Análisis de los resultados del ensayo de permeabilidad a las tejas de

The idea that small enterprises might be associated with employment relations is not a new one – Ingham (1970, p. 15) cites Durkheim as one of several early sources of the idea that a lower degree of division of labour is related to ‘harmonious’ employment relations. The focus of this section, however, starts at the ‘revival’ of small firm research in the UK, frequently attributed to the time of the Bolton report (1971). Some of the research on small firms and employment relations has tended to cluster around two camps: (1) the ‘small is beautiful’ scenario, where small firms were seen to provide higher job satisfaction and better employment relations than their large firm counterparts (e.g. Schumacher, 1973; Bolton, 1971; Ingham, 1970), and (2) the ‘Bleak house’ perspective of sweatshop- style exploitative owner-managers (see Bacon et al., 1996 for a review of the literature; Sisson, 1993; Rainnie, 1989).

However, these polarised conceptions have been critiqued by more nuanced analyses which showed that, in practice, elements of both scenarios could be true simultaneously, and that small firm employment relations were complex and context-dependent. For instance, employers may adopt different employment relations control strategies depending on the extent of their economic dependence on their employees and on the ability of employees to resist their employers (Goss, 1991). Moreover, even in small, low- wage firms where workers might be expected to be vulnerable, and management – autocratic, employment relations have been described as dynamic and interdependent – a

42 ‘negotiated order’, where workers are able to exert some resistance over certain aspects of work organisation (Edwards et al., 2006; Moule, 1998; Ram, 1994).

Whether small firm context matters more or less than firm size for employees’ experience of work is a widely debated issue. In the early 1980s, Curran and Stanworth (1981)

published an influential article that challenged the then prevailing ‘small is beautiful’ view.34 _{Their findings suggested that differences in worker-perceived job satisfaction were} predominantly explained by differences in worker populations in small and large firms, and by differences in work organisation between the two industries. This led the authors to conclude that firm size as such should not be treated as a main determinant of job satisfaction, unless specifically related to worker and industry characteristics (Curran and Stanworth, 1981), i.e. that context matters as much as, if not more than firm size.

While other later studies had identified a link between firm size and experience of work in terms of high job satisfaction or higher levels of autonomy controlling for other relevant variables (e.g. Forth et al., 2006; Kalleberg and Van Buren, 1996; Idson, 1990), these studies did not decisively conclude whether the size effect was pure, or whether size was a proxy for other unobserved variables. A pure size effect may be defined as one which exists even when controlling for contextual variables and correlates of size. Although both Idson (1990) and Kalleberg and Van Buren (1996) showed that firm size was related to the variable of interest (job satisfaction or autonomy), their analysis controlled for occupation only to a limited extent.35 _{More recent evidence has, however, lent further support to these findings,} which further substantiates the case for a pure size effect.

Several studies have found evidence in favour of a size effect, related to informal practices intrinsic to small firms and their effect on employees’ perceived experiences of work (see in particular Storey et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2007). ‘Informality’ in the context of employment relations has been defined in a wide variety of ways in the literature. One general definition is that informality is a dynamic, context-specific process ‘based mainly on unwritten

34 _{The authors carried out a survey of employees and managers in two industries (printing and} electronics), in small and large firms. In their sample, Curran and Stanworth found that workers in small firms were more likely to be younger and less likely to be married than those in large firms. 35 _{Idson (1990) used only one control dummy variable for a ‘blue collar’ occupation, which still} encompasses a variety of occupational groups. Kalleberg and Van Buren (1996) too, did not directly control for the type of occupation, despite controlling for occupational prestige, training time, worker output, and whether respondents supervised others.

43 customs and the tacit understandings that arise out of the interaction of the parties at work’ (Ram et al., 2001, p. 846). This process may include practices such as ‘haphazard’ systems and practices of career management, (King, 2003, p. 20, citing Nicholson (1996) and Storey (1994)), or staff’s ‘word-of-mouth’ suggestions for potential employees in contrast to formal practices such as job advertisements and use of employment agencies (Holden and Jameson, 2002; Carroll et al., 1999; Williams and Owen, 1997). Thus, ‘formality’ can be operationalised as a composite measure of the presence of formal processes, plans, and accreditations at the workplace (e.g. Storey et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2007).

Tsai et al. (2007) showed that business size had two types of effect on employees’

experience of work: a pure size effect and an indirect effect, however, it should be borne in mind that the sample of firms was limited to small firms only. The pure size effect was defined as one where associations between business size and the experience of work held across different industry sectors, unaffected neither by firms’ market strength nor by the size difference between the small firms in the study. Employees in small firms irrespective of sector were more likely to report having good relations with managers, which was explained through the informal working practices and close working relationships typically found in such firms. Limited evidence for an indirect size effect, defined as one where correlates of size such as formality and market strength affected the experience of work, was also found. As will be discussed below, formality and market strength tend to increase with firm size. Sectoral effects were observed as well, for example the extent of job autonomy varied between food manufacturing, creative and media, and ICT sectors, which lent partial support to the Curran and Stanworth (1981) argument. Overall, however, the findings suggested that the Curran and Stanworth (1981) conclusion that sectoral influence was more important than size did not hold for certain aspects of the experience of work. However, two qualifications were made: that good employment relations did not necessarily guarantee employee commitment to the firm, and that, in certain circumstances, close working relationships could aggravate employment relations.36

While informality can occur in firms regardless of size, it is also more likely that small firms will have less formal divisions of labour (Storey et al., 2010; see Bluedorn (1993) for a

36 _{E.g. when managers were autocratic and/or the business faced external pressures. See Goss} (1991) on ‘sweating’ employer control strategies.

44 review), and thus that there may be “more of a pure size effect here, or at least that formality and size are hard to separate” (Tsai et al., 2007, p. 1783). However, even when controlling for formality, evidence for a pure size effect has been found (Storey et al., 2010). Storey et al.’s analysis showed that self-reported job quality37 _{decreased as firm size} increased, while formality increased with firm size up to 100 employees, after which the size effect levelled off. Rising levels of formality were also found to have a negative effect on job quality. Regression analysis showed that firm size continued to be significantly related to job quality even after controlling for formality and other variables, which implied that both a pure size effect as well as the formality-mediated size effect were present. This finding further supports the evidence presented by Kalleberg and Van Buren (1996) and Tsai et al. (2007), and suggests that firm size does have a direct effect on the experience of work even after controlling for contextual factors.

As discussed above, evidence has shown that while some aspects of employment relations in small firms are context dependent, a pure size effect has also been observed, related to the informal nature of small firms, which partially challenged the Curran and Stanworth (1981) view that business size by itself was not an important variable. However, there is only limited and inconclusive evidence in the existing literature about how business size affects knowledge and skill utilisation and the experience of work for recent graduates in their early careers stage, and specifically for graduates facing post mass-HE and post- industrial society labour market pressures. The following sections review the limited research available.

2.5.2 Graduate careers in small firms – evidence and challenges