Regular Employment Revisited
Over the past two decades, the concept of âregular employmentâ has been challenged and changed rapidly and fundamentally. We have seen a growth of short-term employment. Increasingly, organizations make use of contingent employees (Bergström and Storrie 2003) and contract work (Barley and Kunda 2004). From the beginning of the 1990s onwards, the growth of these ânon-standard work arrangementsâ has attracted scholarly attention (e.g., Casey 1991; Delsen 1995; Purcell and Purcell 1998; Kalleberg 2000). Along with these developments, temporary work and the temporary work agency industry have both grown rapidly. In the United States, temporary agency work (TAW) grew at an annual rate of 11 per cent between 1972 and 1998, against 2 per cent annual growth for regular non-farm employment (Kalleberg 2000). During the 1990s, temporary work agencies were legalized and regulated in many European countries (Bergström and Storrie 2003), reflecting a growing sociocultural readiness for temporary employment and supporting its proliferation (Koene, Paauwe, and Groenewegen 2004). Critics voiced concern about the risks of bringing contingency back in and of undermining work conditions and workplace community (e.g., Benner, Leete, and Pastor 2007; Kalleberg 2009). Still, during the 1990s, temporary contracts in Europe grew by 25 per cent (Kalleberg 2000), and in the first decade of the new millennium, we saw a steep growth of agency work in Europe from 2, 605 million to 3, 924 full-time equivalents between 2002 and 2007 when it peaked, a growth of 51 per cent (Ciett 2011).
The use of agency work is but a small component of the total amount of temporary work. In 2009, the temporary work agency industry reported penetration rates of 2.5 per cent in the Netherlands, 1.6 per cent in Germany, 1 per cent in Sweden, and 0.7 per cent in Italy in 2009; whereas estimates of temporary work in these countries were approximately 20 per cent in the Netherlands, 15 per cent in Germany and Sweden, and just over 12 per cent in Italy (Ciett 2011). However, there is more to small figures than meets the eye. The growth of the temporary work agency industry reflects a structural acceptance of temporary work that seems to reflect a substantive change in our conception of âregularâ employment. Developments over the past 20 years have fundamentally changed the employment landscape and our understanding of a âregularâ job. In employment studies, often with roots in economics or sociology, these developments have been scrutinized with respect to the societal and legal consequences of TAW (e.g., Peck and Theodore 1998; Kvasnicka 2009). This research has stimulated debates on the nature and desirability of TAW and ways to contain its negative side effects (Viebrock and Clasen 2009; Pruijt and DĂ©rogĂ©e 2010; Crouch 2012). In the meantime, a multinational industry has emerged providing professional employment services, and in most developed economies, the use of temporary agency workers has developed into a regular, if not respectable, employment solution.
After many decades of debate and discussion about the effects of TAW on precariousness, its basic desirability, and its socio-economic effects, by now most agree that employment flexibility seems to be an irreversible trend. The use of temporary employment and the associated employment intermediation industry have grown rapidly, and TAW has been legalized and regulated in many countries (International Labour Office 2009). This reflects a broader trend of specialization and modularization that is moving beyond the old bureaucratic mode of organizing of the twentieth century (Barley and Kunda 2004, 2006; Anand and Daft 2007).
However, research on the organization of temporary work has only partly kept up with the rapid growth of the phenomenon and the changing nature of questions and debate, experience and challenges around it. In terms of our present academic vocabulary, we still label temporary work as ânon-standardâ employment (Kalleberg 2000; Ashford, George, and Blatt 2007). As a consequence, much research to date has mostly compared temporary work to traditional (âregularâ) forms of employment, and most studies of the contributions of temporary work agencies have emphasized their labour market contributions, rather than how they reflect and contribute to a new way of organizing and understanding employment. In their review of the literature to date, Ashford, George, Blatt (2007) argue that the changing employment practices raise important theoretical issues about the nature of work, relationships between individuals and organizations, and the interaction between individuals. Reviewing the literature on labour market intermediaries (LMIs), Bonet, Cappelli, and Hamori (2013) revert to a categorization of LMIs that reflects the labour market contribution of LMIs (information provider, matchmaker, and administrator) and with it note a paucity of research addressing the substantive changes in the organization of work. We need to start answering basic questions related to these new ways of organizing employment: how can we understand career development, and what are short- and longer-term effects of engaging temporary work agencies in core human resources (HR) processes? The developments create new challenges and opportunities for the organization and management of employment. This book addresses these developments from different social science perspectives. The contributors represent the emerging body of research that investigates the management and organization of TAW and provide new insights that complement the rich body of research that documents and discusses the socio-economic effects of employment flexibility and agency work. In many organizations, the use of agency work mirrors the changing views on the role of non-standard and temporary employment in the organization. Especially in Europe, where the use of TAW has been relatively contested, the developments in organization and professionalization of the use of temporary labour are noteworthy. National differences highlight different aspects of the management and organization of temporary employment. The chapters in this volume present a kaleidoscope of the challenges of management and organization of temporary employment from various national contexts, as well as transnational trends and broader developments. Together, they provide an overview of key themes for the management and organization of temporary work in the years to come. Furthermore, they exemplify themes and issues relevant in specific national labour markets depending on the local experience with and attitude towards agency-mediated temporary employment.
The chapters are organized around four key themes. Part I addresses how the changing nature of work affects our understanding of temporariness and flexibility and the challenges it poses for the relationship between workers and organizations (Garsten and Haunschild, Chapter 2), introducing the particularly European notion of âflexicurityâ (Dekker and Wilthagen, Chapter 3). Part II subsequently investigates the organization of the triangular employment relationship, documenting strategic choices on the part of agencies and client organizations to structure temporary employment in the organization (Goudswaard and De Leede, Chapter 4), the challenges of operating high-skill contingent workers in key positions (Nesheim, Fahle, and Tobiassen, Chapter 5), and investigating the conditions for successful development of sustainable regional inter-organizational flexicurity practices (Xhauflair and Pichault, Chapter 6). Part III presents research that investigates the challenges of managing the temporary workforce when it becomes a significant part of the total workforce. It addresses issues of worker identity and commitment (De Gilder, Chapter 8), attitudinal spillover effects (Connelly, Gallagher, and Wilkin, Chapter 7), and complexities in the development of multiple psychological contracts (Chambel, Chapter 9). Whereas the first three parts thus document our growing insight into the nature and management of temporary employees, Part IV addresses questions of variety and development in the organization of TAW, thus illuminating different possibilities in the development of the post-industrial organization of (temporary) employment. These developments deepen our insight into the possibilities that temporary work agencies provide in the organization of tailored employment solutions and employment flexibility. Besides broadening the strategic labour-sourcing possibilities, as shown in the chapter by Goudswaard and De Leede (Chapter 4), the chapters in this section describe the development of labour market institutions alongside the development of the temporary work agency industry in Italy (Regalia, Chapter 10), the adaptation of the temporary work agency industry business model within a context of strong job security in Sweden (Walter, Chapter 11), and the organization and competitive positioning of placement of disadvantaged workers in the North American context (CarrĂ©, Herranz, and Dorado, Chapter 12).
Together, the chapters in this volume address challenges at the level of labour markets and organizations, where we address both the organization and the management of the changing nature of employment. The changing perspective on agency work articulates more broadly the changing notions of flexibility and flexible employment.
Changing Notions of Flexibility and Flexible Employment
Technological change, global competition, and social change have stimulated the growth of short-term employment relationships and contingent work (Bidwell et al. 2013). During the last half of the twentieth century, temporary employment was mostly understood as an instrument to deal with ad hoc labour shortages and labour market imperfections (Autor 2009). Flexible employment was mostly seen as a temporary state of being, and mostly understood as a temporary solution to fleeting employment problems. At the same time, temporary workâand especially agency workâwas seen as societally problematic because opportunistic entrepreneurs used it to avoid employer and employee responsibilities (Kalleberg 2009, 2011).
Over time, however, it has become less ad hoc, more structural, less opportunistic, and more widespread. The nature and use of flexible employment and agency work have changed. We see four important drivers for this development: specialization, individualization, rationalization driven by strategic focus and cost reduction, and growing complexity of employment, partly due to increased globalization of labour markets and employment practice.
Over the past decade, many authors have pointed to the growing specialization of labour. Specialization has led organizations to think about core competencies and the active management of their use of specialized labour (e.g., Lepak and Snell 1999; Malone, Laubacher, and Johns 2011), and recently, academics have started to theorize and research the role of specialized contingent staff in organizational learning in knowledge-intensive firms where contingent workers increasingly impact core areas of the firm and where the synergistic interaction between itinerant professionals and organizations is essential for organizational development and competitiveness (Matusik and Hill 1998; Nesheim, Olsen, and Kalleberg 2007). This growth of flexibility reflects organizational differentiation and specialization where organizations do not necessarily control technical knowledge and its sources in the organization (Barley 1996). It changes the role of employment intermediation. It creates triangular employment relationships that can truly benefit the high-skilled temporary employee, shifting the focus of the agency from the user organization to the temp depending on labour market conditions (Koene and Purcell, forthcoming). It also blurs the boundaries between employment intermediaries and specialist employers such as consultancy organizations. Most of all, however, it positions temporary labour as a regular and key type of labour sourcing.
This development coincides with a growing individualization in Western labour markets, with a growing independent labour force of self-employed contractors. In the Netherlands, the number of self-employed contractors has grown by 38 per cent over the past decade (Statistics Netherlands, 2012). We see new classes of professionals and experts emerge, different from the traditional professions (e.g., Barley and Kunda 2004, 2006). They operate independently of traditional organizations and aim to organize and maintain their professionalism in novel ways (Furusten and Werr 2005). Actors in these individualized temporary employment relationships have to deal with market uncertainties in other ways than traditional professions. Often the focus is on highly skilled professionals, but independent actors also include skilled truck drivers and craftsmen, as well as the independent mail delivery workers who are paid on piece-rate schemes. In this case, the uncertainties in these new relationships and the imbalance in power between the contracting actors often require novel ways of managing the employment relationships, frequently involving employment intermediaries to make them sustainable. Even in Barley and Kundaâs (2004) study of independent information technology contractors in Silicon Valley, all but the most successful individual contractors worked through agencies to stabilize their flow of assignments. Garsten (2008) shows how individualization of work contracts and relationships brings forth new ways of disciplining and âscriptingâ oneself as a temporary agency worker and undermines a sense of collegiality among the employees.
Besides specialization and individualization, we see two other important developments affecting both the flexibility of employment and the outsourcing of HR services to third parties. These developments have to do with the rationalization and professionalization of labour-sourcing practices. First, the ongoing rationalization of businesses has also touched human resources management (HRM) processes in organizations. Furthermore, organizations are more carefully considering their labour-sourcing strategies, creating a âbreathing workforce,â where numerical flexibility helps to adapt to changing market demands (Brunhes, Rojot, and Wassermann 1989; Davis-Blake and Uzzi 1993; George and Ng 2010). Organizations increasingly outsource operational management of related HR practices to other organizations specialized in matching and managing labour capacity.
Second, especially in Europe (but also worldwide), demographic developments are creating local labour market imbalances (Berkhout et al. 2012). Here, relatively complex cross-border labour-sourcing practices are developing and are expected to grow (Berkhout and Van den Berg 2010). These developments are often supported by multinational professional employment agencies able to deal efficiently with the complexity of organizing and managing cross-border employment relationships (Ciett 2011). At present, much cross-border migration is organized through placements of a temporary nature of âposted workersâ (European Union [EU] 2011). Individuals work outside their home country for a limited period with the intention of returning home after some time. At the same time, temporary work agencies provide cross-border placement services that do not provide permanent jobs in the host country but can manage placements of significant duration abroad. Relative to local hiring, these activities require more complex HR activities, which have stimulated the growth of specialized intermediation services in these areas (EU 2011; Ciett 2011).
Whereas the developments in flexible employment are thus driven by a number of underl...
