Flexible-Firm Model in Human Resource Management

This article discusses the Flexible-Firm model in human resource management and its application in achieving workforce flexibility and cost-effectiveness. It explores the division of employees into core and peripheral groups and the significance of each group. The article also highlights the importance of organizational culture and motivation in implementing this model. Additionally, it addresses the risks and benefits associated with the model.

Running Head: MANAGEMENT 0
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT 1
John Atkinson proposed the Flexible-Firm model in 1984. It was known to be as an ideal
model of the fully flexible firm. This model can help the management and government
policymakers with identification of main application for development (Mesu, Van Riemsdijk
and Sanders, 2012). It states that they are required to pursue to establish long-term
employment with the core constant permanent employees. These are highly competent,
skilled and devoted to the business firm. The model is also extended towards achieving cost-
effectiveness.
One of the main objectives of this Flexible-Firm model was to identify and distinguish the
level of significance of certain teams or groups to an enterprise, to produce workforce
flexibility and a clear pyramid of importance (Carvalho and Cabral-Cardoso, 2008). The main
belief of this model is to divide the firm employees into two distinct groups, i.e. the core
group and the peripheral group. In core group, it includes whole time primary employees who
attain the functionality of an organisation and are difficult to replace as of greater
competencies, experience and skills.
On the other side, the peripheral groups include secondary employees who are both less
experienced and competent to fulfil necessary functionalities of an organisation. This model
is especially beneficial for those in higher managerial positions within an enterprise as it
signifies those areas where the company can streamline with incorporation of proactive
approaches.
In terms of organisational behaviour, Peripheral norms define behaviour that is desirable - but
not essential - for continued group membership (Tan et al, 2013). On the other hand, core
group builds organisation behaviour that is both desirable and essential. Combining these
might help the organisation to achieve its desired goals effectively, enhance job satisfaction
and thus improve overall productivity.
Organisation culture is vital for engaging and retaining valuable employees. This model is
often used as a guideline when the organisation needed to make cuts to the workforce, whilst
retaining its talent to stay competitive. For instance, Flexible-Firm outlined hierarchy through
which necessary cuts can be made in expenses and the first area in which workers will be
reduced is the periphery, especially outsourced groups.
Employing flexibility in the organisation culture will also motivate the employees of
organisations as they will understand that the organisation cares for them and made certain
policies and provision as per their needs. Generally, the core group requires timely

MANAGEMENT 2
motivation as they are considered vital to the enterprise function. From the beginning of
1960s, management of organisation has found new and innovative ways to build the
composition and size of their work-forces more flexible so that they will be explicitly
motivated from all perspectives (Roll, 2013). This also fulfils the changing nature of the work
as flexibility in work can be used for the discussion of work structures, and also to the
implementation of new technologies that allow employees to respond quickly to the dynamic
market changes.
In addition, both the core and periphery groups may be linked in most ways than others,
mainly while considering recruitment and selection of temporary agency staff for fixed or
full-time positions. However, this model carries a degree of risk due to its proactive nature.

MANAGEMENT 3
References
Carvalho, A. and Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2008) Flexibility through HRM in management
consulting firms. Personnel Review, 37(3), pp.332-349.
Mesu, J., Van Riemsdijk, M. and Sanders, K. (2012) Labour flexibility in SMEs: The impact
of leadership. Employee Relations, 35(2), pp.120-138.
Roll, K.H. (2013) Measuring performance, development and growth when restricting
flexibility. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 39(1), pp.15-25.
Tan, K.H., Denton, P., Rae, R. and Chung, L. (2013) Managing lean capabilities through
flexible workforce development: a process and framework. Production Planning &
Control, 24(12), pp.1066-1076.