The Atkinson model (1984) proposes how Functional and Numerical flexibility could operate within a flexible firm (1995). This model shows three major sections; the core which consists of only polyvalent and multi-skilled, full-time, permanent employees, experiencing little supervision, high levels of autonomy and integration of soft HRM and Functional Flexibility. It is assumed that the core workers are the most committed to the organisation. The first periphery where we see the application of hard HRM and Numerical Flexibility consists of part-time, non-permanent, semi-skilled staff with little job security, performing repetitive tasks, controlled by managers. The second periphery is the Outsourced labour force; unskilled, working for the organisation on a casual basis, facing poor pay and working conditions. The peripheries are a ‘buffer’ (Kalleberg 2001b) to the core, a defensive mechanism to protect their valued importance within the company, allowing them to feel committed.
Atkinson Model 1984 (Torrington & Hall 2002)
The necessity for flexibility arose from a number of uncontrollable factors, including the recent flourishing of international trade. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) now consists of 148 countries (www.wto.org), deregulating restraints on international trade and opening the doors to competition on a massive scale. Because labour is cheaper in lesser developed countries, management in the West must find competitive advantages. Organisations must also be able to react quickly to any technological changes.
An increase in wealth in the West sees a correlating growth in demand for choice. Standardised goods created with Fordist manufacturing ethos have been replaced by more craft-based goods satisfying Post-Fordist niche markets (1995:143). This demands flexibility from a workforce that must supply the fragmented market with individualised products/services.
The British government spanning the Thatcher’s conservative rule to New Labour has sought to increase the flexibility of the British labour market due to the lack of internationally competing organisations during the 1970’s (2002a:201). In the public sector CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering) was introduced to enforce sub-contracting for cleaning and catering resulting in a decline in work conditions and undermining unions and collective bargaining (2002a:206).
Is it possible to implement both functional and numerical flexibility at the same time? The core and periphery have opposing agendas. The core fosters and relies upon commitment as a reciprocal relationship; the organisation must provide sources of commitment (1995:145) whilst also demanding staff to become more flexible. However, the periphery sections are excluded from the safety and heart of the organisation, with no security and even less commitment.
There is documented conflict between the temporary staff and the permanent staff (Geary 1992:266). One particular example of this is when temporary staff are ‘out to impress’ (1992:260) and work overtime to make a good impression. Permanent staff feel pressurised to work as hard as the temporary staff to prove their own legitimacy in their roles. Permanent staff treat temporary staff with an undermining attitude. Having worked as a ‘temp’ for a newspaper promotions team, I felt patronised and rejected by the core team because I was a ‘temp’ but played an integral role in the marketing activities. I was too worried about keeping my position and I would never express these feelings to the management. This is another unsavoury aspect of hiring non-permanent staff.
Seeking commitment from the peripheries is difficult because there is an over-riding sense of ‘being disposed of’ (1992:262) with no element of job security. Some management even use this to encourage more efficient production. It is against the commitment building ethos behind HRM, demonstrating a bastardised version of the organisational movement.
Hiring and firing the periphery workforce is costly, all while trying to sustain the core workers. The costs saved from hiring staff ad-hoc at the Astra technology plant were considered minor when studied by Geary (1992:257).
Legge suggests that the pressure of becoming a flexible firm has forced core workers to become pushed to the periphery as freelance outsourced staff. Labelled as ‘entrepreneurs’, they are exploited as cheap alternatives because they do not experience the benefits of the core workers. (1995:155)
Another serious problem is distinguishing the difference between the job profiles of the core and the periphery. For example, cleaners in abattoirs are essential however they are outsourced with very little benefits from the organisation. The adoption of Numerical Flexibility results in a return to the days of Scientific Management, where labour is highly segmented for the periphery workers, incongruous with the environment required for commitment.
The idea of ‘Flexible Specialisation’ (1995:144) sees the return of the ‘craft judgement and skill’ with an augmentation of quality production. As democratic an idea as this is, it is spoken about pertaining to the manufacturing industry which in Britain, only makes up around 3,125 of the 22,200 businesses. (OECD 2002) Can this be applied to a call centre operator who must perform a standardised routine? Where functional flexibility claims to encourage commitment through giving more decision making, rather than skill enhancement, are we just seeing ‘skill enlargement?’ (1995:155) Workloads appear to be getting larger with the more skills learned, intensifying labour and even de-motivating workers. This will inevitably lead to a loss of commitment.
Performance Related Pay (PRP) finds little support in the HRM literature. It is attacked for its subjectivity and inconsistencies. (1995:167). If for example, a member of a marketing consultancy team works on an account’s market intelligence project and another, its product development, how can PRP be equally calculated if the tasks differ? What problems arise with teamwork if PRP operates on an individual basis? In addition, the PRP cannot promise vast improvements of pay if the company’s aim is to be cost effective.
In the defence of flexibility, success stories are found in Japanese organisations where there is an organisation-wide philosophy concentrating on qualitative rather than quantitative factors. Morishima (1995) found that there is a positive relationship to be found from investing heavily into the permanent workforce whilst balancing the proportion of part time and more temporary workers (2001b:486) coming from the Japanese ‘Janus’ operations which see a mix of extreme hard and soft HRM (1995:79).
In Geary’s studies of the Mandel plant, problems with hiring temps were acknowledged by keeping peripheral staff as long as possible to ensure commitment. They had a policy of never contracting staff for less than six months.
It must also be acknowledged that flexibility often suits the employees’ lifestyles. Almost half (40%) of temporary staff enjoy the benefits of flexible hours (Hotopp 2002b:463). This implies that commitment is obtainable from periphery employees; it is inaccurate assumptions of the periphery workforce which suggest that their working conditions are a barrier.
When answering the title question it becomes clear that there is a problem with the assumptions of commitment building. It is not enough to presume that it is attained through high participation, autonomy, freedom etc. There are uncontrollable factors determining levels of commitment i.e. education, gender. There is also the question of whether some workers respond to autonomy and self control (1987:511). If this is the basis of commitment theory, it is flawed because Blackburn & Mann (1979) have found that ‘blue-collar’ workers are more comfortable in a rigidly structured system of authority and control.
Assumptions made that commitment can arise out of a decentralised structure and flattened hierarchies is inconsistent with the theory that career advancement promotes loyalty. De-layering within an organisation creates a culture of fear. This ‘survivor syndrome’ (Legge 2000:51-52) hinders flexibility from employees who consequently work only in a manner which they are comfortable with, for reassurance.
The answer to the essay question can only be based on the information available which appears to be very limited and even unreliable.
Information has been attained through employees/employer surveys and interviews. How reliable is this? Kalleberg suggests that information should be collected at every level (2001b:497) but I would argue that information should be amassed from all stakeholders creating a comprehensive and objective perspective. For example, families of workers are possible judges of commitment levels and factors involved in flexibility because they observe the effects on their relatives.
The survey conducted by Mowday (2001a:1084) asked a series of questions with four answer options from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. There is no option to respond neutrally. This polarises those who agree from those who disagree, providing no middle ground, generating bias information.
Hypothetical questions were asked i.e. would the employee leave the organisation if they were paid more elsewhere. Only hypothetical answers can be given, not taking into consideration the numerous other factors involved in making such a decision. Can this really provide conclusive data concerning commitment?
There is also very little data from organisations where commitment is strong and flexibility is successful. Geary’s investigation of the American plants focuses mainly on the Astra factory where there was an extremely high level of numerical flexibility. ‘Considerably more space will thus be given to an analysis of the situation at Astra’s’ (1992:255). We are left with an abundance of information where there are problems and discrepancies and very little data of where HRM practices are successful.
The perspectives of the theorists are differing and controversial. Legge proposes that flexibility only exists rhetorically and no real change is taking place. PRP is used symbolically to ‘signal organisational changes’ and flexibility initiatives act as a ‘catch-all’ label, symbolising a new trend in management. (1995:157). This is true especially when looking at Geary’s studies of the Astra plant where 70% of production employees are temporary/outsourced (1992:256). This again highlights how research is never focused on where HRM may be working; there is little investigation into where commitment is found because it is less interesting to researchers. One must not confuse the theories with the practices. Legge and Guest argue the case of the successful Japanese (Nissan etc.) adoption of flexibility.
I agree more closely with Guest who has slightly different theories. It is HRM that is implemented as a ‘central tenant’ on short-term basis thus large bureaucratic organisations can achieve neither commitment nor flexibility. (1987:519) Perhaps commitment and flexibility have existed without the HRM directives? Only 5-15% of organisations have adopted any core-periphery flexibility strategy ((Hakim 1990:168-173) 2001b:487)). Even during Fordist times there was Flexible Specialisation using new technology as time progressed and workers experienced autonomy when dealing with diversification on flow lines (1995:180). The periphery workforce turnover was high but the wages were excellent. This is of course an exaggerated example but poses the question of whether or not flexibility and commitment have existed in large bureaucratic organisations, and it is the issue of HRM which doesn’t succeed.
It is apparent that commitment and flexibility are attainable within an organisation but rarely at the same time, across the entire organisation. This statement cannot be stated with confidence however, because the data collected is flawed and seriously insufficient. There is evidence that commitment can be found amongst part-time peripheral workers, and that core labourers may not commit themselves just because they have autonomy questions the assumptions previously associated with the two themes. To comprehensively resolve the title question, more subjective and wide spread research must be undertaken, as well as further analysis of the assumptions of commitment, flexibility and HRM.
