A comparative analysis of the link between flexibility and HRM strategy
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459610116447 |
| Date | 01 June 1996 |
| Published date | 01 June 1996 |
| Pages | 5-24 |
| Author | Lesley Mayne,Olga Tregaskis,Chris Brewster |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
The link between
flexibility and
HRM strategy
5
A comparative analysis of the
link between flexibility and
HRM strategy
Lesley Mayne, Olga Tregaskis and Chris Brewster
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Introduction
Flexible working patterns have been the focus of considerable comment and
much controversy for some years. The spread of what the European Union
(EU) refers to as “atypical” working patterns is now widely recognized and is a
key issue for personnel specialists across Europe. It is a subject which has also
been attracting the attention of senior line managers, trade unions, national
governments and the European Commission, as well as academics. Much of this
discussion has focused on the issue of managerial policies: whether the growth
in flexible working mainly reflects structural changes and is a by-product of
changes in the labour market or is the result of purposeful managerial choice,
an aspect of strategic approaches towards human resource management
(HRM).
Much of the writing on flexibility has been criticized for being “characteriz ed
by a style of global prophesying, sweeping generalization from very limited
evidence, economical or technical determinism and an assumption of a radical
break from the past” (Pollert, 1988a). By basing this paper on carefully
collected, representative data covering all sectors of the economy, we seek to
overcome these cited shortcomings and to explore further one of the central
questions the literature raises; whether the increase in flexibility is the result of
a deliberate strategy by organizations or, rather, just a reaction to
circumstances.
This paper focuses on the use of two particular for ms of flexible or “atypical”
working patterns: part-time and short-term working. In doing so, no
assumption is made regarding the definitional validity of part-time work as a
flexible form of working. Rather, the focus on part-time and short-term
contracts is based on the fact that together they make-up a significant part of
the flexible working patterns across Europe. Part-time working is one of the
fastest growing forms of flexible working while short-ter m contracts, although
less significant in growth terms, are still among the most widely adopted forms
of contractual flexibility used by employers.
We make no attempt here to outline the advantages and disadvantages of
flexible working patterns for employers or employees; nor to explore the
different meanings that the associated terms have in the different European
countries (see, for a discussion of these matters, Brewster et al., 1994). Employee Relations, Vol. 18 No.3,
1996, pp. 5-24. © MCBUniversity
Press, 0142-5455
Employee
Relations
18,3
6
What this paper aims to do is examine the proposition that there is little
correlation between those employers who use a considerable amount of
flexibility, defined in terms of part-time and short-term contracts, and those
who take a more strategic approach to HRM. To do this, we outline briefly the
extent and growth of flexibility and summarize the debate about its link to HR
strategy; then after outlining the nature of our data, which establishes a clear
link between the use of part-time and temporary employment contracts and a
strategic approach to HRM, we develop the core of our argument. This is that
strategy is a more incremental and less formal process than is recognized in
much of the writing on HRM; when this more realistic view of strategy is
adopted, our finding that high use of flexibility is correlated with a more
strategic approach to HRM can be reconciled with previous studies.
The extent and growth of flexibility
Among management in particular, the drive towards more flexible working has
reached almost the state of an orthodoxy. Over the last decade or so many
assumptions about working time have been broken down. While the “standard”
9 a.m.-5 p.m., five days a week permanent contract has never been universal,
what has happened in the last decade or so is that non-standard patterns have
spread extensively – causing a re-evaluation of the nature of employment.
Associated with this development is the breaking down of the assumed links
within organizations between tasks and jobs. Until recently, most managers
saw a direct relationship between the two: reduced work meant fewer jobs; more
work, more jobs. This relationship is now seen as much less direct. More work
may or may not mean more jobs – there is a considerable range of ways other
than direct employment in which the work might be covered. At the furthest
extreme the work can be subcontracted, so that the organization achieves the
extra work without any increase in numbers employed. Other options
(government trainees, job-sharing, home working and so on) may involve
different numbers of people, for different periods of time or employed in
different formats. These options are now more widespread, more complex and
more difficult to evaluate and manage (Hutchinson and Brewster, 1994). What is
contentious is the precise meaning of this growth and its impact within and
beyond employing organizations.
There is considerable ambiguity regarding the definition of flexibility. It has
been argued, for example, that part-time work should be excluded on the
grounds that, for the employee, particularly in organizations with many part-
timers, there may be little flexibility involved in part-time work (Walsh, 1990);
though most commentators include it on the grounds that it does increase
flexibility from the employer's perspective. Even if this is resolved, Hunter et al.
(1993) commenting on the UK, note that part-time work covers everything from
a few hours a week to the conventional cut-off of 30 hours a week; that the
distinction between temporary and permanent work is not so clear-cut as it
may at first seem, with some permanent workers losing their jobs at very short
notice; and that self-employment is a notoriously grey area. Internationally the
To continue reading
Request your trial