee, not only about delegating

tasks to the employee. By enabling, which implies creating conditions to heighten intrinsic motivation

through development of personal efficacy, an employee feels intrinsically motivated (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988). While empowerment competence is more about personal mastery, empowerment

self-determination sticks more to the independency to decide on the initiation and/or continuation

of work process. According to Deci & Ryan (1985) this kind of perceived choice produces greater

flexibility, creativity, initiative, and self-regulation. And thus, expected is that empowerment self-

determination influences productivity.

Empowerment impact is the degree to which one is able to influence administrative,

operating, or strategic outcomes at work to make a difference (Ashfort, 1989). Employees feel more

capable to shape their work and work environment, and as a result they feel empowered.


10

1.3. TRUST

As mentioned in the introduction, within the new worlds of work, which is a method for

organizations to be agile, trust is an important prerequisite between a supervisor and an employee.

When the sense of physical control is reduced, trust is a substitute to efficiently manage the work

process. Trust serves as a guide within work-relationships; it will take care of openness, investment,

and spontaneity of the interactions between employees (Colquitt & Salam, 2009). On top of that,

from a cognitive perspective, employees often have more complete knowledge and in depth

information about their tasks than their managers have. Moreover, they are in a better position to

plan and schedule their work, to identify possible obstacles, and try to resolve them to achieve better

performance (Cooke, 1994). Keeping those two arguments of trust in mind, trust can contribute to

achieve the outcome, where both the employee and the supervisor are looking for (i.e. higher

performance).

1.3.1. Definition

Trust is often discussed in literature and in various disciplines such as psychologics,

management, economics, and sociologics (Colquitt & Salam, 2009). This means that a lot is known

about trust as a concept. But, this also creates confusion about what should be considered as

dimensions of trust. Besides, trust is also depending on the context (Blomqvist & Kirsimarja, 1997)

and thus is argued to be domain specific (Zand, 1972). One could trust one other (i.e. a trustee) for

his experience and competence in for instance, the technical area, but that does not mean that one

would trust this person on his social skills as well. Besides the fact that trust is domain specific, it is

also depending on the confidence one has in the words, actions, and good intensions of the other

(Cook & Wall, 1980). Thus, one should be willing to be vulnerable to the trustee, judging on the good

intensions and on the experience one has in a specific area.

Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman (1995) formulated the following definition, which include exactly

the important elements from the literature: the willingness of a trustor to be vulnerable to the

actions of a trustee based on positive expectations about the trustee’s characteristics, behaviors, and

intentions (Page 712). This definition is used in this thesis.

1.3.2. Characteristics of trust

Approaching trust as relations between divers’ persons in the work environment, the focus in

this study is on interpersonal trust. Interpersonal trust is also referred to as intra-organizational trust,


11

which means that trust within organizations is considered. Two other strands dealing with trust are:

trust between organizations (i.e. inter-organizational trust) and trust between organizations and

their customers (i.e. for marketing concern) (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006). Although trust between

organizations and trust between organizations and their customers can also be very important for

influencing agility, by considering the internal environment of an organization the strand of intra-

organizational trust is the one that fits the best. The intra-organizational relationships of trust cover

the relations on and throughout divers’ levels of the organization. (Cooke, 1980; Dietz & Den Hartog,

2006; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

According to the definition of trust mentioned above, characteristics of a trustee are one of

the areas in the literature of which a lot of contrasting standpoints exist. This is strengthened by the

fact that many scholars approach trust as a multi-dimensional scale. However, many scales can be

assigned to three main characteristics of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness as a personal trait of a

trustee is mainly characterized by ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,

1995; Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).

First, the ability of an individual comprises the skills, competencies, and characteristics of

this individual to have an influence in a specific domain. Second, benevolence is seen, in its

construct, as a positive orientation of the trustee towards the trustor. The trustee is believed to do

something good to the trustor, even though in such a case the trustee is in such a case not required

to help the trustor, the one who trusts the other. As a third characteristic, perceived integrity is the

acceptance of the trustor on some of the principles and intensions of his trustee. One could say that

the integrity solely depends on the mutual acceptance of those principles. However, the integrity of

those principles can be judged by a third party based on experiences in the past and the extent to

what those actions are congruent with the words of the trustee.

These three characteristics are important characteristics to have for a trustworthy person.

More useful in practice is how these characteristics contribute to a more agile organization. Even

though a distinction can be made based on these characteristics of a trustee (Cook & Wall, 1980) and

the impact on agility, for this research more interesting to know is what inter-personal relations

contribute to agility. The characteristics ability, benevolence, and integrity are interwoven in each of

the internal relations. The internal relations can be divided in several categories (Dietz & Den Hartog,

2006). Trustful inter-personal relationships can arise between the employee(s) and their direct

manager(s) (Tzafrir & Dolan, 2004; Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), and

between colleagues (McAllister, 1995). Trust between employees and their manager can occur in two

ways, namely the trust one places in management or the supervisor and the trust perceived from

management or the supervisor. For this study trust in management, trust from management, and

trust in colleagues are measured.


12

1.4. PERFORMANCE

An increase in organizational performance is one of the most used outcomes for companies

to strive for. Although performance is a broad term, in day to day language and in some articles you

may hear that ‘increase of organizational performance’ is what companies want to achieve. To clarify

the term performance, there are basically three dimensions: people, planet, and profit. Regarding

people as a performance measurement, one should think of outcomes such as flexibility, job

satisfaction, and work-life balance (Hill, Ferris, & Martinson, 2003). All outcomes based on the well-

being of employees can also referred to as the soft side of performance outcomes. Planet focusses

on sustainable travelling and behavior, which has become a hot topic over the last years. Finally,

profit is more aware of the hard side of performance measurement and sees productivity on the

individual level as an outcome. On organizational level of analysis, innovativeness, market share, and

overall performance are seen as measurements.

The latter dimension, profit, will be the focus for this thesis. Productivity will be the

performance indicator, it is defined by Richard et al. (2009) as a subjective measurement, because it

might be biased on the fact that the measure lacks a fixed reference point and it also includes human

feedback (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000; Richard et al., 2009). However, to value the outcomes of the

individuals, an overall performance indication is included in the survey on the organizational level to

compare the subjective measurement with. This makes it possible to check how great the

agreeableness is between measurements on the individual level and on the organizational level.


13

2. CONCEPTUAL MODEL

In this chapter the conceptual model will be presented together with the hypotheses. But first, the

independent variables will be introduced. Next, the dependent variable will be pointed out and

finally, an overview of all hypotheses in a conceptual model will be given.

2.1. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

2.1.1. The influence of empowerment on agility

As argued before, agility covers a few dimensions, such as adaptively, involvement of

different parties, flexibility, and responding quickly and adequately. As a construct, agility is quite

new regarding human resource management, but it has been a prevailing topic for academic

research for many years. Investigated is for instance how an organization can be and stay successful

in the unpredictable, dynamic, and constantly changing environment where organizations are

operating in now (Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer, 2007). A solution to face this could be through being

an agile organization (Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer, 2007). However agility was not a widely used

concept in the business industry for a long time, it is more known and used today according to the

association Agile Consortium Nederland. Being agile as an organization, the organization is

depending on the people and skills within that organization. As mentioned in paragraph 1.1 skills,

experience, and people are of high value in the current economy. It was believed that agility could be

achieved by just introducing advanced technologies; however it is argued that today’s economy is

more depending on people. Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer (2007) stated that agility requires an agile

workforce. Additionally, Breu et al. (2002) determined initial indicators of an agile workforce;

effectiveness of cooperation, speed of developing new skills, responsiveness to changing customer

needs, but employee empowerment is indicated as an initial indicator for independent decision

making. Breu et al. thus argue that an agile workforce is driven by among others employee

empowerment. Moreover, the cultural dimensions of ‘empowerment’ are also seen as key in

decision making to make organizations truly agile (Goldman & Nagel, 1993; Kidd, 1994; Van Oyen et

al., 2001). Although empowerment is divided into four dimensions, Spreitzer (1995) argues and also

found evidence for is that all four dimensions contribute to an overall construct of empowerment.

Therefore, in this thesis empowerment will be interpreted as an overall construct. Because all

dimensions together make a complete concept (i.e. in terms of psychological empowerment: feeling)

of empowerment. Therefore, the following hypothesis is expected:

H1: Empowerment has a positive influence on the agility of an organization.


14

2.1.2. The influence of trust on agility

While in literature the relationship between trust and agility is not mentioned, by stepping

back to strategic flexibility, more can be found. Oosterhout (2010) argues that agility could be seen

as the extension of the strategic flexibility construct. Thus the relationship between trust and

strategic flexibility is investigated according to the literature. Although strategic flexibility is surely

not the same as agility, it gives some direction regarding the relationship of trust and agility. Strategic

flexibility, as studied by Young-Ybarra & Wiersema (1999), is found to be strongly related with trust.

They divided the concept strategic flexibility into modification and exit, and since their definition of

modification (i.e. the ability of partners to adjust their behaviors or terms of the agreement to

changes in the environment or needs of partners) is closely related to the used definition of agility

here, it is assumed that a positive relationship between trust and agility could exist. To strengthen

this, Das & Elango (1995) stated in their article that employee’s trust is a significant factor for

impacting the effectiveness of strategic flexibility.

Taking into account the bigger picture, performance is chosen as the dependent variable, and

whereas agility is assumed to mediate the relationship between trust and performance, it could be

helpful to see how trust and performance are related. Costa (2003) found a small positive

relationship between trust and task performance, while Costa e Silva, Bradley, & Sousa (2012) found

a strong positive relationship between trust and performance in an international marketing concept

by asking partners. In an experimental environment, Klimosky & Karol (1976) proved that higher

levels of trust result in higher productivity, as a dimension of performance.

Wintrobe & Breton (1986) argue that an increase in trust throughout the organization does

not necessarily predict a positive effect on performance, because in their article is argued that the

effect of trust on performance is depending upon the distribution of trust. Expected is that vertical

trust relationships will have a stronger positive influence on performance than horizontal

relationships have. Spreitzer & Mishra (1999), for instance, found that trust in employees influences

the productivity of the employees.

Taken into account that trust influences strategic flexibility positively, and vertical

relationships of trust have a stronger influence on the dependent variable, expected is the following

relationship:

H2A: Trust from management has a positive influence on the agility of an organization.

In case trust is lacking, it could lead to increased costs, lower productivity (Wilson et al., 2005;

McAllistar, 1995), and inefficient ways of working. Agile organizations, in contrast, require excellent

and rapid processes in order to respond quickly to the external environment. Therefore, lower levels


15

of productivity reduce the agility of organizations. Although not a lot is written in literature about

trust in relation with agility, trust seems to be vital for development of extended enterprise networks

and partnering agility (Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover, 2003). Moreover, operational agility

requires trustful willingness to share strategic information (Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover,

2003). Partners who trust each other generate larger profits, are more adaptable, and serve their

customers better (Kumar, 1996). By taking this into account and the aforementioned effects of trust

on strategic flexibility, assumed is that trust in management and trust in colleagues will have a

positive effect on agility as well. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H2B: Trust in management has a positive influence on the agility of an organization.

H2C: Trust in colleagues has a positive influence on the agility of an organization.

2.2. DEPENDENT VARIABLES

2.2.1. Agility influences performance

Agility is not a goal in itself, but the necessity to maintain the competitiveness in the

uncertainty of the market (Jackson and Johansson, 2003). Logically, an agile organization should stay

competitive (Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer, 2007) and improve its performance. What could be done

by gathering data, to sense opportunities and threats, to learn from new knowledge, and respond to

(un)predictable events in the internal and external environment? Theoretical evidence is generated

from Tallon & Pinsonneault (2011) that the more agile an organization is, the higher the performance

of the firm is. In particular, in markets where a rapid change rate exists. Being agile namely means

that a firm responds rapidly to change and gives the firm the opportunity to engage in other actions

to control market risk and uncertainty (Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover, 2003). When

organizations are able to respond quickly, expand into new markets, and increase the innovation

rate, they could reduce costs and experience higher profit (Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011). Moreover,

Locke (1999) stated that new knowledge could lead to a competitive advantage; therefore one could

say that agility, which is about involving customers and partners and thus gaining new knowledge,

increases productivity. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3A: The agility of an organization has a positive influence on the performance of an

organization.

Depending on the industry where an organization is operating in, organizations need to be

highly agile or less agile. The relationship between agility and organizational performance therefore,


16

could be influenced by the turbulence of the environment, or also referred to as industry. Tallon &

Pinsonneault (2011) confirm that indeed in a volatile environment the gain in performance is higher,

but even in a stable environment agility influences performance. Assumed is that a higher level of

environmental turbulence will strengthen the relationship between agility and organizational

performance. Therefore, the following hypothesis is assumed:

H3B: The relationship between agility and organizational performance is moderated by the

environmental turbulence.

2.3. OVERVIEW CONCEPTUAL MODELS

The variables empowerment, trust in management, trust from management, trust in

colleagues, and productivity are measured on the individual level of analysis. Besides, the variables

agility, environmental turbulence, and performance are measured on the organizational level of

analysis. For each level of analysis, a conceptual model is given with the expected relationships.

Then, an aggregate and final conceptual model is given with the expected relationships and

corresponding hypotheses. This will be further explained in the methodology section.

For the constructs measured on the individual level of analysis, the following conceptual

model is made. Empowerment could be identified on the individual level and on team level

(Spreitzer, 1995). By conceptualizing empowerment as self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988),

empowerment is linked to productivity. More recently, it is found that empowerment influences

perceived work productivity (Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999). According to the literature,

assumed is that empowerment positively influences productivity, and also that trust has a positive

influence on productivity.

Trust in management

Trust in colleagues

Productivity

Empowerment

Trust from management

Figure 2.1. Overview of the constructs on the individual level of analysis


17

H1

H2C

H2B

H2A

H3B

H3A

H3B

H3a

On the organizational level of analysis the constructs agility, performance and environmental

turbulence are measured. A positive relationship between agility and performance is assumed and

expected is that this relationship is strengthened by environmental turbulence. Figure 2.2. gives a

visual overview of the model on the organizational level.

To actually find out if empowerment and trust are truly antecedents of agility and if agility

impacts performance as well, an aggregate conceptual model is formed. Below in figure 2.3. the

visual overview of this model can be found. In this model the hypotheses mentioned before are

illustrated.

Figure 2.3. Aggregate conceptual model

Trust in management

Trust in colleagues

Environmental

turbulence

Performance Agility

Empowerment


Environmental

turbulence

Performance Agility

Figure 2.2. Conceptual model of the organizational level of analysis


18

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter will describe the applied method of research. In the first paragraph the sample is

described. Thereafter, the data is collected. In the third paragraph the measurements of the

constructs will be discussed. In the last paragraph a validity and a reliability test of the constructs and

their items are executed and explained.

3.1. SAMPLE

This research was conducted in order for PMtD. PMtD is a consultancy organization that

provides various types of services to companies. Those services are in line with their company profile

and statement: ‘People Make the Difference’. That is also the reason for their great interest in people

within organizations, and not only for technology on which they are focusing as well. For many years

now the services include creating online platforms to stimulate interaction with colleagues while

working from different locations, and developing ways to implement new ways of working.

The sample consists of business relations of PMtD, which is a variety of organizations in all

aspects of the Dutch economy. In total 28 organizations filled in the complete survey. Organizations

that participated in this research are: BAM, FloraHolland, Bureau Jeugdzorg, T-Systems, Persgroep,

Reinier De Graaf Gasthuis, Flynth, Icare, Disgover, Joulz, Huisman Logistics, Kluwer, Essent,

HVOQuerido, Mangrove, LeaseplanBank, Ministerie van Financien, KING, Universiteit Utrecht, ICTU,

Certhon, Provincie Brabant, ASML, Diakonessehuis, Christelijk Lyceum Delft, UMC, HDI-Gerling, and

ISDC. Those organizations operate in divers industries, such as financial service industry, health care

industry, government, and knowledge organizations.

3.2. DATA COLLECTION

This thesis is based on the investigation of the effects of trust and empowerment on the

agility of an organization, and the effects of agility on performance. As mentioned in chapter 2, the

conceptual model consists of two levels of analysis. The variables trust in management, trust from

management, trust in colleagues, empowerment, and productivity are measured on individual level

to find out if employees feel empowered and trusted in their organization. Besides, agility,

performance, and environmental turbulence are measured on the organizational level.

Therefore, for each level a survey is conducted to measure on the one hand the variables

empowerment, trust, and productivity and on the other hand agility, environmental turbulence, and

performance. Within each organization a contact person was asked to select at least 5 respondents

to fill in the survey on the individual level. The respondents are in the range of the control of the


19

persons in management positions. For the second survey, the contact person selected two persons

(informants) who behold a management position, are involved in the strategic decision making of the

organization, and have knowledge of trends and developments outside their organization. The survey

that measures on the individual level can be found in appendix A and the survey that measures on

the organizational level can be found in appendix B.

An online survey was the preferred data collection method, since the respondents and

informants were distributed over multiple organizations. Moreover, an electronically survey makes

processing the results easier: respondents have fixed answers, respondents cannot skip questions,

the data is easier to put in SPSS. Responding to the online survey was on a voluntary basis. Despite,

the participants were made aware of the importance of their response. Even though the researcher

was able to trace back individual results based on the personalized link in the survey tool, the data

was treated confidentially. The confidential statement was assured to the respondents in the

introduction text of the surveys.

In order to analyze the effect of trust and empowerment on agility, preferably all constructs

should be measured on the same level of analysis. In order to analyse the effects of trust and

empowerment on agility, the outcomes of the survey on the individual level should be aggregated to

the organizational level. Not the individual level has become the unit of analysis, but the

organizational level. Therefore, the outcomes of each respondent from one organization should be

merged to create one outcome on organizational level. Before the outcomes can be merged, the

intra-class correlation Rwgj is calculated. This tests whether there is consensus in the outcomes

within the same organization. The Rwgj is calculated for each variable. Checked is whether the

outcomes of an organization show repeatedly low values in this analysis or not. All variables show

values above .90 as can be seen in appendix D. There are no organizations that show repeatedly

outcomes below .80. Thus, the outcomes of the individuals per company can be merged and

aggregated into one outcome per company on the organizational level. By aggregating the variables

to a higher level of analysis, the results should be treated and interpreted with caution.

3.3. MEASUREMENTS

To validate the conceptual model, some questions of the New World of Works

research project are used for the first survey (Baalen, et al., 2009). Those questions are

validated by using existing and tested scales. For this thesis, the following dimensions of

work were taken from the New World of Work questionnaire: empowerment meaning,

empowerment impact, empowerment competence, empowerment self-determination, trust

in management, trust from management, trust in colleagues, and some work characteristics


20

related questions. The New World of Work questionnaire has been pre-tested by a sample of 350

people with at least a bachelor or master’s degree. All questions are randomized per work

dimension, since this can increase the internal consistency. The majority of items in the New World

of Work questionnaire are measured using a 5-point Likert scale, from strongly disagree to strongly

agree. The questions used for this thesis can be found in Appendix A.

As mentioned before, a second questionnaire is created to measure the variables on

organizational level. The reason for having this second questionnaire is that the construct agility can

only be measured on the organizational level. For this questionnaire the variables: agility,

environmental turbulence, and performance are used. The variable performance is a subjective

indication of the performance of an organization compared to their competitors. The questions of

this second questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

3.3.1. Trust

The dimensions of trust are measured using the interpersonal scale of trust at work of Cook

and Wall (1980). Since the theoretical model requires measuring trust within an organization, this

scale is the most appropriate for this thesis. Therefore, Trust in management, trust from

management, and trust in colleagues are measured, using four questions per dimension. It is one of

the first scales to measure interpersonal trust and it is still widely used. And extensively tested. Cook

and Wall (1980) developed a subscale for trust, in which faith in intentions of management is chosen

to measure trust in management. To measure trust in colleagues, the subscale is rephrased to focus

on employees instead of management. All questions about trust are measured on a five-point Likert

scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An overview of all questions can be found in appendix

A. The construct of trust in management and trust in colleagues respectively have a Cronbach’s alpha

of .84 and .80, indicating good internal consistency.

3.3.2. Empowerment

Empowerment is measured using four dimensions of psychological empowerment, namely

meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. Those four dimensions use the

multidimensional measure method of Spreitzer (1995). This method is widely used throughout the

literature (Spreitzer et al. 1997; Siegall and Gardner 2000; Drake et al. 2007; Spreitzer 1996). The

construct validity has also been demonstrated in many independent studies involving different

organizations (Spreitzer 1995; Kraimer et al. 1999; Liden et al. 2000). Each of the dimensions is

measured using three questions on a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

The following Cronbach’s alpha are found for empowerment: Empowerment meaning (.86),


21

empowerment competence (.73), empowerment self-determination (.84), and

empowerment impact (.90). Empowerment as an entire construct is internally consistent as

well, indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .79.

3.3.3. Agility

Agility is a relatively new construct in business literature. The validated scale used in

the questionnaire that measured on organizational level originated from Tallon &

Pinsonneault (2011). The questionnaire of agility exists of eight questions. The questions are

all measured on a seven-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The

reliability of agility is confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha of .88.

3.3.4. Environmental turbulence

The moderating variable environmental turbulence is measured using three dimensions:

technological turbulence, market turbulence, and competitive intensity. All are measured on a seven-

point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree and are taken from Auh and Menguc

(2005). Turbulence of technology consists of three questions, market turbulence and intensity of

competitors consist of four questions. The outcomes of environmental turbulence as an entire

construct shows a Cronbach’s alpha of .76, while the internal consistency of turbulence of technology

is .69, intensity of competitors is .85, and turbulence of market is .55.

3.3.5. Productivity (i.e. performance*)

To measure productivity on individual level, the questionnaire of Staples, Hulland, & Higgins

(1999) and Ramirez & Nembhard (2004) is used. The construct exists of eight questions and

respondents are asked to value the questions on a five-point Likert scale. The Cronbach’s alpha

of productivity is .84.

3.3.6. Organizational performance

For measuring performance on the organizational level the scale of Jaworski and

Kohli (1993) is used. The performance is measured by asking how the performance of the

organization or business unit was. But also by asking how the performance of the

organization was compared to competitors.


22

3.4. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Before the data will be analyzed, it must be confirmed that the constructs are valid and reliable. To

identify the validity of a construct, a factor analysis is conducted. This is discussed in the first sub

paragraph. Next, the reliability test will be discussed. The Cronbach’s alpha is an indicator for the

reliability of a construct; those values can be found in the paragraph before in the text of each

variable.

3.4.1. Validity – factor analysis

In order to draw conclusions from the data, a few requirements should be met (Meulen, 2010). The

first requirement concerns a minimum sample size of five to ten times the numbers of constructs

(Hair et al., 2006) in order to conduct a regression analysis. Second, a significant result for Bartlett’s

test of sphericity is needed. Third, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy

needs to be at the very least exceeding .60. KMO indicates the correlations between pairs of

variables which can be explained by other variables.

The first requirement is met, as the total sample within the survey on the individual level

consists of 132 respondents and this survey is built around five constructs. Looking at the survey on

the organizational level, the sample consists of 28 organizations and this survey has three constructs.

Conclude could be that both samples are good enough to continue with the factor analysis. The

second and third requirements are met as well: Bartlett’s test of sphericity is proven significant for

both the survey on the individual and the organizational level ( =2110.14, p<.01; = 466.16,

p<.01), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value is .76 and .74 for respectively the individual and organizational

survey. Thus, the result of the three requirements claims that a factor analysis is allowed.

In appendix C an overview of the factor analysis wherein both the items of the variables on

individual and organizational level can be found. Values between .50 and .70 are mediocre, values

between .70 and .80 are good, values between .80 and .90 are great and values above .90 are superb

(Hutcheson and Sofroniou, 1999). According to the factor analysis on the individual level, the scales

of empowerment, trust in management, trust from management, trust in colleagues, and

productivity have been reviewed. Empowerment is divided in four constructs, based on the

theoretical background. The analysis shows that indeed four dimensions are identified. The values of

empowerment impact, empowerment self-determination, and empowerment meaning all score over

.80. One item of empowerment competence is below .70 (I am self-assured in respect of my

capabilities to carry out my work, .66), which is mediocre according to the categories of Hutcheson

and Sofroniou (1999). The theory applies this construct in the same composition as is done here,

therefore this construct will be used as it is described in the literature section, it will be treated with


23

caution though. Trust consists of three constructs in the literature and represents three constructs in

the factor analysis as well. Outcomes of trust in management shows two items above .70 and two

items above .80, and therefore indicated as good. Outcomes of trust from management identifies

one item above .70 and three items above .80, and thus is indicated as good as well. Outcomes of

trust in colleagues, additionally, shows three items above .80, and one item above .60 (My colleagues

are sincere in their aims to accommodate the opinions of the managers, .64). This is according to the

categories of Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999) mediocre. Although this item is weaker in the trust in

colleagues construct, it will be used as it is described before, although treated with caution.

According to the survey on the organizational level, the scales of agility, environmental

turbulence and performance are reviewed. To start with agility, this construct consists of eight items

according to the scale of Tallon and Pinsonneault (2011); however the factor analysis shows a

construct comprising seven items. However, even though the outcomes of three items show a value

between .60 and .70 and therefore are weaker compared to the others, which are above .80, agility is

a broad definition and all seven items form one construct. Nonetheless, item five (How easily and

quickly an organization is able to expand to new regional or internationals markets) will be left out,

because it does not correlate with the other items of agility. A possible explanation is that the

question is not applicable for each firm.

The construct environmental turbulence is divided into three constructs, namely:

competitors turbulence, market turbulence, and technology turbulence. Although competitors

turbulence comprises one component with values above .70, market turbulence and technology

turbulence are not seen as two separate components. Two items of market turbulence (>.70 and

>.80) and two items of technology turbulence (>.60) seem to correlate into one component. One

item of market turbulence has a value of .21 and is therefore too weak to keep in the component,

thus it will be left out. The other items of both constructs correlate with none of the turbulence

components and are therefore left out as well. Finally, performance is not taken into the factor

analysis because it is not a multi-dimensional scale.

3.4.2. Reliability

A reliability test is executed to measure the internal consistency of the questions that form a

variable. This is done by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the constructs. In paragraph

3.3. the Cronbach’s alpha is mentioned for each construct. In appendix D a table can be found with

all Cronbach’s alpha for each construct. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient should be at least .60 to be

reliable (Hair et al., 2006), in general a minimum value of .70 is considered to be acceptable (George

and Mallery, 2006).


24

The outcomes of the constructs empowerment, trust in management, trust in colleagues,

trust from management, and productivity show a high Cronbach’s alpha and will not be discussed

further. The constructs agility and environmental turbulence will be discussed shortly. There can be

concluded that almost all the outcomes of the items are above .70 and thus reliable. Agility has a

Cronbach’s alpha of .88, by deleting item 5 the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient improves to a .89. This

item of agility is discussed in the validity section as well and therefore will be deleted. The Cronbach’s

alpha of the dimensions of the environmental turbulence construct are not surprising. Not all

dimensions show a Cronbach’s alpha above .70, but only intensity of competitors is seen as one

construct and results in a Cronbach’s alpha of .85. Therefore, only this dimension will be used to

represent environmental turbulence.


25

4. RESULTS

In this chapter at first a preliminary analysis will be done. In this analysis the correlation table is

shown. In the second paragraph, some descriptives of the sample measured on the individual level

are displayed and also a small analysis, according to figure 2.1. In the third paragraph, some

descriptives of the sample measured on the organizational level of analysis are given, besides a small

analysis is conducted as well, according to figure 2.2. Next, the execution of the aggregated,

conceptual model will be described. This is done according to figure 2.3. Finally, an overview of the

hypotheses will be given together with the final model. Moreover, an extended model illustrates the

outcomes found by conducting the analysis.

4.1. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

A bivariate analysis is done by studying the correlations between the divers variables, which

shows the amount of correlation between the variables used in this matrix. The correlation matrix

can be found in table 4.1.

A remarkable correlation in the table is that the productivity of an employee measured on

the one hand and the performance of an organization measured on the other hand shows a high

correlation, which means that the productivity of employees is in line with the performance of the

organization. Both are indicators of performance and on top of that, individual productivity can

increase the overall performance of an organization. By looking at the correlation matrix, one can see

that both performance measurements highly correlate with each other. For this research, the

productivity measurement functions as the overall dependent variable, and is aggregated to the

organizational level as a performance measurement. The aggregated variable productivity is

displayed further in this thesis as performance*.


26

Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Empowerment Meaning

2. Empowerment Competence

,239

3. Empowerment Self-determination

,107 0,35****

4. Empowerment Impact ,150 0,47*** 0,31****

5. Empowerment 0,56* 0,69* 0,60* 0,80*

6. Trust in management -,225 -,092 -,064 ,238 ,000

7. Trust in colleagues ,042 ,007 ,074 ,264 ,184 0,42***

8. Trust from management -,020 ,307 0,51** 0,41*** 0,44*** -,037 -,056

9. Environmental turbulence -,169 -,080 -,170 ,047 -,113 ,128 -,146

,024

10. Agility -,096 ,145 ,011 ,067 ,035 0,32**** -,154

0,35**** 0,50**

11. Productivity 0,34**** 0,48*** ,287 0,49** 0,60* -,140 -,177

0,67* ,299 0,37****

12. Performance ,077 -,222 ,141 0,40*** ,242 ,166 ,093 0,52** ,058 ,236 0,54**

Notes: *Correlation is significant on the .001-level (1-tailed); **correlation is significant on the .01-level (1-tailed); ***correlation is significant on the .05-level (1-tailed); ****correlation is marginal significant on the .10-level (1-tailed)

Table 4.1. Correlation matrix

4.2. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The survey on the individual level was conducted among 131 employees of 28 companies.

The age of the people in the sample is between 21 and 61, with an average of 39. The division of

gender is more or less equal, 54% is male and 46% is female. 76% of the participant has a HBO

degree or higher. Of all the participants, 72% works 100% of their work time at the permanent office.

The survey measured the variables empowerment, trust, and productivity. A small analysis is

done on the influence of empowerment on productivity and also an analysis is done on the influence

of the dimensions of trust on productivity, according to figure 2.1. This means that trust in

management, trust from management, trust in colleagues, and empowerment are tested

simultaneously in a regression analysis. Expected is, according to the correlation matrix, that only

trust from management will give a significant effect on productivity. This is confirmed by the

regression analysis, which tells us that trust in management does not have a significant effect on

productivity (β=.05, t=.59, p>.10). The same counts for trust in colleagues, that also shows a non-

significant effect on productivity (β=.06, t=.71, p>.10). Trust from management shows a significant

effect on productivity (β=.45, t=.60, p<.01). Moreover, empowerment as one construct is expected to

have a high impact on productivity, according to the correlation matrix in table 4.1. This is confirmed

by the regression analysis (β=.42, t=5.25, p<.01).


27

4.3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The survey on the organizational level was conducted among 52 persons in a management

position within the same 28 companies. Those informants were selected by the contact person which

PMtD has in each company. It was required that the informants are in a position in which they know

what the strategy of the company is and also have knowledge of the trends and developments in

their industry. The age of the people in the sample is between 27 and 58, with an average of 42. The

division of gender is less equal than in the survey on the individual level, 76% is male and 24% is

female. Besides, 90% of the participants have a HBO degree or higher.

The survey has measured the variables agility, environmental turbulence, and performance.

A small analysis is done with the variables on the organizational level of analysis, according to figure

2.2. This means that agility is tested on performance with the moderation of environmental

turbulence. The regression analysis shows that the impact of agility on performance is significant

(β=.34, t=2.42, p<.10). But the environmental turbulence does not have a significant influence on

performance (β=-.01, t=-.09, p>.10). However, also the performance compared to competitors is

measured. Surprisingly agility on the dependent variable gives not a significant effect (β=.21, t=.45,

p>.10). However, by adding the variable environmental turbulence, both agility and environmental

turbulence are significant predictors of performance (β=.34, t=2.24, p<.05 resp. β=-.33, t=-2.15,

p<.05). In the third model, the interaction effect is added (β=.41, t=2.62, p<.01), which shows a

significant effect as well. The model explains 25% of the performance on a significant level of 99%.

The stepwise regression model can be found in appendix E.

4.4. AGGREGATE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The multiple regression analysis is used to analyze how the dependent variable

performance* is influenced by the independent variables: trust in management, trust in colleagues,

trust from management, and empowerment, but also analyses the effect of the mediator agility as

described in the conceptual model, see figure 2.3. This paragraph does not only provide the direct

effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable, but also provides the impact of the

mediator agility and the moderator environmental turbulence on the model. The outcomes of the

analysis will support or not support the hypotheses stated in paragraph 2.3.

Before conducting a regression analysis, three things must be checked. At first, the variables

have to be centered. Secondly, the data has to be checked for outliers. Outliers are extreme values in

the data, which have to be picked out to get a deeper understanding. The dataset does not show

outliers, since all Z-scores are between -3.00 and 3.00. Finally, the data has to be checked for

collinearity and multi-collinearity. This is to make sure that there are no extreme correlations, so-


28

called collinearity, between the independent variables. Collinearity is a strong mutual dependence

between two variables in the model. In case of collinearity the separate contributions of two

independent variables cannot predict the dependent variable accurately. In the correlation matrix in

table 4.1, it is confirmed that there is no collinearity between the variables (generally a correlation of

.90 or higher). Besides collinearity, which can be identified by looking at the bivariate correlations,

one must also check for multi-collinearity (multivariate correlations). This can only be found by

examining tolerance values (Hair et al., 2006). Tolerance values need to be higher than .20 (Van

Dalen & De Leede, 2009), none of the regression models show tolerance values lower than .20 and

thus no multi-collinearity problem arises.

For this analysis there is chosen to follow the described path below, regarding mediation and

moderation, which is illustrated in figure 4.2. Mediation transmits the effect of an independent

variable on a dependent variable, this occurs when the relationship between two variables can be

explained by looking at a third variable. While moderation, in contrast with mediation, means an

interaction effect by which a relationship in fact will be stronger or weaker because of the

moderator. Thus, whereas moderator variables specify when certain effects will hold, mediators

specify how or why such effects occur.

The relationship of the independent variables empowerment, trust in management, trust

from management, and trust in colleagues and the dependent variable performance* is affected by

the mediating variable agility. As mentioned before, to test this model a certain path is followed

which is illustrated in figure 4.2. Firstly, path C is analysed to see whether the independent variable

has a direct effect on the dependent variable. Secondly, path A shows whether the independent

variable has a significant effect on the mediator. Thirdly, the mediator must significantly affect the

dependent variable. Lastly, the dependent variable C’ (i.e. path C’) are controlled for paths A and B,

the effects of the independent variable, there should be a less strong effect than is identified in path

C, which is partial mediation, or the relationship should be insignificant in order to have full

mediation.

Figure 4.2 Mediation model


29

As described in the method section, an aggregate model is made to merge the variables to

the same level of analysis, in order to answer the research question mentioned in the introduction.

4.4.1. Step 1 Regression model of independent variables on dependent variable

In the first step of the regression model, the direct effects of the independent variables

empowerment, trust in management, trust from management, and trust in colleagues are tested on

the dependent variable performance*. This step is illustrated in figure 4.2, which is referred to as

path C.

Step 1.1 Regression model of empowerment on performance*

The effect of empowerment as independent variable on performance* is tested. Although by

taken into account the literature, a positive effect of empowerment on performance* is assumed, it

is not taken as a proposition in this thesis. However, the outcome of this relationship is needed in

testing the mediating model, according to figure 2.3. The bivariate analysis shows a strong

correlation (see the preliminary analysis), which is confirmed by the regression analysis (β=.60,

t=3.81, p<.01). Thus, there could be stated that a positive, direct relation between empowerment

and productivity.

Step 1.2 Regression model of trust on performance*

The effect of trust as a second independent variable is tested on productivity as well. Since

trust consists of three dimensions, all three dimensions are tested on the dependent variable

performance*. Only one of these variables has a significant influence on the dependent variable

performance*. Trust from management shows a strong and positive influence on performance*

(β=.67, t=4.46, p<.01) and is significant on a significance level of 99%. In contrast, trust in

management (β=-.14, t=-.72, p>.10) and trust in colleagues (β=-.18, t=-.92, p>.10) are both not

significant at a 95% significant level. This is in accordance with the correlation matrix, made in the

bivariate analysis.

Step 1.3 Regression model of empowerment and trust on performance*

Since both trust from management and empowerment have a strong influence on

performance*, it is interesting to test the independent variables on the dependent variable,

controlled for each other in a stepwise regression analysis. Firstly, the variable with the highest

correlation with performance* is added to the regression model, see appendix F. Thus, trust from

management is added first. Then, empowerment is added. Finally, trust in management and trust in


30

colleagues are added to the model. Trust from management and empowerment, in model 2 of the

stepwise regression model are still indicated as significant predictors of performance* (R2=.56

Fchange=6.41 p<.05). The third model of the stepwise regression model includes all dimensions of

trust and empowerment. The level of explanation of this model is .61 (R2=.61). This means that

productivity is predicted for 61% by empowerment and trust at a significance level of 90%. The

stepwise regression model can be found in appendix F.

4.4.2. Step 2. Regression model of independent variables on the mediating variable

In the second step of the regression model, the direct effect of the independent variables

empowerment, trust in management, trust from management, and trust in colleagues are tested for

the mediating variable agility. This step is illustrated in figure 4.1, which is referred to as path A.

Step 2.1 Regression model of empowerment on agility

Although regarding the relationship with performance* empowerment is not taken into

account, regarding the relationship with agility it is. Assumed is that if the level of empowerment

increases, the agility of an organization increases as well. The bivariate analysis in table 4.1 shows a

non-significant outcome and a slightly positive correlation, which is confirmed by the regression

analysis (β=.04, t=.18, p>.10). Thus, in this thesis there can be concluded that empowerment does

not influence the agility of an organization at a significance level of 95%, which means that

hypothesis 1 is not supported.

Step 2.2 Regression model of trust on agility

Regarding the variables trust in management, trust from management, and trust in

colleagues assumed is that when the level of interpersonal trust increases, the agility of an

organization will be experiencing an increase as well. The bivariate analysis in the table 4.1 shows a

marginal significant effect of trust in management on the agility of an organization, this is confirmed

by the regression analysis (β=.32, t=1.70, p<.10). Thus, there is a positive relationship between trust

in management and agility at a significance level of 90% and therefore hypothesis 2a is marginally

confirmed.

Regarding Trust in colleagues there is assumed that it has a positive influence on the agility

of an organization as well. The bivariate analysis shows a non-significant, negative effect (see table

4.1) and this is confirmed by the regression analysis (β=-.15, t=-.80, p>.10). Thus, there is no

significant relationship between trust in colleagues and agility at a significance level of 95% and

therefore hypothesis 2b is not supported.


31

Another assumption is that trust from management has a positive influence on the agility of

an organization. The bivariate analysis shows a marginal significant effect (see table 4.1) and this is

confirmed by the regression analysis (β=.35, t=1.91, p<.10). Thus, there is indeed a positive

relationship between trust from management and agility; however the relationship is marginally

significant at a significance level of 90%. Nonetheless, hypothesis 2c is marginally confirmed.

Step 2.3 Regression model of empowerment and trust on agility

To measure the effect of all independent variables on the mediating variable, controlled for

each other, a stepwise regression analysis is conducted. The variables are added in the stepwise

regression model according correlation matrix, the highest (marginally) significant correlation are

added at first, than the one with the second highest correlation, and so on, see table 4.1. This

stepwise regression model indicates that trust from management and trust in management are

marginal significant predictors for agility (R2=.23, Fchange=3.55, p<.10). The third model of the

stepwise regression analysis includes trust in colleagues and empowerment in one step, since those

independent variables showed no significant effect in the bivariate analysis. The level of explanation

of this model is .33 (R2=.33), but this model is not significant. Thus, only trust from management and

trust in management are marginal significant predictors of agility at a significance level of 90%. The

stepwise regression model can be found in appendix G.

4.4.3. Step 3. Regression model of mediating variable on dependent variable

In the third step of the regression model, the direct effect of the mediating variable agility is

tested on the dependent variable performance*. This step is illustrated in figure 4.1, which is

referred to as path B.

Step 3.1 Regression model of agility on performance*

Based on the literature and other research, assumed is that if an organization is more agile,

the performance will increase as well. Chosen is to use an aggregation of the variable productivity,

indicating performance* in the aggregated conceptual model. The bivariate analysis shows a

significant effect and the first step in the regression analysis confirms this relationship between

agility and performance* (β=.37, t=2.04, p<.05) at a significance level of 95%. Thus, concluding it can

be stated that there is a significant relationship between agility and performance*. This effect can be

strengthened by the impact of a moderating variable, namely the turbulence of the environment.

Therefore a second step is taken, by adding the variable environmental turbulence. Model 2 of this

analysis shows that both variables are not significant at a significant level of 95%. Therefore,


32

executing a third model with both the variables agility, environmental turbulence and the interaction

between both cannot have a significant result. This is shown in appendix H.

Surprisingly, by executing this model on the dataset of the survey on the organizational level,

a significant interaction was found. As described in paragraph 4.3, both agility and environmental

turbulence have a significant effect on the performance compared to competitors (β=.34, t=2.24,

p<.05 resp. β=-.33, t=-2.15, p<.05). The interaction effect is found to be significant as well at a 99%

significance level (β=.41, t=2.62, p<.01).

Figure 4. Interaction effect of agility and environmental turbulence, analysed on the organizational level of analysis

4.4.4. Step 4. Regression model of mediating effect

In the fourth step of the regression model, the mediating effect of agility on the relationship

between the independent variables empowerment, trust in management, trust from management,

and trust in colleagues and the dependent variable performance* are tested. This step is illustrated

in figure 4.1, which is referred to as path C’.

Step 4.1 Regression model of mediating effect of agility between empowerment and

performance*

A stepwise regression analysis is conducted to see whether agility has a mediating effect on

the relationship between empowerment and performance*. First, the effect of empowerment on

performance is described in step 1.1 and it shows a positive and significant effect. Second, agility is

added to the regression model. This step indicated that the empowerment and agility are significant

predictors of performance* (R2=.48, Fchange=11.62, p<.01), and these variables explain 48% of the

dependent variable, performance. The analysis shows that the significance of empowerment does

not change, in fact, it remains highly significant (β=.59, t=4.07, p<.01). This means that the

relationship between empowerment and performance* is not fully mediated by the mediator agility.

The stepwise regression model can be found in appendix I. Since the beta of empowerment is slightly

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low Agility High Agility

Per

form

nace

Low

Environmental

turbulence

High

Environmental

turbulence


33

lower when agility is added, it is possible that agility functions as a partial mediator. To prove this, a

more complex test will be conducted. However, since the change of the beta is minimal (.01), no

mediating effect is expected. To analyze the possible partial mediation effect, PROCESS is used,

which combines various tests and is based on a logistic regression-based path analytical framework

for estimating direct and indirect effects in various mediator models (Hayes, 2012). As expected,

there is no partial mediation effect. The PROCESS outcome shows that there is a probability of 95%

change that the effect of the mediator is between -.07 and +.21, which means that the impact can

also be 0. Thus, agility does not mediate the relationship between empowerment and performance*.

The result of the PROCESS analysis can be found in appendix I.

Step 4.1 Regression model of mediating effect of agility between trust and performance*

To see what the effect of the second set of independent variables will be on performance*,

mediated by agility, a stepwise regression analysis is conducted. Step 1.2 shows that on the one hand

trust in management and trust in colleagues do not have a significant effect on performance*, and

trust from management on the other hand has a significant effect on performance*. Therefore, only

trust from management is analyzed to find out whether agility mediates the relationship with

performance*. The analysis shows that trust from management stays significant at a significance

level of 99% (β=.62, t=3.96, p<.01), the effect is less strong but significant. The stepwise regression

model can be found in appendix I. This result means that there is no full mediation, but it could be

that agility is partially mediating this relationship. Whether the relationship between trust from

management and productivity is mediated by agility is checked by a analysis with PROCESS.

Unfortunately, the effect of path C’ (β=.59, t=4.08, p<.01) is only slightly smaller than the effect of

path C (β=.67, t=4.61, p<.01). This means that there is no partial mediation of agility between trust

from management and performance*. The result of the PROCESS analysis can be found in appendix J.


34

H1

H2c

H2b

H2a

H3b

H3a

4.5. HYPOTHESES OVERVIEW

Hypothesis Supported or

not supported

H1

Empowerment has a positive influence on the agility of an organization Not

supported H2a

Trust from management has a positive influence on the agility of an organization Supported

H2b

Trust in management has a positive influence on the agility of an organization Supported

H2c

Trust in colleagues has a positive influence on the agility of an organization Not

supported H3a

The agility of an organization has a positive influence on the performance of an organization

Supported

H3b

The relationship between agility and organizational performance is moderated by the environmental turbulence

Not supported

Figure 4.4. Final proposition overview

Trust in management

Trust in colleagues

Environmental

turbulence

Organizational

performance* Agility

Empowerment


Figure 4.3. Final theoretical model

Empowerment


Agility Productivity

Trust in management

Environmental

turbulence

Performance

Figure 4.5 Extended model, based on the results


35

5. DISCUSSION

In this chapter the results of the analyses done in the previous chapter will be reviewed. The first

paragraph comprises the discussion of the results. This part starts with the hypotheses and will be

followed by the results of the mediating effect of agility.

5.1. DISCUSSION

The main objective of this study was to find out what the effect of the relational dimension is on

the agility of an organization. The need for this objective came from PMtD, a consultancy

organization in Rotterdam, that strongly believes that People Make the Difference. Besides, agility is

seen as a current topic at PMtD. The actuality and importance in business of this phenomenon is

strengthened by many people I spoke with during my study and by an article published by Yacht

(2012) about the agility of organizations. This article claims that 82% of the organizations

investigated by Yacht confirm that agility is a topic which stands high on the agenda. Additionally,

many organizations argue that their agility increases by developing strategic HR, which is done by

recruiting people with the right knowledge and having a more balanced ratio between flexible and

full-time employees in the organization (Yacht, 2012). Empowerment and trust are also relational

elements (i.e. human resource elements) that increase the motivation and productivity of employees

(Conger, 2004). The question remains: do interpersonal trust and empowerment feelings of

employees within an organization strengthen the agility of an organization?

Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer (2007) confirm that an agile organization requires an agile

workforce. And since many authors have said that employee empowerment makes a workforce agile,

a positive relation between these constructs is expected. This research shows that the thought of

empowerment makes the workforce agile; it does not directly mean that empowerment makes an

organization agile as well. Having an agile workforce cannot be seen as equal to an agile organization.

Thus, as mentioned in paragraph 4.4, psychological empowerment does not directly influence the

agility of an organization. However, empowerment in this thesis is the psychological part and

comprises meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, which means perceived autonomy

of the management or at least autonomous feelings of the employee. That means that the employee

feels personally involved in the task feels that he has the capacity to perform a task well, feels that

he can decide how to perform his task and also feels that he has an influence on the department by

performing his task. By scheduling his own work and making his own decisions it would reduce

inertia. Based on this dataset, this does not seems to be the case; it might be a large step for

psychological empowerment to directly influencing the agility of an organization. However, two


36

possible paths can be identified in what way empowerment could indirectly influence the agility of

an organization. One path follows the softer side of motivation (i.e. more intrinsic factors), while the

other path follows the harder side of motivation (i.e. more extrinsic factors). Psychological

empowerment leads to feelings of self-efficacy (Conger, 2004) and self-efficacy could impact the risk

taking behavior, more innovative behavior, and/or more entrepreneurial behavior (i.e. agility). As

described in the literature section, being agile means to stay constantly in touch with your customers

and partners. By exchanging ideas and using the dynamic capabilities (i.e. sensing, responding, and

learning), innovative and entrepreneurial behavior will be supported. Psychological empowerment

might contribute more to an individual achievement than it does to an overall organizational goal,

such as agility. The other path is more focused on influencing the hard side of motivation, such as

productivity. This is analyzed in the current data and confirms that productivity influences the agility

of an organization (β=.55, t=2.44, p<.05). However, it does confirm an indirect effect of

empowerment on agility, but it does not confirm a mediating effect of productivity between the

relationship of empowerment and agility. Concluding, it can be stated that there is no direct effect of

psychological empowerment on organizational agility; a mediator is required to form the bridge

between psychological empowerment and organizational agility.

Trust is mentioned as the second antecedent of agility in this research. Although agility is a

new phenomenon in business literature, it is seen as the extension of strategic flexibility

(Oosterhout, 2010). Since more literature of trust is found regarding strategic flexibility than agility,

the relationship between trust and strategic flexibility is investigated, but will be treated as agility.

Assumed was that all types of trust have a positive influence on agility. Although Wintrobe & Breton

(1986) argue that a stronger effect exists in vertical relationships, expected was that horizontal

relationships leads to agility as well. The results however show that trust from management and trust

in management have a positive influence on the agility of an organization. Which on the one hand is

not surprisingly, since Wintrobe & Breton (1986) stated that horizontal relationships are less

important than vertical relationships regarding interpersonal trust. On the other hand, if one trusts

his colleague, one does not have the urgency to control the task of a colleague. This could increase

the speed and flexibility of work, which are both parts of agility. Thus, it could be that the persons

invited for this study, are not or only slightly depending on their colleagues for their tasks. Because

for being agile, employees should utilize the knowledge of the other. Interpersonal trust in

colleagues does not necessarily lead to agility, but may have another effect. For instance, trust in

colleagues positively enhances knowledge sharing (Gray, 2001; Staples & Webster, 2008), and for

being agile, knowledge richness, and digital knowledge options are important antecedents of

customer agility and partnering agility (Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover, 2003). Thus, while in

this thesis no direct relationship of trust in colleagues on agility is found, for future research it might


37

be interesting to look at the relationship of trust in colleagues on knowledge sharing, which in turn

affects agility.

Being agile is seen as a driver to achieve competitive advantages (Sherehiy, Karwowski, &

Layer, 2007) and overall performance. Therefore, assumed was that agility functions as mediator to

see whether being agile helps to increase the performance of an organization. This is confirmed in

the aggregated model. Although Tallon & Pinsonneault (2011) describe that the gain in performance

will be higher when the relationship between agility and performance is moderated by

environmental turbulence, surprisingly this is not confirmed by the aggregated model of this

research. Environmental turbulence is measured as the intensity of competitors. It could be that the

construct of environmental turbulence became too small to have an impact, since only intensity of

the competitors as one of the three environmental turbulence dimensions (i.e. market turbulence,

technology turbulence, and competitors’ turbulence) correlates into one construct. When also

market turbulence and technology turbulence are taken into account, it was more likely that an

effect would occur. Especially since it is more important to be able to get along with the changing

environment and technology instead of with the competitors, since competitors might not be able to

keep up with the environmental turbulence, which makes the intensity of competitors lower than the

market turbulence.

The mediating effect of agility in the relationships of empowerment and performance* and

of trust and performance* is mentioned and leading through the research: ‘Do trust and

empowerment influence the agility of an organization and how does agility in turn influence the

performance?’. No full mediation was found and after testing for partial mediation using PROCESS,

again a non-supporting answer was found. Although empowerment and trust from management do

influence agility and an effect of agility on performance* was found as well; no mediating effect was

confirmed. This outcome can be explained by the relatively new construct of agility, in particular the

construct agility in relation with empowerment and trust. The scale of agility from Tallon &

Pinsonneault (2011) was used, which might not be applicable for every organization; the construct

seems to focus more on commercial institutions, since some questions require a response towards

actions of competitors. The sample of Tallon & Pinsonneault (2011) comprises publicly traded firms,

while the sample of this thesis consists of a variety of organizations; for instance both health care

organizations and industrial organizations are included in the sample. By controlling for profit and

non-profit organizations, there seems to be no difference in the agility even though results show that

the values are more centered for profit organizations.


38

6. CONCLUSION

This chapter will give an answer to the main research question: ‘Do trust and empowerment

influence the agility of an organization and how does agility in turn influence the performance?’.

Besides, the theoretical implications are described in the second paragraph, followed by the practical

implications in the third paragraph. At the end of this chapter, the limitations of the study and

suggestions for future research are described.

6.1. CONCLUSION

Concluding it can be stated that empowerment and trust in colleagues do not directly lead to

an agile organization, while trust in management and trust from management positively influence

the agility of an organization.

Agility does influence the performance* of an organization (i.e. aggregated productivity), but

this relationship is not strengthen by the moderator environmental turbulence though. The dataset

on the organizational level found a moderating effect of environmental turbulence on the

relationship between agility and performance compared to competitors.

6.2. THEORECTICAL IMPLICATIONS

By addressing several gaps in business literature, this thesis made some theoretical

contributions. Agility as a new field of interest was not mentioned in previous business literature

often. It originates from the Information Technology sector and has only recently expanded to

business strategy. Although it can be measured solely on the organizational level, interesting to know

is how individuals can contribute to this phenomenon. While empowerment was expected to be an

antecedent of agility, it does not seem to have an effect. Trust in management and trust from

management, however, show a significant or marginal significant effect on agility. Therefore, it

seems that vertical relationships of trust do influence the agility of an organization. Those

hypotheses confirm that interpersonal trust is important for responding quickly to changes in the

environment. This relationship was not tested before and therefore it contributes to the already

published literature on agility, a new interesting path was discovered for further research.

6.3. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

At first sight, the expected relationships are not all proven to be true. The extended

model can contribute to practice more. Employees that perceive trust from their management or

supervisor and that feel more empowered, are proven to be more productive. It is important for

managers is to show their trust in employees, in order to gain higher performance. They must also

give their employees the feeling that they are empowered.


39

Which in turn affects the agility and agility leads to higher performance. Thus, by reaching a certain

level of productivity, an organization is able to sense, respond, and learn of developments in the

external environment. By being on that level of productivity, an organization can be agile. That

means that the organization can focus on changes and trends in the external environment by using

the dynamic capabilities. Besides, involvement of customers and partners makes them more agile as

well. Moreover, the agility of an organization helps to improve the performance of an organization.

Concluding that there is an indirect effect of trust and empowerment on the agility of an

organization, it is worthwhile for managers to stimulate empowerment of their employees and

trustful relationships.

6.4. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

A limitation of the research is that the conceptual model and thus the research, is based on

an aggregated level. The surveys are conducted on two levels of analysis: the organizational level

and the individual level, due to the measurement levels of the variables. In order to be able to

analyze the conceptual model, the results of the survey on the individual level of analysis are

aggregated to the organizational level. Although 28 companies are involved in the study, per

organization a relative small group respondents and informants are asked to participate in the study.

Besides, although productivity and organizational performance seemed to correlate, they do

not measure exactly the same thing. This can be seen in the fact that environmental turbulence

moderates the relationship between agility and performance, but not the relationship between

agility and productivity (i.e. performance*).

Another limitation is that the focus on the business relations of PMtD was too broad for this

initial research about the agility of organizations. A variety of organizations in various sectors where

asked to participate. The sample consists of health care organizations, knowledge organizations,

industrial organizations, and organizations in the financial service sector. Even though a broad

sample was taken to test the conceptual model, this could be seen as an advantage because the

variety of sectors makes this research more generalizable. Due to the findings, a first step is taken

and in future research one might look at one specific sector to find out whether empowerment may

influence the agility of an organization. Besides, when the focus is on one sector, environmental

turbulence is similar for all organizations, which makes them more comparable and a stronger effect

might be found.

A limitation according to the construct psychological empowerment is that it measures the

feeling of employees regarding their task. The construct consists of four dimensions, which all refer

to the feeling that one has (i.e. the ability to perform a certain task with his/her capabilities). Since

psychological empowerment is driven by an intrinsic force (i.e. feeling) this does not directly mean


40

that one actually acts empowered. So, for future research another construct might be used to

measure empowerment. For example more structural empowerment: the flexibility one has to

perform a task, or the empowerment one has according to the manager.

To measure agility, the scale of Tallon & Pinsonneault (2011) is used, which is quite new and

might still need some fine-tuning. For example, the questions in this scale might not be applicable for

each organization in the sample set. In the health care industry, for instance, some questions could

not be applied as easy as in the financial industry. One of the items of agility asked how easy an

organization is able to react to the introduction of a new product or service by a competitor in the

same industry. If an informant of an organization experiences trouble by answering the question, this

might influence the results. Thus, for future research one might do a pre-test in order to check

whether all questions are understandable and applicable. Although, some questions might not be

applicable to the current situation for example, health care institutions become more and more

commercial and thus it is possible that the questions are applicable in a while. Besides, not all

industries experience the same level of competitors and thus might experience difficulty as well in

answering questions which refers to competitors. On top of that, item five was deleted in the validity

and reliability section, since it does not correspond into one construct. This can be a result of

differences in outcomes of the surveys. Concluding, besides having a sample in one industry,

adapting questions of agility to the chosen sample is a requirement as well. This can be achieved by

performing a pre-test for instance.

For future research it might be interesting to investigate the extended model below (i.e. figure

6.1), which is based on this initial research. This model focusses on how the relational dimensions,

empowerment and trust, could have an indirect effect on the agility of an organization. And thus it

focuses on how organizations can increase their agility as well, by focusing on empowerment and

trust on the individual level, which can be influenced by the manager.

Empowerment


Agility Productivity

Trust in management

Environmental

turbulence

Performance

Trust in colleagues

Knowledge

sharing

Figure 6.1 Extended model: suggestion for future research


41

BIBLIOGRAFIE

Ashforth, B. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Process, 207-242.

Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2004). Top management team diversity and innovativeness: The moderating

role of interfunctional coordination.

Baalen, P. v. (2011, September nr. 3). Het nieuwe werken in de high performance workplace: een

kwestie van empowerment en vertrouwen. TvOO, pp. 52-57.

Baalen, P., Bajema, R., Calter, D., Duits, Y., Go, F., Heck, E. v., et al. (2009). Worlds of Work: Results

from the new worlds of work research project 2008. RSM Erasmus University.

Baalen, P., Fenema, P. v., & Huysman, M. (2006). Business Agility: Paradoxes and Limits. Working

paper.

Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (1999). The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation

on Organizational Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 411-427.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

review, 84, pp. 191-215.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York: Academic Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.

Bijl, D. (2009). Aan de slag met Het Nieuwe Werken. Zeewolde: Par CC.

Blomqvist, & Kirsimarja. (1997). The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13 no.

3, 271-286.

Breu, K., Hemingway, C., & Strathern, M. (2001). Workforce agility: the new employee strategy for

the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, 21-31.

Brief, A., & Nord, W. (1990). Meaning of occupational work. MA: Lexington Books.

Colquitt, J. A., & Salam, S. C. (2009). Foster Trust through Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity. In E. A.

Locke, Handbook of the principles of organizational behavior (pp. 389 - 404). West Sussex:

Wiley.

Conger, J. (2004). Motivate performance through empowerment. In: Locke.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Intergrating theory and practice.

Academy of management review, 471-481.

Cook, J. a. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal

need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 39-52.


42

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and

personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 39-52.

Cooke, W. (1994). Employee participantion programs, group based incentives, and company

performance: a union - non-union comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 594-

602.

Costa e Silva, S., Bradley, F., & Sousa, C. (2012). Empirical test of the trust - performance link in an

international alliances context. International Business Review, 293 - 306.

Costa, A. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnal review, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 605-622.

Dalen, J. v., & Leede, E. d. (2000). Statistisch onderzoek met SPSS for windows. Centraal Boekhuis.

Das, T., & Elango, B. (1995). Managing Strategic Flexibility: Key to effective performance. Journal of

General Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 60-75.

Dess, G., & Robinson, R. (1984). Measuring Organizational Performance in Absence of Objective

measures: The Case of the Privately-Held firm and Conglomerate Business Unit. Strategic

Management Journal, 265-273.

Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personal Review, 557-588.

Dirks, K. (1999). The Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Work Group Performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 445-455.

Dove, R. (2001). Response Ability: the Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise. Wiley.

Dove, R. (2005). Agile enterprise cornerstones: knowledge, values, and response ability. Business

agility and information technology diffusion., 313-330.

Drake, A., Wong, J., & Salter, S. (2007). Empowerment, motivation, and performance: Examining the

impact of feedback and incentives on non management employees. Behavioral research in

accounting, 71.

Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines for our changing society. Harper & Row.

Drucker, P. (2007). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Transaction Publishers.

Fenema, P. v., & Baalen, P. v. (2005). Strategies for dealing with drift during implementation of ERP

systems. ERIM working paper (available from https://ep.eur.nl/handle/1765/6769).

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about

telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.

Journal of applied psychology, 1524-1541.

Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and

malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 183.

Goldman, S., & Nagel, R. (1993). Management, technology and agility: The emergence of a new era in

manufacturing. International Journal of Technology Management, 18-38.


43

Goldman, S., Nagel, R., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual organizations: strategies for

enriching the customer. Van Nostrand Reinold, New York.

Gray, P. (2001). The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the workplace.

Information technology and people, 368-384.

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data anlysis with readings. Prentice

Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Hayes, A. (2012). PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation,

Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling (White paper). Retrieved from

http://www.afhayes.com/.

Hill, E., Ferris, M., & Martinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how

three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of

work and personal/family life. . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 220-241.

Hill, E., Hawkins, E., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an Extra Day a Week: The Positive

Influence of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance*. Family Relations, 49-

58.

Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. SAGE.

Jackson, M., & Johansson, C. (2003). Agility analysis from a production system perspective.

Intergarted manufacturing systems, 482-488.

Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of

Marketing, 53-70.

Kidd, P. (1994). Agile manufacturing: Forging new frontiers. Addison-Wesley, reading, MA.

Kirkman, B., Tesluk, P., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team

leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group &

Organization Management, 334-368.

Klimosky, R., & Karol, B. (1976). The Impact of Trust on Creative Problem Solving Groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology., 630-633.

Koberg, C., Boss, R., Senjem, J., & Goodman, E. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment:

Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group & Organization management, 71-91.

Kowalski, K., & Swanson, J. (2005). Critical success factors in developing teleworking programs

benchmarking. An International Journal, 236-249.

Kraimer, M., Seibert, S., & Liden, R. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional

construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 127-142.

Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust in manufacturer- retailer relationships. Harvard Business

review, 92-106.


44

Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). The advantages and challenges of working here, there,

anywhere, and anytime. Organizational dynamics, 53-69.

Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of

workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of organizational behavior, vol. 25,

issue 4, pp 527-545.

Liden, R., Wayne, S., & Sparrowe, R. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological

empowerment on the relations between job, interpersonal relationships, and work

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 407.

Locke, E. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.

Oranizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 288-209.

Manoochehri, G., & Pinkerton, T. (2003). Managing telecommuters: opportunities and challenges.

American business review, 9-16.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.

Academy of management review, 709-734.

McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal co-operation

in organisations. . Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.

Mengue, P. (2005). The Absent People and the Void of Democracy. Contemporary Political Theory,

386–399.

Meulen, D. v. (2010). Modeling the Choice of Telework Frequency and its Effects on Productivity and

Work/Life Balance.

Moulin, S. d. (2012, July 7). Organizaties weten wendbaarheid niet te vergroten in crisistijd. Yacht: A

randstad company, p.

http://www.yacht.nl/content/corporate/nieuws/2012/07/20120711_wbdh4_belemmerin.x

ml.

Oosterhout, M. v. (2010). Business Agility and Information Technology in Service Organizations.

Rotterdam: ERIM.

Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2005). A framework for enterprise agility and the

enabling role of digital options. Business Agility and Information Technology Diffusion., 295–

312.

Oyen, M. v., Gel, E., & Hopp, W. (2001). Performance opportunity for workforce agility in

collaborative and non-collaborative work systems. IIE Transactions, 761-777.

Ramirez, Y., & Nembhard, D. (2004). Measuring knowledge worker productivity. Journal of

intellectual capital, 5, 4 pp. 602-628.

Reed, K., & Blunsdon, B. (1998). Organizational flexibility in Australia. International Journal of Human

Resource Management., 457–477.


45

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definition and new directions.

Contemporary educational psychology, 54-67.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,

social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, pp 68-78.

Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agilitythrough digital options:

reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. Mis Quarterly,

237-263.

Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks,

and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 445–460.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnal

Review, 703.

Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of

Management Journal, 483.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement,

and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. K., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A Dimensional Analysis of the Relationship

between Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction, and Strain. Journal of

Management, 679-704.

Spreitzer, G., & Mishra, A. (1999). Giving up without losing control: trust and its substitutes’ effects

on managers’ involving employees in decision-making. Group & Organization Management,

155-87.

Staples, D., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependency and virtualness

on knowledge sharing in teams. Information systems journal, 617-640.

Staples, S., Hulland, J., & Higgins, C. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of

remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization science, 10, 6 pp. 758-776.

Tallon, P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic

information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation

model. Mis Quarterly, 463 - 486.

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic

Management Journal, 509-33.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). An 'interpretive' model of intrinsic task motivation. The

Academy of Management Journal, 666-681.

Tsourveloudi, N., & Valavanis, K. (2002). On the measurement of enterprise agility. Journal of

Intelligent and Robotic Systems., 329–342.


46

Tzafrir, S., & Dolan, S. (2004). Trust me: a scale for measuring manager-employee trust. Management

Research, 115-32.

Volberda, H. (1997). Building flexible organizations for fast-moving markets. Long Range Planning,

169-183.

Volberda, H., & Rutges, A. (1999). A knowledge-based system for managing strategic change.

Decision Support Systems, 99-123.

Wintrobe, R., & Breton, A. (1986). Organizational structure and productivity. The American Economic

Review, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 530-538.

Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic Flexibility in Information Technology Alliances:

The influence of Transaction Cost Economy and Social Exchange Theory. Organization

science, Vol. 10 No. 4 pp. 439-459.

Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 229-239.


47

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SURVEY ON INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

Werklocatie

Locatie

Betreft de locatie waar de respondent gemiddeld genomen zijn werkzaamheden uitvoert. Er wordt

gevraagd aan te geven hoeveel procent van de totale werktijd (100%) de respondent op verschillende

locaties werkt.

1. Geef aan in percentages hoeveel tijd je gemiddeld genomen op elk van de onderstaande

locaties besteedt aan het uitvoeren van jouw werkzaamheden. Verdeel je totale werktijd over

de verschillende locaties. Je kunt alleen gehele procentuele aantallen invullen: het totaal

dient gelijk te zijn aan 100%.

A. Op kantoor

B. Op extern kantoor of vergaderlocatie

C. Op klantlocatie

D. Onderweg

E. Thuis

Empowerment

Betekenis

Betreft de mate waarin de respondent zijn werkzaamheden betekenisvol acht, alsmede het belang dat hij aan zijn werkzaamheden hecht.

1. Het werk dat ik doe, is erg belangrijk voor mij. 2. Mijn werkactiviteiten hebben persoonlijke betekenis voor mij. 3. Het werk dat ik doe, is betekenisvol voor mij.

Competentie

Betreft de mate waarin de respondent vertrouwen heeft in zijn eigen capaciteiten en het vermogen om zijn werkzaamheden goed te verrichten.

1. Ik heb vertrouwen in mijn vermogen om mijn werk te doen. 2. Ik ben zelfverzekerd voor wat betreft mijn capaciteiten om mijn werkzaamheden te

verrichten. 3. Ik heb de vaardigheden aangeleerd die noodzakelijk zijn voor mijn werk.

Zelfbeschikking

Betreft de mate waarin de respondent zelf kan beslissen hoe hij zijn werkzaamheden verricht. 1. Ik heb aanzienlijke zelfstandigheid om te bepalen hoe ik mijn werk doe. 2. Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik mijn werk moet aanpakken. 3. Ik heb ruime gelegenheid voor onafhankelijkheid en vrijheid ten aanzien van de manier

waarop ik mijn werk verricht. Impact

Betreft de mate waarin de respondent een invloed heeft op hetgeen er binnen zijn afdeling gebeurt. 1. Mijn impact op hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt, is groot.


48

2. Ik heb veel controle over hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt. 3. Ik heb een aanzienlijke invloed op hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt.

Vertrouwen

Vertrouwen in het management

Betreft de mate waarin de respondent vertrouwen heeft in het (top level) management van de

organisatie. Dit construct omvat o.a. aspecten als het tegemoet komen aan de opvattingen van de

medewerkers, het nemen van verstandige beslissingen over de toekomst van de organisatie, en het

altijd rechtvaardig behandelen van de respondent.

1. Het management is oprecht in het streven om tegemoet te komen aan de opvattingen van de medewerkers.

2. Het management verricht zijn taken efficiënt, voor zover ik dat kan beoordelen. 3. Ik vertrouw erop dat het management verstandige beslissingen neemt over de toekomst van

[de organisatie]. 4. Ik heb er alle vertrouwen in dat [de organisatie] altijd zal proberen me rechtvaardig te

behandelen.

Vertrouwen in collega’s

Betreft de mate waarin de respondent vertrouwen heeft in zijn collega’s. Dit construct omvat o.a.

aspecten als het efficiënt verrichten van werkzaamheden, het nemen van verstandige beslissingen

met het oog op de toekomst van de organisatie, en het altijd rechtvaardig behandelen van de

respondent.

5. Mijn collega’s zijn oprecht in hun streven om tegemoet te komen aan de opvattingen van de managers.

6. Mijn collega’s verrichten hun taken efficiënt, voor zover ik dat kan beoordelen. 7. Er kan op worden vertrouwd dat mijn collega’s verstandige beslissingen nemen met het oog

op de toekomst van [de organisatie]. 8. Ik heb er alle vertrouwen in dat mijn collega’s altijd zullen proberen om me rechtvaardig te

behandelen.

Productiviteit

Betreft de mate van productiviteit van de respondent (eigen beoordeling). Dit construct omvat o.a. aspecten als efficiëntie, effectiviteit, en kwaliteit van werkresultaten.

1. Ik geloof dat ik een effectieve medewerker ben. 2. Binnen mijn werkgroep behoren mijn eigen prestaties naar mijn oordeel tot de beste 25%. 3. Ik ben tevreden over de kwaliteit van mijn werkresultaten. 4. Ik werk erg efficiënt. 5. Ik ben een zeer productieve medewerker. 6. Ik verricht doorgaans veel (of grote hoeveelheden) werk. 7. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik gestelde deadlines haal. 8. Ik werk regelmatig over om mijn werk af te maken. 9. In mijn werk heb ik geregeld momenten die ik als ‘verloren’ beschouw. 10. Mijn werkresultaten voldoen doorgaans aan alle eisen die eraan gesteld worden. 11. Ik verricht mijn werkzaamheden altijd op de juiste manier, ook als dit betekent dat ik

bepaalde eisen of deadlines niet haal.


49

12. Mijn activiteiten en de projecten waarin ik actief ben, blijven doorgaans binnen het gestelde budget.

13. Mijn activiteiten en/of de projecten waarin ik actief ben, zijn doorgaans erg winstgevend voor de organisatie.

14. Klanten (zowel extern alsook interne afdelingen of groepen) zijn altijd tevreden over de door mij verrichte werkzaamheden.

15. De projecten waarin ik actief ben, worden altijd als een succes beschouwd.


50

APPENDIX B: SURVEY ON ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Environmental turbulence

Turbulentie van de omgeving betreft onder andere de markt turbulentie, intensiteit van concurrentie, technologische concurrentie. Geef aan voor onderstaande stellingen, in hoeverre dit toepasbaar is op de operationele omgeving van de organisatie op een schaal van 1 tot 5. (1 = weinig en 5 = heel erg)

1. Mate van markt turbulentie

2. Frequentie van veranderingen in de klant voorkeur

3. Mogelijkheid tot het reduceren van markt onzekerheden

4. Mogelijkheid tot het reageren op markt kansen

5. Mate van op promotie gebaseerde concurrentie

6. Mate van concurrentie intensiteit

7. Gelijkheid in aanbod van producten door concurrenten

8. Mate van op prijs gebaseerde concurrentie

9. Mate van technologische turbulentie in de omgeving

10. Leiderschap in product en/of proces innovatie

11. Impact van nieuwe technologieën op operationeel gebied

Hoe eenvoudig en snel kan uw bedrijf de volgende acties uitvoeren?

Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande stellingen (1= Sterk mee oneens; 5=Sterk mee

eens).

1. Wisselen van leverancier ten behoeve van lagere kosten, betere kwaliteit of betere

leveringstijden.

2. Uitbreiden naar nieuwe regionale of internationale markten.

3. Reageren op veranderingen in de eisen van gebruikers.

4. Personaliseren van een product of dienst voor een individuele klant.

5. Toepassen van nieuwe technologieën om beter, sneller en goedkoper producten en/of

diensten te produceren.

6. Veranderen van de diversiteit van producten of diensten (uitbreiden of reduceren).

7. Reageren op de lancering van een nieuw product of nieuwe dienst van concurrenten.

8. Introduceren van een nieuw prijs schema als reactie op de prijzen van concurrenten.

Organizational performance

Beoordeel onderstaande stelling over het afgelopen jaar (1=Significante daling; 5= Significante

stijging).

1. Verandering in marktaandeel in verhouding tot de grootste concurrent.


51

Beoordeel de onderstaande stellingen (1=Slecht; 5=Uitstekend).

2. De algehele performance van uw organisatie het afgelopen jaar was:

3. In vergelijking met de concurrentie, de algehele performance van uw organisatie het

afgelopen jaar was:


52

APPENDIX C: FACTOR ANALYSIS

Rotated Component Matrix Individual Level Survey

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Productivity Ik werk erg efficiënt. .76 .13 -.09 .02 .07 -.03 .04 .02

Ik geloof dat ik een effectieve medewerker ben. .73 .16 .00 .05 .01 .01 .27 .08

Ik ben een zeer productieve medewerker. .73 .17 .08 .06 -.07 .25 -.04 .07

Ik zorg ervoor dat ik gestelde deadlines haal. .68 .10 .10 .07 .12 -.15 .01 .17

Binnen mijn werkgroep behoren mijn eigen prestaties naar mijn oordeel tot de beste 25%.

.64 .10 .08 .16 -.02 .00 -.01 .21

Ik verricht doorgaans veel (of grote hoeveelheden) werk. .62 .13 .11 .25 -.03 .22 -.09 .09

Ik ben tevreden over de kwaliteit van mijn werkresultaten. .58 .25 .03 -.10 .13 .07 .03 .34

Trust from management ...ziet mijn manager mij als een betrouwbaar persoon. .18 .88 .03 .11 .04 .02 .13 .12

...heeft mijn manager volledig vertrouwen in mij. .29 .83 .05 .03 .06 -.09 .07 .06

...beschouwt mijn manager mij als een toegewijde medewerker.

.18 .81 .13 .10 .00 .12 .11 .13

...vindt mijn manager dat ik naar behoren presteer. .17 .78 .02 .06 .05 .04 .12 .08

Trust in management Het management van mijn organisatie is oprecht in het streven om tegemoet te komen aan de opvattingen van de medewerkers

.09 .02 .85 -.04 .09 .05 .09 -.02

Er kan op worden vertrouwd dat het management verstandige beslissingen neemt over de toekomst van de organisatie.

-.02 .05 .82 .25 .18 -.02 -.06 -.07

Het management van mijn organisatie verricht zijn taken efficiënt, voor zover ik dat kan beoordelen.

.06 .07 .76 .26 .07 .13 .02 -.01

Ik heb er alle vertrouwen in dat mijn organisatie altijd zal proberen mij rechtvaardig te behandelen.

.05 .08 .75 -.18 .20 -.02 .10 .10

Empowerment Impact Ik heb een aanzienlijke invloed op hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt.

.08 .09 .10 .87 .08 .05 .20 .09

Ik heb veel controle over hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt.

.12 .11 .05 .87 .05 -.01 .09 .09

Mijn impact op hetgeen er binnen mijn afdeling gebeurt, is groot.

.17 .06 .07 .86 .10 .03 .15 .04

Trust in colleagues Mijn collega's verrichten hun taken efficiënt, voor zover ik dat kan beoordelen.

.02 .13 .04 .06 .82 .07 .02 .10

Er kan op worden vertrouwd dat mijn collega's verstandige beslissingen nemen over de toekomst van de organisatie.

-.03 .01 .17 .08 .80 .13 -.01 -.11

Ik heb er alle vertrouwen in dat mijn collega's altijd zullen proberen om me rechtvaardig te behandelen.

.04 .01 .12 .04 .79 .00 .08 .15


53

Mijn collega's zijn oprecht in hun streven om tegemoet te komen aan de opvattingen van de managers.

.18 -.04 .43 .05 .64 -.10 .07 -.09

Empowerment Meaning Mijn werkactiviteiten hebben persoonlijke betekenis voor mij.

.06 .01 .04 .09 .04 .88 .01 .05

Het werk dat ik doe, is erg belangrijk voor mij. -.01 .03 .04 .01 .04 .86 .01 .07

Het werk dat ik doe, is betekenisvol voor mij. .11 .02 .01 -.04 .05 .85 .03 .19

Empowerment Self-determination Ik heb aanzienlijke zelfstandigheid om te bepalen hoe ik mijn werk doe.

.03 .05 .01 .18 .02 .07 .87 .09

Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik mijn werk moet aanpakken. .00 .18 .01 .10 .11 .09 .85 .02

Ik heb ruime gelegenheid voor onafhankelijkheid en vrijheid ten aanzien van de manier waarop ik mijn werk verricht.

.09 .16 .14 .12 .02 -.11 .80 .02

Empowerment Competence Ik heb vertrouwen in mijn vermogen om mijn werk te doen. .29 .00 .00 .04 -.02 .09 .09 .80

Ik heb de vaardigheden aangeleerd die noodzakelijk zijn voor mijn werk.

.20 .21 .06 .06 .15 .19 .01 .72

Ik ben zelfverzekerd voor wat betreft mijn capaciteiten om mijn werkzaamheden te verrichten.

.27 .27 -.14 .26 -.04 .13 .05 .62

Rotated Component Matrix Organizational Level Survey

Component

1 2 3 4

Agility

Reageren op veranderingen in de eisen van gebruikers. .84 .09 .09 .04

Personaliseren van een product of dienst voor een individuele klant.

.84 .09 .00 .10

Veranderen van de diversiteit van producten of diensten (uitbreiden of reduceren).

.82 .16 .26 -.10

Toepassen van nieuwe technologieën om beter, sneller en goedkoper producten en/of diensten te produceren.

.81 .01 -.08 .40

Reageren op de lancering van een nieuw product of nieuwe dienst van concurrenten.

.69 .26 .35 .07

Introduceren van een nieuw prijs schema als reactie op de prijzen van concurrenten.

.64 .37 .15 -.43

Wisselen van leverancier ten behoeve van lagere kosten, betere kwaliteit of betere leveringstijden.

.63 .05 .06 .24

Stability of competitors in industry

De mate van concurrentie gebaseerd op prijs is ... .12 .85 -.05 .17

De gelijkheid in het aanbod van producten door concurrenten is ... .30 .83 -.02 .00

De intensiteit van concurrentie is ... .18 .82 -.10 .35

De mate van concurrentie gebaseerd op promotie is ... -.02 .74 .11 -.13

Stability of market and technology in industry

De frequentie van veranderingen in de voorkeur van de klant is ... -.09 .03 .82 .04


54

De aanwezigheid van organisaties die het voortouw nemen wat betreft innovatie in producten en/of processen in deze industrie is…

.25 .07 .70 -.07

De mogelijkheid tot het reduceren van onzekerheden in de markt is ...

.18 -.01 .66 .05

De mate van technologische dynamiek in deze industrie is ... .18 -.09 .63 .41

De impact van nieuwe technologieën op werkzaamheden is ... -.07 -.15 .59 .59

Rest

De mate van markt dynamiek is ... .20 .32 .05 .66

De mogelijkheid tot het reageren op kansen in de markt is ... .38 .16 .23 .47


55

APPENDIX D: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Reliability analysis

Construct Cronbach's Alpha Corrected item - Total correlation Rwgj

Empowerment - Meaning .86 .73 - .74 .91

Empowerment - Competence .73 .55 - .58 .93

Empowerment - Self Determination .84 .66 - .75 .94

Empowerment - Impact .90 .78 - .84 .90

Empowerment - Total .79 .33 - .59 -

Trust in Management .84 .58 - .73 .91

Trust in Colleagues .80 .56 - .67 .94

Trust from Management .89 .69- .78 .95

Trust - Total .82 .33 - .57 -

Productivity .84 .56 - .65 .97 Table 1 Reliability table with the Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlations on the individual level

Construct Cronbach's Alpha Corrected item - Total correlation Rwgj

Environmental turbulence .76 .30 - .56 -

Turbulence - Technology .69 .46 - .58 .94

Turbulence - Competitors .85 .58 - .79 .98

Turbulence - market .55 .28 - .41 .99

Agility .89 .58 - .79 .97 Table 2 Reliability table with the Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlations on the organizational level


56

APPENDIX E: REGRESSION ANALYSIS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Agility – Environmental turbulence – Performance compared to competitors

Performance compared to competitors

Model

summary

Model β t Sig.

1 Agility .21 .45 .15

R2 .04

F 2.10

Sig. .15

2 Agility .34 2,24 .03

Environmental turbulence -.33 -2.15 .04

R2 .13

F 4.62

Sig. .04

3 Agility .48 3.15 .00

Environmental turbulence -0.19 -1.23 .22

Interaction agility * environmental turbulence

.41 2.62 .01

R2

.25

F

6.85

Sig. .01


57

APPENDIX F: REGRESSION ANALYSIS STEP 1

Trust from management / Empowerment / Trust in management / Trust in colleagues–

Performance*

Performance*

Model summary

Model B SE B β t Sig.

1 Trust from management .63 .14 .67 4.61 .00

R2

.45

F

21.23

Sig.

.00


Empowerment .34 .13 .37 2.53 .02

R2

.56

F

6.41

Sig.

.02


Empowerment .39 .14 .43 2.89 .01

Trust in management -.02 .08 -.03 -.22 .83

Trust in colleagues -.17 .11 -.22 -1.48 .15

R2

.61

F

1.53

Sig. .24


58

APPENDIX G: REGRESSION ANALYSIS STEP 2

Trust from management / Trust in management / Trust in colleagues / Empowerment –

Agility

Agility

Model

summary



R2 .12

F 3.65

Sig. .07


Trust in management .46 .24 .33 1.89 .07

R2 .23

F 3.55

Sig. .07


Trust in management .64 .26 .46 2.44 .02

Trust in colleagues -.62 .39 -.31 -1.60 .12

Empowerment -.19 .46 -.08 -.40 .69

R2 .33

F 1.62

Sig. .22


59

APPENDIX H: REGRESSION ANALYSIS STEP 3

Agility – Environmental turbulence – Performance*

Performance*

Model

summary


1 Agility .14 .07 .37 2.04 .05 R2 .14 F 4.18 Sig. .05

2 Agility .12 .08 .30 1.55 .13

Environmental turbulence

.06 .06 .19 .97 .34

R2 .17 F .93 Sig. .34

3 Agility .16 .09 .42 1.81 .08

Turbulence -.13 .21 -.45 -.63 .53

Agility * Environmental turbulence

.07 .07 .63 .93 .36

R2

.20

F

.87

Sig. .36


60

APPENDIX I: REGRESSION ANALYSIS STEP 4

Empowerment – Agility - Environmental turbulence – Performance*

Performance*

Model

summary


1 Empowerment .54 .14 .60 3.81 .00 R2 .36 F 14.50 Sig. .00

2 Empowerment .53 .13 .59 4.07 .00

Agility .14 .06 .35 2.44 .02

R2 .48 F 5.96 Sig. .02

3 Empowerment .55 .12 .61 4.43 .00

Agility .12 .05 .30 2.15 .04


.03 .02 .27 1.94 .07

R2 .55 F 3.75

Sig. .07


61

Trust from management – Agility – Environmental turbulence – Performance*

Performance*

Model

summary

Model

B SE B β t Sig.

1 Trust from management

.63 .14 .67 4.61 .00

R2 .45 F 21,23 Sig. .00


.58 .15 .62 3.96 .00

Agility .06 .06 .16 1.00 .33 R2

.47 F

1.01 Sig.

.33


.59 .14 .63 4.25 .00

Agility .04 .06 .10 .67 .51


.03 .02 .26 1.82 .08

R2

.54 F

3.30

Sig. .08


62

APPENDIX J: PROCESS ANALYSIS

Empowerment – Agility – Environmental turbulence – Performance*

Model = 14

Y = Performance*

X = Empowerment

M = Agility

V = Environmental turbulence

Sample size

28

Outcome: Agility

Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

,0347 ,0012 ,0313 1,0000 26,0000 ,8610

Model

coeff se t p

constant 2,7564 1,7727 1,5549 ,1321

Empowerment ,0811 ,4583 ,1769 ,8610

Outcome: Performance*

Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

,7428 ,5517 7,0774 4,0000 23,0000 ,0007

Model

coeff se t p

constant 1,4492 ,5103 2,8397 ,0093

Agility ,1129 ,0685 1,6472 ,1131

Empowerment ,5495 ,1291 4,2567 ,0003

Envir. Tur. ,0112 ,1623 ,0692 ,9454

int_1 ,0245 ,0542 ,4518 ,6557

Interactions:

int_1 Agility X Environmental turbulence


63

direct and indirect effects

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p

,5495 ,1291 4,2567 ,0003

Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s)

Mediator

ZStabCON Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

Agility -1,0130 ,0071 ,0630 -,0725 ,2135

Agility -,0132 ,0091 ,0609 -,0917 ,1996

Agility ,9867 ,0111 ,0747 -,1032 ,2507

Trust from management – Agility – Environmental turbulence – Performance*

Model = 14

Y = Performance*

X = Trust from management

M = Agility


Sample size

28

Outcome: Agility

Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

,3510 ,1232 3,6523 1,0000 26,0000 ,0671

Model

coeff se t p

constant -,5187 1,8823 -,2756 ,7850

Trust from mgt ,8522 ,4459 1,9111 ,0671


Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

,7314 ,5349 6,6122 4,0000 23,0000 ,0011

Model

coeff se t p

constant 1,3019 ,5634 2,3110 ,0301

Agility ,0363 ,0753 ,4826 ,6339

Trust from mgt ,5940 ,1457 4,0778 ,0005

Envir. Tur. ,0102 ,1655 ,0616 ,9514

int_1 ,0235 ,0553 ,4257 ,6743


64

Interactions:




Effect SE t p

,5940 ,1457 4,0778 ,0005


Mediator


Agility -1,0130 ,0106 ,0763 -,1781 ,1425

Agility -,0132 ,0307 ,0880 -,0994 ,2483

Agility ,9867 ,0507 ,1246 -,0913 ,4534

Trust in management – Agility – Environmental turbulence – Performance*

Model = 14

Y = Performance*

X = Trust in management

M = Agility


Sample size

28

Outcome: Agility

Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

,3170 ,1005 2,9046 1,0000 26,0000 ,1003

Model

coeff se t p

constant 1,6171 ,8631 1,8736 ,0723

Trust in mgt ,4402 ,2583 1,7043 ,1003


65


Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

,5128 ,2630 2,0515 4,0000 23,0000 ,1205

Model

coeff se t p

constant 3,8187 ,4019 9,5012 ,0000

Agility ,1838 ,0883 2,0821 ,0487

Trust in mgt -,1445 ,1020 -1,4172 ,1698

Environ. Tur.-,0921 ,2056 -,4481 ,6583

int_1 ,0520 ,0690 ,7533 ,4589

Interactions:




Effect SE t p

-,1445 ,1020 -1,4172 ,1698


Mediator


Agility -1,0130 ,0577 ,0518 -,0066 ,1997

Agility -,0132 ,0806 ,0686 -,0053 ,2729

Agility ,9867 ,1035 ,1010 -,0218 ,4350

Documents

An agile organization: The influence of trust and ... · MASTER THESIS An agile organization: The influence of trust and empowerment on the agility of an organization Inge van Meurs