Leyes y reglamentos de las Cooperativas de Ahorro y Crédito

In their examination of how the various conflicting needs of flexibility may be reconciled, Walsh and Deery (1997, p. 1) noted that “a major problem with the treatment of flexibility in HRM literature, as well as in the broader debate on the flexible firm, has been the tendency to focus in a one sided fashion on emergent trends in employer strategy and policy”. As it relates to the Australian context, the rationale provided by Sheridan and Conway (2001) for this focus corresponds with that offered by Atkinson (1987) who surmised that labour market deregulation and changing work patterns had accounted for these trends in Britain. Sheridan and Conway (2001) posited that a gap existed between employer (business) flexibility and employee (family-friendly) flexibility in terms of concept definition and execution. The authors subsequently argued that “for the utilisation of more flexible labour to be an effective organisational strategy, greater attention must be paid within the HRM context to exposing the different needs of employees and employers and then negotiating between them”, (Sheridan and Conway 2001, p. 8). An adapted version of the “Harvard” (soft) model of HRM (Beer et al. 1985) is promoted by Sheridan and Conway (2001) as encompassing the necessary revisions that HR practitioners must make in order to more effectively manage flexible working patterns to the compromised advantage of both parties (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Flexibility as a Strategic HR Issue

Source: Sheridan and Conway (2001)

Reilly (2001) also emphasised the importance of negotiating between employer and employee interests in his theoretical work on flexibility. Terming the most exploitative forms of employer flexibility as ‘cyclopic’, Reilly (2001) noted several practices characteristic of this type of flexibility. These included organisations “failing to give employees written contracts of employment, the payment of low wages, unilateral variations of contract by the employer, denial of legal rights, dismissal in the face of challenge to such violations or impositions, and avoidance of employment-related costs”, (p. 74). In relation to employee-favoured flexibility options, the author recognised that these may arise by accident (incidental flexibility) or through deliberate effort (mutual flexibility). Reilly (2001) advocated that the following features were representative of the concept of mutual flexibility:

Employees Needs

Business Strategy and Conditions Management Philosophy H u m a n R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t Outsourcing ♦ Freelancing ♦ Sub-contracting ♦ Franchising ♦ Consulting Internal flexibility ♦ Part-time Work ♦ Temporary Work ♦ Homeworking ♦ Teleworking Long-term Consequences ♦ Individual Well- being ♦ Organisational Effectiveness ♦ Societal Well- being

 “It recognises that employers and employees have their own needs to serve;

 It appreciates that these needs are different;

 It respects the importance of satisfying each other’s requirements;

 It benefits both parties;

 It is freely entered into by both sides;

 It acknowledges that circumstances may change and with it the needs of the

parties”, (p. 78).

Why should employers consciously consider the implementation of flexibility initiatives that account for the economic and social needs of employees? Reilly (2001) suggested that recognising past success stories and research evidence, responding to external pressures and realising the risks of not doing so, all provide valid reasons for adopting such an approach. In terms of the success stories, the facilitation of organisational change, improved productivity levels and lower rates of absenteeism were noted as being some of the practical benefits derived from mutual flexibility. Reilly (2001) cited (amongst others) research from Huselid (1995) and Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli (1997) to support this stance. Tsui et al. (1997), in a study of the employee-organisation relationship, found that in those instances characterised by an over-investment in the relationship (by the employer) or mutual-investment, employees performed better on core tasks and demonstrated higher levels of affective commitment. Huselid (1995) reported that positive outcomes (in terms of turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance) could be gained from High Performance Work Practices relating to employee skills, organisational structures and employee motivation. As a possible ramification of ignoring the mutuality agenda, Reilly (2001) referred to the onset of a vicious circle of organisational change, similar to the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy raised by Lowry (2001) in relation to contingent employment.

Figure 3.2: A Model of Achieving Mutual Flexibility

Source: Reilly (2001, p. 94), adapted from Herriot et al. (1998)

Reilly (2001) embodied the basic tenets of the mutual flexibility approach in a model based on earlier work (Herriot, Hirsh and Reilly 1998). It is noted by the author that as the model represented a two-way process, “it dismisses the HRM assumption of a unitarist vision shared by one and all”, Reilly (2001, p. 94). As depicted in Figure 3.2, the model incorporates several steps arranged from scanning the environment through to re-evaluating the outcomes of mutual flexibility initiatives. Reilly (2001) indicated that the ‘inform’ step of the model involved a mutual exchange between employers and employees in relation to aspects of business strategy. After negotiating what flexible work practices are to be initiated (Step 3), these outcomes are depicted in the model as being communicated (either formally or informally) to organisational participants. With proper monitoring of the work practices involved (Step 5) it may be posited that when it comes to re-evaluation (Step 6), termination of these mutually flexible

Inform Negotiate Communicate Monitor Renegotiate or Exit

Organisation’s Wants and Offers Individual’s Wants and Offers Organisation’s Offers Individual’s Offers Organisation’s Wants Changed? Contract Fair? Contract Kept? Individual’s Wants Changed? Contract Fair? Contract Kept? External Environment Economic Social Business Political

arrangements can be avoided and if renegotiation is required, it can be done so in a setting of enhanced employer/employee relations.

Reilly (2001) identified certain prerequisites to be met in order to achieve mutual flexibility. In the context of the present chapter, two prerequisites are particularly relevant. These relate to the role of the HRM function in change facilitation and the importance of ensuring HR policy integration. Reilly (2001) noted aspects of the change facilitation role in reference to the various steps of the model. These included canvassing initial support for change, through to monitoring for consistent policy application and providing management with the necessary tools (labour market intelligence and legal updates) for advising on the re-evaluation process. Complementing Guest's (1987) recognition of the need for mutuality of employment policies (goal of integration), Reilly (2001) acknowledged that mutual flexibility efforts should not represent stand-alone initiatives, but rather an integrated policy framework linking recruitment, career development, rewards and other key HRM functions. As an overview, the author noted “changing the organisation’s approach to flexibility should lead to a thorough examination of all HR policies to see whether they remain robust in the new circumstances. And any change should lead to an integrated response”, (Reilly 2001, p. 120). In providing a complete picture of the factors that affect the implementation of flexible work arrangements and ultimately, the achievement of mutual flexibility, Reilly (2001) cautioned against neglecting some of the limitations that might apply to these practices (see Table 3.2).

Many commentators on flexibility theory (Brewster et al. 2000; Tailby 1999; Houseman 2001; Junor 1998) have acknowledged the benefits (or costs dependent upon whose perspective is being adopted) of flexibility for employers and employees and in doing so have unmasked the potential incompatibilities of interest. Mutuality is not a new concept (Tsui et al. 1997), however, the models by Reilly (2001) and Sheridan and Conway (2001) explicitly set out to articulate how flexibility can be achieved according to this principle. Given their relative recency, the opportunity exists to empirically test the underlying assumptions of these

models in terms of different types of productive activity (manufacturing, services), across various industry sectors and with different categories of workers (part-time, temporary) in order to expand upon the existing body of flexibility research.

Table 3.2: Solutions and Risks in Using Flexible Work Arrangements

Drivers for flexibility Possible solution Potential problems/risks

Reducing Costs Outsourcing Contract Monitoring

Variable Hours Patterns Complex Administration Temps/Agency Labour Questionable Commitment

Remote Working Problematic Communication Improving Quality/Service Outsourcing Loss of Control

Variable Hours Patterns Complex Administration Cross-functional Working Lack of Real Expertise Increasing Productivity Multi-skilling Loss of Knowledge/Skill

Variable Hours Patterns Complex Administration Hedging Against Change Outsourcing Cost of Early Contract-termination

Temps/Agency/Contractors Higher Staff Turnover Meeting Supply Needs Variable Hours Patterns Complex Management Remote Working Questionable Productivity

Temping Questionable Loyalty Source: Reilly (2001), adapted from (Reilly 1997)