Employability policy in Dutch organizations

0 downloads 0 Views 217KB Size Report
Dec 9, 2010 - Though most organizations take measures to improve ... The most frequent employability-stimulating measures are: schooling and training, task.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Employability policy in Dutch organizations Sjiera De Vries , Rob Gründemann & Tinka Van Vuuren To cite this article: Sjiera De Vries , Rob Gründemann & Tinka Van Vuuren (2001) Employability policy in Dutch organizations, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12:7, 1193-1202, DOI: 10.1080/09585190110068395 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190110068395

Published online: 09 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 241

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20 Download by: [University of Maastricht]

Date: 09 January 2016, At: 06:31

Int. J. of Human Resource Management 12:7 November 2001 1193–1202

Employability policy in Dutch organizations

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

Sjiera de Vries, Rob Grundemann ¨ and Tinka van Vuuren Abstract The results from a study of more than 1,000 Dutch organizations indicate that less is being done about employability policy in Dutch organizations than the plentiful media interest leads one to expect. Though most organizations take measures to improve the employability of their personnel, only one-third has a formulated policy in this area. The most frequent employability-stimulating measures are: schooling and training, task expansion and task enrichment. There is far more activity in the government sector than in the market sector, in large organizations than in smaller ones, and the principal target group is younger people. Attention is not heavily directed at enhancing the position of weaker groups in the labour market. Only one-Ž fth of organizations have introduced recent changes in their employability policy, 25 per cent of them prompted by a growing labour shortage. Keywords

employability; Netherlands.

Introduction In recent years much has been said and written about ‘employability’ and its importance. A frequently used deŽ nition of the term is ‘an individual’s ability to obtain employment’. Gaspersz and Ott (1996) offer a more speciŽ c deŽ nition: ‘the relation between a person’s capacities and the capacities in demand on the labour market’. In this context, ‘capacities’ are both expertise and skills. In addition to the correspondence between required and available capacities, Gaspersz and Ott also refer to ‘mobility willingness’ and ‘familiarity with the labour market’ as important dimensions of employability. A person’s employability, then, is not determined only by capacities but also by a willingness to deploy these capacities elsewhere if required, and by the knowledge as to where these capacities are in demand or where they can be put to use. Employability is advantageous to both employees and employers. Harmonization of available and demanded capacities means that employees can make full use of their capacities and thereby achieve self-realization. Employers, too, have a stake in stimulating employee employability. A historical sketch drawn up by Versloot et al. (1998) does, however, suggest that there has been a shift in what exactly the employer’s stake in this might be. It seems to be the case in the early 1990s, for example, that more employers began to invest in the employability of their personnel in order to make it possible for them to Ž nd other work. In this way they tried to encourage voluntary movement and head off the need for redundancies or dismissals. Currently the opposite may be more likely, with employers being more interested in retaining employees than losing them. Investing in the employability of employees now seems to increase  exible Sjiera de Vries, Rob Grundemann ¨ and Tinka van Vuuren, TNO Work and Employment, PO Box 718, 2130 AS Hoofddorp, Netherlands. The International Journal of Human Resource Management ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/09585190110068395

1194

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

deployment within the organization. Moreover, such investing may have a binding quality: employees like to stick with an organization in which they can keep learning and where their market value is kept up. Finally, investing in present personnel is also investment in the recruiting power of the organization: the organization is more attractive for potential new employees – an important datum, given the tightening labour market. Our paper will concentrate on what employers are now doing to enhance lasting deployability of their personnel, which activities they are developing to achieve this, to what extent they have revised their employability policy and what reasoning led them to do so.

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

Research questions and expectations To the extent that it is important for employers to stimulate the employability of their employees we expect them to pursue an active employability policy. We therefore intend to investigate whether this is the case and to judge the substance of such a policy. We expect, for example, that much use will be made of measures to enhance the deployability of the staff. Such deployability, i.e. the ease with which persons can be given different tasks and functions, can be enlarged by task expansion, task and function rotation, schooling and training and practical training both within and outside the organization. A second important characteristic of employability policy is measures to expand mobility. The above measures can themselves enhance mobility, which can further be encouraged by stimulating horizontal and vertical  ows, i.e.  ow to other functions on the same level (horizontal) or to a different level (vertical) in the organization. Measures can also be taken to reduce premature dropping out by over-taxed people. This relates to adapting working hours, the job, the function, the tasks or the workstation. Finally, age restrictions may be imposed on particular work activities. We expect all these measures will Ž nd frequent application in organizations pursuing some employability policy. Employability policies may target speciŽ c groups. Rapid technological development may call for special attention to maintaining the knowledge and skills of older and loweducated employees, groups that often have difŽ culty coping with innovation. A tighter labour market may stimulate special attention to groups (e.g. the disabled, women or ethnic minorities) that were previously overlooked. In our study, we test whether special attention is indeed given to such groups. In connection with the ageing labour market, we also ask whether special attention is paid to younger people. There are decreasing numbers of young people, and companies may exert extra effort to recruit and retain young personnel. Because of tight labour markets and the widespread attention given to employability policy in the media, we expect that the search for effective employability policies will be being intensiŽ ed in many organizations. We therefore test for this, and inquire about the reasons for possible changes in employability policies. Finally, we want to know whether speciŽ c organizational characteristics are related to the incidence of an employability policy. In this connection we look at the number of employees in the organization, the age distribution of employees, the percentage of women, turnover and absenteeism rates, and the extent to which the organization Ž nds it hard to Ž ll vacancies. Finally, we distinguish between public- and private-sector organizations.

de Vries et al.: Employability in Dutch organization s 1195 Method

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

Our study of employability policy is part of a larger study of personnel policy in organizations. We invited 5,000 organizations to participate and 1,013 organizations agreed, a response rate of 20 per cent. The response was somewhat less than expected, probably because the interviews took place during the summer holiday period. The questionnaire was Ž lled out in face-to-face interviews with either the owner/ director of the organization (37 per cent of all cases), the general manager (18 per cent) or the head of the P&0 department or some other staff member of this department (15 per cent). In order to obtain a fully representative picture of Dutch organizations employing ten or more workers, we stratiŽ ed the sample, taking into account the sector and the size of the organization. The results in the paper are based on weights which re ect population patterns. Results To discuss the results we Ž rst sketch a general picture of the state of affairs around employability policy in Dutch organizations. Next we discuss the differences occurring between organizations with different characteristics. Finally, on the basis of these data, we shall try to arrive at formulations concerning characteristics that seem to play a role in the actualization of an employability policy. Presence of policy Thirty-eight per cent of our participating organizations had formulated guidelines to stimulate the deployability and mobility of employees, i.e. in our terms pursued, at least on paper, an employability policy. Such a policy was especially common in the government and education sectors (57 and 55 per cent of the cases respectively), while in wholesale and transport (22 per cent each) there is relatively little interest in employability. The absence of a formal employability policy need not mean that no measures are taken in this area: of all Dutch organizations reporting no employability policy, 83 per cent took one or more measures to stimulate deployability and mobility. In other words, 88 per cent of organizations engaged in some kind of employability activity. Employability measures We asked questions regarding ten kinds of employability measures (see Table 1). Organizations are especially likely to pursue measures in the area of schooling and training. Task expansion and task enrichment, too, receive frequent mention. Age restrictions are applied in only a minority of organizations, and little mention is made of practical training as means to stimulate mobility and deployability. Table 1 also has a sector breakdown, and it is clear that there are major differences between the different sectors in the degree to which certain measures are mentioned. Attention for special groups Table 2 shows that only a minority of the organizations distinguish speciŽ c target groups. To the extent that a special policy is pursued it is aimed especially at younger employees. Noteworthy, too, is the slight concern for the employability of disabled persons, women and ethnic minorities. Accordingly, it looks as if employability policy

1196

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 1 Presence of employability measures

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

Schooling/training 62% Task expansion/task enrichment 52% Rotation in tasks/functions Flexible job, function or tasks Flexible working hours

41% 37% 29%

Flexible work station

29%

Stimulation of horizontal  ow Stimulation of vertical  ow

27% 23%

Practical training (intern/extern) Age restriction for speciŽ c jobs

19% 11%

Markedly frequent

Markedly rare

Government (79%) Education (71%) Catering (69%) Education (63%) – Leisure industry (53%)

Transport (37%) Transport (26%)

Manufacturing industry (48%) Education (46%) Government (36%) Commercial services (36%) Government (38%)

Construction (28%) – Wholesale (18%) Health care (45%) Construction (15%) Transport (9%) Transport (7%)

is utilized not so much to improve the position of weaker groups in the labour market (such as the poorly-educated, disabled, women and ethnic minorities) but far more to render the organization attractive to young personnel. Recent changes in employability policy Are organizations paying more attention to employability policy? The answer seems to be, no. In only 19 per cent of the organizations is there any sign that employability policy has changed, even though there are clear variations across sectors. To the extent that changes have occurred, they most frequently consist of more of the same, of an extension of existing policy. In only 1 per cent of organizations was a new policy introduced. Table 3 shows that concern with the deployability of employees has increased. This is particularly true for the transport sector. This is a sector where employability policy is not generally perceived to be very important, but transport organizations that do pursue a policy almost all aim at the deployability of their employees. In construction, remarkably little new policy is aimed at deployability. Attention to special groups proves to have grown in the past years, particularly in the wholesale sector. Table 2 Employability policy for speciŽ c groups Markedly frequent

Markedly rare – Government (15%) Retail (5%) Comm. services (8%) Education (5%) Comm. services (2%) – Retail (2%) Comm. services (2%)

No policy for speciŽ c groups Young employees Older employees

61% 24% 15%



Low-skilled employees (Partially) disabled employees Women Ethnic minorities

11% 8% 7% 6%

Construction (23%) – – Government (18%)

Education (30%)

de Vries et al.: Employability in Dutch organization s 1197 Table 3 Changes in employability policy Markedly frequent

Markedly rare Construction (25%) – Leisure industry (21%) –

More policy for distinct groups 16%

Transport (89%) – Transport (61%) Manufacturing industry (12%) Wholesale (37%)

Less policy for distinct groups 1% New policy 1% Other 11%

Health care (6%) – Construction (33%)

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

More attention to deployability 59% Less attention to deployability 1% Expansion of measures 43% Reduction of measures 1%

Manufacturing industry (3%) – – Wholesale (2%) Manufacturing industry (3%)

Reasons for policy change Why have the indicated changes been introduced? Table 4 offers an overview of this. We report only the reasons for policy intensiŽ cation. In view of the small numbers we did not look at reasons to reduce the policy effort. The most important reasons for intensifying employability policy turn out to be more emphasis on quality, shortages in the labour market and higher expectations/demands on the part of employees. But on this score there are great differences between the various branches. For nearly 40 per cent of the organizations in manufacturing industry, employee demands are the reason to do more in terms of employability; in retail (2 per cent) and in education (4 per cent), on the other hand, this consideration plays hardly any role. A number of arguments in favour of pursuing an employability policy frequently advanced in the literature, such as turnover,  exibility and the prevention of set habits and/or burnout, are barely mentioned as in uential factors. Which variables are pertinent to employability policy? Why do certain organizations apply one employability policy rather than another? And what does the difference depend on? Clearly, many variables may in uence an organization’s employability policy. Table 5 shows that the sector and the size of the organization seem to in uence the use of this type of policy, and governmental and larger organizations prove to be far more active than market-sector and smaller organizations. The composition of the workforce seems to play hardly any direct role in the implementation of measures. The percentage of older workers displays a link with only one of the ten measures; for the percentage of younger persons and the percentage of women, this is the case for one and two of the ten measures respectively. Organizations with a larger percentage of older employees make more use of task expansion or task enrichment than organizations employing fewer older persons (59 per cent versus 44 per cent). Organizations with few young employees more often offer schooling and education than organizations employing many young workers (68 per cent versus 57 per cent). In organizations with a majority of women employees, the rotation of tasks and functions is more extensive. In organizations employing an average number of female personnel we encounter  exible work, functions or tasks more frequently than in organizations with few women employees (43, 36 and 31 per cent).

1198

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 4 Reasons for changes in employability policy Markedly frequent Expanding international relations Higher demands by employees Increased competition

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

More emphasis on quality Collective agreement Labour shortage Changed kind of customers Technological development More attention for personnel Changing nature of primary process

Markedly rare

4% – – 20% Manufacturing industry Retail (2%) (38%) Education (4%) 15% Transport (59%) Wholesale (0%) Retail (30%) Education (1%) 29% Transport (61%) Wholesale (3%) 9% Transport (48%) Construction (0%) Wholesale ((0%) Leisure industry (0%) 25% Leisure industry (61%) Transport (0%) 11% Comm. services (24%) Leisure industry (0%) Transport (0%) 11% Construction (28%) Leisure industry (0%) Transport (0%) 19% Education (39%) Leisure industry (0%) 10% Construction (21%) Wholesale (0%)

Health care (20%) Changed Ž nancial situation of 5% Health care (20%) org. Changed composition of personnel 12% Health care (25%) Education (22%) Turnover 2% Government (14%) Reorganization/merger 4% Health care (20%) Need for  exibility 2% Manufacturing industry (8%) Prevention of set habits/burnout 2% Government (9%)

Leisure industry (0%) – Construction (0%) Leisure industry (0%) Education (0%) – – –

Turnover, absenteeism and recruitment problems – factors that can both occasion policy implementation or be an effect of it – display a connection with two, none and one respectively out of the ten measures. High-turnover organizations make more frequent use of task expansion and task enrichment (59 per cent vs. 44 per cent), and schooling and training (70 per cent vs. 52 per cent). Organizations that do not Ž nd it difŽ cult to recruit personnel more often implement measures to stimulate horizontal  ow than organizations that encounter difŽ culty or much difŽ culty in hiring new employees (32, 26, 22 per cent). Remarkably, turnover, absenteeism and recruitment problems seem hardly related to the use of an employability policy, quite contrary to our expectations. We expected that organizations would pursue an employability policy more often when turnover, absenteeism and recruitment problems were greater. After all, in those cases much might be gained from an employability policy. One might also argue for the opposite effect, i.e. fewer employability measures when such problems were greater, so the absence of a relation is possibly a sign that both effects occur together and cancel each other. But this can be determined only on the basis of longitudinal data. The slight connection between workforce composition and the presence of employability policy runs counter to expectations, but it cannot be explained in terms of effects working in opposite directions. After all, the effect of employability policy on the age

Women

Younger

Older

Size

Explanation Sector

market government small middle large less more less more less mean more

64% 36% 33% 32% 35% 55% 45% 47% 53% 34% 38% 28%

Schooling/training Task expansion/task enrichment Rotation in tasks/functions Flexible job, function or tasks Flexible working hours Flexible workstation Stimulation of horizontal  ow Stimulation of vertical  ow Practical training (intern./ extern.) Age restriction for speciŽ c jobs –





– more – – – – – – –

Older

less than 17 employees 17–39 employees 40 employees or more less than 11% older employees 11% or more older employees less than 50% younger employees 50% or more younger employees less than 17% women 17–49% women more than 50% women

large large large – – large large large large

Size

government government government – – – government – –

Sector

10%

recruitment

absenteeism

turnover



less – – – – – – – –

Younger

Table 5 Organizations with employability measures: differences between categories .





more more – – – – – – –

49% 51% 50% 50% 28% 46% 24%

Turnover

less more less more no problem difŽ cult very difŽ cult

– – more mean – – – – –

Women

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016



– – – – – – – – –



– – – – – – no problem – –

Recruitment

less than 10% turnover 10% or more turnover less than 5% absenteeism 5% or more absenteeism

Absenteeism

de Vries et al.: Employability in Dutch organization s 1199

1200

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

and gender composition is almost certainly very limited. We expected the opposite effect, i.e. an effect of personnel composition on employability policy. We cannot explain the absence of this effect.

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

Sector or size? The above indicates that, of the variables which we investigated, only sector and size display a clear connection with employability policy: in the governmental sector more is done about employability than in the market sector and large organizations are more active than smaller organizations. Sector and size are not independent, however: in the governmental sector we Ž nd far more larger organizations than in the market sector. The question then is: which is more important for the creation of a policy? And do both play a role? Table 6 shows some results on these questions. Table 6 re-afŽ rms the Ž ndings noted in Table 5 regarding the presence of sector and size effects. Flexibility in working hours, job, function or task and the introduction of age restrictions occur about equally often in all cells. Here no clear effects of size or sector occur nor can we speak of interaction. In the stimulation of vertical  ows, the use of practical training and  exible workstations, it is the size of the organization that plays a special role. This last effect in relation to  exible workstations actually seems to be present more strongly in governmental organizations, while in the market sector there seems to be little or no difference between organizations of different size. The Ž gures on task expansion, rotation of tasks, stimulation of horizontal  ow and schooling and training clearly indicate an effect of both size and sector. Among organizations of similar size, the governmental organizations are evidently more active than smaller organizations. In short, concerning the measures of which we had already noted in Table 5 that both sector and size play a role, these two factors each prove to play an independent role. Table 6 Presence of employability measures, by sector and size ,

Schooling/training Task expansion/task enrichment Rotation in tasks/functions Flexible job, function or tasks Flexible working hours Flexible workstation Stimulation of horizontal  ow Stimulation of horizontal  ow Practical training (intern./extern.) Age restriction for speciŽ c jobs

market government market government market government market government market government market government market government market government market government market government

17 49 58 44 58 31 56 32 42 30 15 25 15 15 37 14 19 10 25 11 0

17–39

.

61 68 46 66 32 61 39 39 33 22 31 24 22 36 21 14 19 16 9 9

68 80 58 66 52 49 39 40 27 27 32 35 34 44 34 32 26 31 10 22

39

de Vries et al.: Employability in Dutch organization s 1201

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

Summary and conclusion On the basis of a study of 1,013 Dutch organizations, a picture was drawn of the state of affairs concerning employability policy in the Netherlands. The composition of the sample allows us to present statements representative of Dutch labour organizations with more than ten employees. We expected that most Dutch labour organizations would have an employability policy. Our research indeed showed that most of them did take measures to improve the employability of their personnel. Only one-third, however, had formulated explicit policy in this area and there are major differences between the various sectors in the labour market. The most frequent employability-stimulating measures were schooling and training, task expansion and task enrichment. Our second expectation concerned the groups targeted by the employability policies. We expected them to be implemented especially to enhance the position of weaker groups on the labour market. The contrary proves to be the case: in most organizations where policy aims at groups, the target is preponderantly younger people. Attention is not so much directed at weaker groups, but at the group in short supply. In spite of the fact that the Dutch labour market has changed signiŽ cantly (although we did not impose a speciŽ c period), and despite considerable media attention to employability, only one-Ž fth of the organizations had introduced recent changes in their employability policy. The growing shortage on the labour market prompted 25 per cent of these organizations to alter their policy. Other reasons that played a role in intensiŽ cation of the employability policy were an increased emphasis on quality and higher demands on the part of employees. We anticipated a link between the composition of the workforce and employabilitystimulating activities. Our study did not however support such a connection. Also, we were unable to demonstrate a relation between turnover, absenteeism and hard-to-Ž llvacancies, on the one hand, and employability-stimulating activities, on the other. But this last point could be due to two opposite effects that occur simultaneously: if the sample contains both organizations with high absenteeism who just intensiŽ ed employability policy and organizations who managed to limit absenteeism via a successful employability policy, then these effects cancel each other. Unfortunately, we have no longitudinal data at our disposal and hence are unable to offer conclusions regarding possible causal relationships. There is a clear link between sector and organization size and the presence of measures to enhance employability. In the governmental sector there is far more activity than in the market sector, and in large organizations more is done than in smaller ones. It seems, then, that governmental organizations play an innovative role. But, if we look at the substance of the measures reportedly implemented in the context of promoting mobility and deployability, we note that these are not particularly novel or innovative. The fact that governmental organizations avail themselves of such measures more readily could well be a consequence of traditionally better labour conditions in the governmental context. The more pronounced activities of larger organizations compared with smaller ones are not surprising: in general, the larger organizations have more room and greater need for policy, and hence for employability policy as well. Smaller organizations are more likely to seek individual solutions for problems or questions as they are encountered. In that case a formal policy will often not be present.

1202

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

All in all, the results of our study indicate that less is done about employability policy in Dutch organizations than the plentiful media interest in this topic would lead one to expect. Moreover, policy does not really seem to be truly innovative and it is aimed at weaker groups less frequently than we had thought. The fact that the results of the study yield a picture other than we had expected underscores the need to monitor the state of affairs more closely. We hope that a closer analysis of our data and a linkage between the data on employability policy and data from other parts of the questionnaire will provide us with a subtler picture.

Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 06:31 09 January 2016

References Gaspersz, J. and Ott, M. (1996) Management van employability: Nieuwe kansen in arbeidsrelatie s. Assen: Van Gorcum. Versloot, A.M., Glaude, M.Th. and Thijssen, J.G.L (1998) Employability: Een pluriform arbeidsmarktfenomeen. Amsterdam: Max Groote Synopsis.