Flujograma de Elaboración de Proyectos

Before drawing to a close the contribution of the major theories to flexibility, the labour market effects of neo-Fordism will be briefly examined. Harley (1995) investigated neo-Fordist theory in the context of his labour flexibility study of Australian industry. Based on the 1989/90 AWIRS data, the author noted that in

reference to neo-managerialism, aspects of this theory “are largely encompassed by neo-Fordist theory which provides a model which is theoretically richer and encompasses a wider range of manifestations of flexibility”, (p. 75). As a predictor of outcomes, Harley (1995) found support for neo-Fordist claims that the introduction of computerised technologies and associated management techniques were likely to be detrimental to labour.

Harley (1995) goes on to explicate a theory of flexibility in relation to organisations. Whilst seeking not to construct a coherent model, the author makes it clear that the neo-Fordist account is better equipped to explain organisational flexibility. Harley (1995) reasons that this stance is justified by the recognition neo-Fordism provides of embedded practices and institutional frameworks, as well as the inherent political nature of organisations. The author noted “it is the failure of post-Fordist and neo-managerialist theories to integrate class analysis into their theoretical frameworks which largely explains their ability to make optimistic claims which fly in the face of the evidence. In contrast, it is the fact that neo- Fordism makes class analysis absolutely central to its framework, which accounts in large part for its superiority as an explanatory framework”, (Harley 1995, p. 112). Despite suggesting this superiority, Harley (1995) acknowledges in line with earlier findings (Bagguley, 1990) that none of the theories (post-Fordism, neo- managerialism, neo-Fordism) adequately address the effects of flexibility in relation to gender.

2.7 Chapter Summary

The foregoing chapter has attempted to provide a comprehensive account of the research framework from which the flexibility debate has emerged. Whilst not intending to present a linear progression, various structural theories and production paradigms that have contributed to the flexibility impetus have been reviewed for their impact over time. The starting point of the chapter was Weber’s (1947) work on bureaucratic administration. This structural theory characterised hierarchical organisations, with strict chains of command; offering employees fixed salaries

and full employment. With the capacity to complement bureaucracies, Taylor’s (1947) theory of scientific management was predicated on the use of a substitutable, semi-skilled workforce, the scientific measurement of tasks and a piece-rate wages system to reward workers. These classical theories were subsequently transposed by moves towards open and contingent systems that recognised external factors affecting organisations. Technology played a pivotal role in driving this change as demonstrated by the work of Woodward (1958) and Thompson (1967). Burns (1963) organismic configuration may be credited as an early structural form appreciative of the increasing prominence of the flexibility agenda in organisations.

The prevalence of Fordism, borne of the same industrial era as bureaucratic administration and scientific management, has been acknowledged as stimulating the development of production paradigms and subsequent flexibility theories. This mass production/mass consumption model was beset by high degrees of job specialisation, extending Taylor’s principles of job specialisation. Factors that have been universally attributed to the demise of this less than flexible model by ensuing theories include its slow reactionary capabilities to economic change and market needs, the introduction of new organisational forms and the linking of global markets.

The main theoretical schools to emerge espousing flexibility include post-Fordism, neo-managerialism and neo-Fordism. In the context of this chapter, post-Fordism has been examined in relation to Piore and Sabel’s (1984) Flexible Specialisation model and neo-managerialism (Harley, 1995) in reference to the Flexible Firm model proposed by Atkinson (1987). The types of flexibility that these theories canvass vary depending upon the particular focus of each school. The American perspective of post-Fordism embraces labour process flexibility, the British perspective of neo-managerialism promotes labour market flexibility and the French perspective of neo-Fordism suggests a combination of both types. In seeking to attain labour process flexibility, the Flexible Specialisation model advocates the use of multi-skilled, functionally flexible employees to respond to

production demands. The Flexible Firm model utilises a fragmented approach, influenced somewhat by Taylor’s principles, in suggesting the division of workers into core and peripheral groups, with the aim of simultaneously achieving functional and numerical flexibility.

With both post-Fordism and neo-Fordism accounting for the broader theory of late capitalism (Hyman, 1991), it has been suggested that these schools provide the more conceptually developed, universal theories of flexibility. Various criticisms, however, have been raised in relation to the relevant schools. Post-Fordism and neo-managerialism have been accused of being overly determinant, less than original and ignorant of institutional settings in which organisations are embedded. All the flexibility models have been criticised for neglecting gender issues. Ultimately the circumstances to which a particular model is to be prescribed will contribute to any determination of the appropriateness of the flexibility theory. From the viewpoint of individual organisations, however, it is perhaps the Flexible Firm model that provides the most applicable framework for management instituting and monitoring changes that affect their internal workforces.

Acknowledging that the majority of research has been developed and tested in manufacturing environments, the next chapter will move on from this theory- driven overview to a more generalised discussion of flexibility in relation to human resource management issues and the services sector.

CHAPTER 3 – HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND