C o m m e n t

PROCEDURES AND CONSISTENCY VERSUS FLEXIBILITY AND COMMITMENT IN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS:

A COMMENT ON STOREY

Jon Clark, University of Southumpton

At the core of John Storey's recent book, Developments in theMunagement of Human Resources, is an ideal-typical contrast between what he calls the 'personnel and IR approach on the one hand and the 'HRM' approach on the other. This is presented in terms of four broad areas - beliefs and assumptions, strategic aspects, line management, and key levers - each of which is divided into a number of dimensions (Storey, 1992a:30-44).

In this short comment I do not want to challenge the model as a whole - indeed, it is extremely useful in highlighting some of the contrasts between the conventional wisdoms of the 1960s and the 1990s. However, I do believe a number of the contrasts he presents need further refinement, and two in particular - on which I want to concentrate here - are open to challenge. I am referring to two of the dimensions he identifies in the area of the beliefs and assumptions governing employee relations: rules, and what he calls the guide to management action. His typology, elaborated in more detail in an article in Personnel Management (Storey, 1992b), suggests that the personnel and IR tradition embodies a belief in 'the importance of devising clear rules', which he links with the idea of 'mutuality', whereas the HRM approach has an 'impatience with rule' and stresses instead a "'can do" outlook'. He goes on to argue that the main guides to management action in the personnel/ IR tradition are 'procedures, consistency and control', while for HRh4 they are 'business need, flexibility and commitment' (1992b:28).

Let us examine these more closely. First, the typologies Storey constructs are not internally coherent. Procedures and consistency in employee relations are no more inherently related to control than business need is to flexibility and commitment. Similarly, there is no inherent link between believing in the need to devise clear rules and believing in mutuality. Some managers, including many committed to HRM, may believe that the need for clear rules is inextricably linked to mutuality, but others may believe in the importance of clear rules while insisting that they alone have the unilateral right to devise them. Secondly, the contrast glosses over the debate around Walton's much cited and criticised distinction in the Hurvurd Business Rev im between 'control' and 'commitment' as different approaches to the manage- ment of the employment relationship (Walton, 1985). It is now generally accepted that the contrast should not be between control and commitment, but between compliance and commitment as different approaches to management control (see, for example, Edwards, 1989:320). 'Control', a supposed feature of the IR/personnel tradition, collapses conceptually and empirically when placed in artificial contrast with business need in the HR tradition.

However, the most important problem with Storey's typology is when he contrasts 'procedure and consistency' on the one hand and 'business need, flexibility and commitment' on the other. It is my view that one of the most important positive contributions of the now much maligned Donovan Report of 1968 was to stress (maybe overstress, see Terry, 1977) the importance of formality in establishing industrial relations procedures and practices. The

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL VOL 4 NO 1 79

JON CLARK, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON

growing formalisation of discipline and dismissal procedures since the 1970s, for example, undoubtedly encouraged by the introduction of unfair dismissal legislation and by ACAS’s sterling work in devising a Code and Handbook of good practice in the area, has played a major role in advancing ‘good industrial relations‘ over the past twenty years. It is as vital today as it has ever been. Indeed, the belief in due procedure (‘natural justice‘) and consistency is surely a conceptual and empirical cornerstone of an HRM approach which aims to gain the trust and commitment of employees to the organisation. This stands in stark contrast to the complete ‘flexibility‘l’treat each case as it comes‘ approach of the macho manager or other over-zealous believers in management’s right to manage irrespective of whether this is fair or reasonable. The easiest way to lose the commitment of employees is to be inconsistent and not to follow good practice procedures in areas such as discipline and dismissal. Storey’s categories and contrasts do not capture this.

Indeed, I would go further and argue that, in some respects, the HRM model represents the greatest proceduralisation of employment relations that there has ever been! Are not systematic recruitment and selection techniques, training needs analysis, appraisal, per- formance review, fundamental features of the model? Are not most line managers today, whom Storey rightly identifies as the most important actors in the management of employment relations, confronted with ever greater demands to follow established proce- dures in these areas, in contrast to earlier years where selection criteria were implicit rather than explicit, appraisal was rare and performance targets crude or non-existent? How many employees were dismissed in the past (and even today) without being treated fairly in procedural terms? Was this not partly responsible for ‘low trust’ industrial relations in the 1950s and 196Os? And is not one of the major tasks facing organisations today the need to train and prepare line managers - many of whom have little awareness or knowledge of good procedures and practice - for their ever increasing role in the management of human resources?

Storey’s book is an academic study and he is careful not to make a value judgment as to which of the two traditions - IR/personnel and HRM - is more likely to lead to good industrial relations. However, there is a tendency amongst protagonists of HRM, as there is in all converts to new religions, to criticise and distort the old and praise the new. It is almost politically correct nowadays to downgrade the importance of procedure and to stress the need for managerial and work flexibility. These are generally false choices. Flexibility in work arrangements is not only compatible with explicit procedures in areas such as recruitment, discipline, performance review, grievances, promotion and equal opportunities, they often complement each other. In the current state of the labour market, some managers may wish to argue that clear procedures which need to be agreed by employees inhibit new-style ‘can do’ management. I would suggest that ‘can do’ management has more in common with the ‘blue eyed system’ than with good industrial relations. It would be a disaster for management and workforce if procedure and consistency were seen as ‘old hat’ industrial relations and in necessary conflict with the pursuit of business need and commitment. One of the precondi- tions of generating commitment is for management to treat employees fairly, consistently, and within the framework of clear procedures. These principles shodd be the guide to management action, whether in the HRM or IR tradition.

80 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL VOL 4 NO 1

PROCEDURES AND CONSISTENCY VERSUS FLEXIBILITY AND COMMITMENT IN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS:

A COMMENT ON STOREY

REFERENCES

Edwards, P.K. 1989. ‘The Three Faces of Discipline’. Personnel Management in Britain. Ed K.

Storey, J. 1992a. Developments in the Management of Human Resources. Oxford: Blackwell. Storey, J. 1992b. ‘HRM in Action: The Truth is Out at Last‘. Personnel Munugement, April, 28-

Terry, M. 1977. ’The Inevitable Growth of Informality’. British Journal oflndustrzal Relations,

Walton, R.E. 1985. ‘From Control to Commitment in the Workplace’. Harvard Business

Sisson. Oxford: Blackwell.

31.

Vo1.15, no.l,76-90.

Review, Vo1.53, March-April, 77-84.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL VOL 4 NO 1 81