Ley de La Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros para aplicación en

Having now examined the theoretical issues associated with HRM, it is now possible to relate how the pursuit of flexibility by organisations affects or shapes this function.

In an investigation of implications of flexibility in Australia, Kramar (1998) noted that the HRM function might be called upon to mediate the perceptions of managers and employees about the nature of work, if they are not adequately aligned. Echoing Gunnigle and Moore's (1994) comments on communication, Kramar (1998) maintained that HRM practitioners were “usually responsible for developing and communicating information about changes in employment policies that foster the achievement of senior management’s corporate objectives”, (p. 458). The author noted, however, that this role must be simultaneously managed in light of monitoring policy outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism and employee stress levels. Considering flexibility driven changes to organisational structure and the standard ‘employment contract’, it is noted that HRM has a part to play in informing the workforce that “concepts such as secure jobs, vertical careers and rewards based on work value are no longer appropriate”, (Kramar 1998, p. 458).

Expanding upon the HRM function in relation to Atkinson's (1987) Flexible Firm model, Gooderham and Nordhaug (1997) contend that “in essence, HRM stands accused of having failed to address firms’ needs for forms of flexibility other than that of functional flexibility” (p. 570). This statement would appear reasonable given that the goals of HRM theories such Guest's (1987) model (integration, flexibility, employee commitment, quality) might not be applied on a commensurate basis to all employees by organisations. Gooderham and Nordhaug (1997) contend that peripheral workers are “subject to a substantially different developmental and managerial regime than that of core employees. Their work is more closely controlled than empowered core employees and payment is either hourly or fixed at a piece-rate. Moreover, training paid for by the firm is limited”, (p. 571). This viewpoint supported Legge's (1995) delineation of HRM theory, with the author suggesting that while “policies of the ‘hard’ version model can be used on employees peripheral to the organisation, those of the ‘soft’ version can be used to reassure and secure ‘core’ employees whose resourcefulness is deemed essential for the achievement of competitive advantage”, (p. 88). Purcell and Purcell's (1998) linking of core employees to policies of high commitment management (Wood and Albanese 1995) similarly endorses this stance.

From the standpoint of a HRM theory that specifically integrates flexibility-related goals, Guest's (1987) model viewed flexibility as having three elements: organisational design, job design and employee attitudes and motivations (Legge 1995). The author surmised “that flexible organisation structures together with flexible job content and flexible employees will result in a capacity to respond swiftly and effectively to changes and ensure the continuing high utilisation of human and other resources”, (Guest 1987, p. 515). The impact of the flexibility goal on HRM activities such as job specification and job evaluation was also acknowledged, as an outcome of moves to avoid bureaucratic and hierarchical type structures.

In the context of temporary employment, Geary (1992) examined the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ versions of HRM and their effects on employee attitudes. At two of the

research sites, the author noted that attempts to attain flexibility were sought firstly from within the firm by way of work reorganisation and the introduction of new technologies. The remaining (third) case-study firm used temporary workers as a buffer against changes in demand, in a manner that could be said to be similar to that espoused by the Flexible Firm model (Atkinson 1987). Geary (1992) goes on to report “management’s recruitment of temporary employees gave rise to conflict and tension. Neither the flexible firm nor the HRM model have given adequate attention to this possibility”, (p. 253). Conflicts were identified as occurring between temporary and permanent staff, with management also showing displeasure in relation to the workings of the recruitment policy. Geary (1992) noted outcomes of this friction included the close supervision of employees, leading in turn to employee resentment and negative impacts on teamwork. In relation to specific HR and line manager activities, Geary (1992) further articulated, “the need for supervision, meant that team briefings, communication meetings and employees’ appraisals were often delayed or dispensed with”, (p. 260). Confirming Gooderham and Nordhaug’s (1997) finding, Geary (1992) also noted that training levels were kept to a minimum in line with the demand driven recruitment policies.

Geary (1992) suggested that such conflicts represented some of the potential reasons why the firms studied would prefer to limit their use of temporary employees. In concluding, reference was made to the particular organisation actively pursuing the policy of recruiting contingent workers. Geary (1992) asserted in this instance “the suggestion that the creation of a core and peripheral workforce could enable management to achieve apparently irreconcilable objectives – the minimisation of labour costs at the periphery and the engendering of employees’ commitment at the core – would seem to be erroneous and misconceived”, (p. 267). The ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ HRM distinction as it applies to flexibility initiatives was similarly questioned. Geary (1992) contends that whilst the theoretical distinction is useful, it may be rendered ineffectual when the practice of HRM tends towards the ‘hard’ version (evidenced in the increasing utilisation of atypical forms of employment) and neglects the ‘soft’ values of

employee development and commitment. As a final charge levelled at both the Flexible Firm (Atkinson 1987) and HRM models, Geary (1992) recognised the tendency of these theories to view flexibility as a positive outcome set on a continuum against rigidity (perceived in a negative fashion). This insight mirrors earlier comments about the positioning of these concepts by flexibility theorists including Atkinson (1987) and Volberda (1998).

Further examination of the organisational implications for HRM adapting to contingent forms of employment can be found in the studies of Hall (2000) and Lowry (2001). Utilising a case-study methodology, Hall (2000) interpreted employer-funded training as a proxy for assessing the extent of human resource development undertaken in organisations that have outsourced business functions. The author reported that within a hospital setting, outsourcing (in the form of competitive tendering) has affected training in terms of the activity being deemed as largely discretionary (subject to budgets and related labour costs) and as a contract input, rather than a contract output liable to ongoing monitoring of activity outcomes. Hall (2000) remarked that in this particular case “there is no doubt that employee trust, commitment and loyalty had been greatly damaged as a result of outsourcing”, (p. 36). These findings add weight to Kramar's (1998) remarks that the HRM function should have a critical role in guiding and re-educating the workforce about changing structural and employment policies as a means of minimising such negative effects.

As Geary’s (1992) study had set out to capture employee attitudes to temporary employment, Lowry (2001) also utilised this course to examine casual workers’ perceptions of HRM practices. It is noted that a fundamental reason for undertaking this research was to empirically investigate certain assumptions regarding casual employment from the perspective of workers occupying such positions. Providing an example, Lowry (2001) noted, “it is assumed that workers in secondary jobs have low commitment to the firm, and have low expectations of what the firm will offer them. The casualisation of work thus implies that management can obviate the need for certain HRM activities by assuming low

levels of commitment”, (p. 44). As the author goes on to surmise, such thinking within organisations can evolve to become a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. Findings from the three-phase study (sampled from the registered club industry in New South Wales) indicated that in general casual employees perceived the HRM function within their organisations was providing either an inferior or inaccessible service. Lowry (2001) found that the reasons behind employees undertaking casual work affected their perceptions of the activity. Whilst nearly two-thirds of the returned sample were involuntarily employed in this manner and demonstrated negative perceptions of casual work, another group of casual employees were identified as having more positive views of the work experience in light of it complementing family or life commitments.

In examining specific HR practices, Lowry (2001) reported that in terms of work scheduling “substantive comments from the questionnaire reveal that flexibility is currently seen to be employer flexibility at the exclusion of employee flexibility”, (p. 49). Some of the factors identified as potentially amending this perspective included calls for greater staff consultation in finalising rosters and fairer distribution of shifts that attract premium penalty rates. In relation to training, Lowry (2001, p. 50) noted “the absence of a training and development ‘culture’ within the club environment”, with on-the-job training being the predominant form of instruction for casual employees. Findings regarding the evaluation and rewarding of casual employees’ performance raise further implications for the HRM function. Lowry (2001) reported that a significant relationship existed between voluntary and involuntary casual employment and satisfaction with promotional opportunities. This finding highlighted the vulnerable position of those workers who least wished to be casually employed and at the same time were experiencing the lowest levels of satisfaction with the opportunities available for enhancing their employment status. Further compounding this dilemma was a lack of performance feedback for casual workers (Lowry 2001).

In concluding, Lowry (2001) contends that “HRM practices considered particularly problematic for casual employees included promotional opportunity, access to

adequate training, social integration, recognition and feedback from management and work scheduling congruence (fit between the organisation’s demands and personal preferences)”, (p. 60). This finding lends support to the authors’ assertion that self-fulfilling outcomes may arise by way of confirming management assumptions that casual employees have diminished expectations with respect to the level of organisational investment allocated towards their development. Lowry (2001) goes on to argue that the HRM function needs to be more proactive on behalf of casual and other employees, in this particular instance, in an industry sector (registered clubs) where “HRM strategy and practice is neither sophisticated nor ‘advanced’ in terms of recognising the needs of workers”, (p. 47).

The above-mentioned studies by Hall (2000) and Lowry (2001) have explored HRM issues in relation to the pursuit of numerical flexibility. Similar treatment should be afforded the topic with respect to functional flexibility. Friedrich et al. (1998) questioned whether these types of initiatives were undertaken on a strategic basis by organisations. Using the data set of responses contained in the Cranfield Network on European Human Resource (Cranet-E) Survey (Brewster, Tregaskis, Hegwisch and Mayne 2000), the authors examined the practice of job rotation (transferring employees between various jobs within an organisation) and whether it was indicative of “strategic oriented human resource management in the sense of a coordinated, objective personnel management pattern”, (p. 509). The results indicated that only 20 per cent of the European organisations surveyed systematically utilise job rotation as a means of attaining functional flexibility.

Despite this finding, Friedrich et al. (1998) reported a significant, positive relationship between the practice of job rotation and the three variables employed (HR strategy, training policy and proportion of wages and salaries spent on training) as indicators of this strategic approach. The authors noted, “this result sets job rotation fundamentally apart from the rather short-term approach of numerical flexibility”, (p. 516). Friedrich et al. (1998) recognised that the implementation of job rotation presented certain implications for the HR function. These impacts included the identification of suitable ‘rotation’ positions, adjusting employee

remuneration levels, alleviating supervisor and staff resistance to the practice and maintaining employee commitment to the organisation. Careful consideration of such factors supports the suggestion that a more strategic (long-term, integrated) approach is required in relation to this type of functional flexibility. Riley (1992) identified a number of related considerations for promoting functional flexibility in hotel settings.

Friedrich et al. (1998, p. 520) called for “a more far-reaching analysis of the strategic integration of flexibility” in light of some of the limitations of their study. As the authors pointed out, the data set used does not enable analysis of job rotation from the perspective of certain employee groups or consider how the practice is combined with other elements of the HRM function. Despite these limitations, an insight is gained at the aggregate level in relation to this particular form of functional flexibility. In an earlier study by O'Reilly (1992), a case-study methodology was utilised to examine functional flexibility in relation to the retail banking sector. In contrast to Friedrich et al. (1998), who found that company size (measured by the number of employees) exerted a positive influence on the use of job rotation (this finding could potentially be biased by an over representation of large firms in the data set used), O'Reilly (1992) contends that “in smaller work units functional flexibility is more developed, and in larger bureaucratised organisations we could expect to find a more extensive division of labour and task fragmentation”, (p. 374). These discordant perspectives likely arise due to the differing interpretations of functional flexibility employed by the researchers. Friedrich et al. (1998) as we have noted utilised the highly formalised practice of job rotation with which to examine the concept, whereas O'Reilly (1992) employed a broader definition exploring functional flexibility in terms of task variety and expansion.

Comparing the extent of functional flexibility in Britain and France, O'Reilly (1992) reported that the concept is more fully developed in the latter context. The author goes on to note that “in Britain 26% of the sample were categorised as not functionally flexible, ie they were in repetitive jobs and had not experienced any

increase in task variety”, (p. 389). This figure compares to only 12% of respondents in France. O'Reilly (1992) tests for the distinction between functional flexibility and the up-skilling of employees. She outlined, “only 44% of the British respondents and 47% of the French, who could be considered to be functionally flexible, said that their training had increased. This means that less than half the sample could be considered to have been up-skilled”, (O'Reilly 1992, p. 390). Given this finding, O'Reilly (1992) stressed that the trend towards horizontal task enlargement should be viewed separately from up-skilling efforts. Recognising the incremental nature of strategy development, O'Reilly (1992) identified that “a more accurate analysis needs to distinguish where task expansion has led to up-skilling, as distinct from ad-hoc, piecemeal change with the repercussions of intensifying work”, (p. 392). Such findings, as they relate to functional flexibility, raise questions about the extent to which HRM action is being directed towards developing the skills of numerically flexible workers.

O'Reilly (1992) recognised the need for enhanced strategy identification from the perspective of functional flexibility. In a later study, Mayne, Tregaskis and Brewster (1996) examined whether the increased application of flexible working patterns, in the form of part-time and shorter-term working, resulted from either deliberate HR strategy initiatives or reactive operational decision-making. Employing the Cranet-E data set, the researchers split the sample into high (20% of workforce employed on a part-time, temporary or fixed-term basis) flexibility organisations (HFOs) and low (at most 2% of workforce employed according to these patterns) flexibility organisations (LFOs). Acknowledging certain limitations of the data set, Mayne et al. (1996) noted that only firms employing over 200 employees were represented and certain surrogate measures were formulated in

order to distinguish between HR strategies.1 Qualitative interviews were also

incorporated into the study to complement the quantitative analysis.

1

In reference to the other studies (Friedrich et al. 1998; Gunnigle and Moore 1994) outlined in this chapter that have employed the Cranet-E data set, it is perhaps worthwhile noting that the survey has been conducted more than once (for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1995), with different European countries surveyed each time and varying sample sizes achieved (Brewster et al. 2000). This point is made in order to caution against the direct comparison of these studies on any particular

Mayne et al. (1996) reported that in relation to organisational demographics, a relationship was found between HFOs and organisations that were growing (in terms of employee numbers). Whilst the authors contend that a link between flexible working patterns and success can be inferred, it may be overly premature to speculate as to the exact nature of the relationship. In respect to organisational policy, Mayne et al. (1996) identified very few differences between HFOs and LFOs in terms of communication, training and employee monitoring. As a partial explanation for this finding, the authors suggested that flexible firm theory (Atkinson 1987) might be “accurate in identifying that peripheral workers, not seen as crucial to the success of the organisation, are much less likely to be the subject of investment of time and resources for either training or communication”, (Mayne et al. 1996, p. 14). Confirming this assessment somewhat, are the findings of an exploratory study of flexible work arrangements in tourism and hospitality organisations. Holloway and Davies (2001) remarked that an “appropriate way to view the workforce in these organisations may be as a seamless continuum of workers requiring different levels of human resource support (particularly in terms of training and development)”, (p. 156).

In terms of organisational strategy, Mayne et al. (1996) reported that HFOs were more likely to adopt a strategic approach to the HRM function. This approach included the involvement by these organisations of their HR practitioners (from the outset) in the development of corporate strategy and the maintenance of documented business and HR policies. Once more a “processual” (Whittington 1993) approach to linking HR strategy and flexibility is suggested, confirming comments by Procter et al. (1994) that Mintzberg's (1978) incremental view of strategy development should be applied when considering flexibility initiatives.

As an overview, the preceding studies provide a less than ideal insight into how firms have been pursuing flexible working patterns and the ensuing implications for human resource management. For those workers considered to be functionally flexible, evidence of up-skilling efforts expended upon them has been less than convincing (O'Reilly 1992). For contingent workers, typically utilised to capitalise

upon the benefits of demand driven numerical flexibility, several studies (Geary 1992; Gooderham and Nordhaug 1997) depict low levels of HR investment allocated towards their development, aligned with employee work perceptions (Lowry 2001). To improve upon this state of affairs with regard to workplace flexibility, recent works from Reilly (2001) and Sheridan and Conway (2001) have advocated the balancing of employer and employee interests.