Collectivism versus individualism in Dutch employment relations

Abstract

From a very centralistic and collectivistic tradition after...the focal collective agreement concluded at the predominant level delegates certain bargaining issues to regulation at lower level within a binding framework, set by the focal collective agreement. In the context of organised decentralisation, agenda setting and control over the lower level thus remain with the focal collective agreement. As regards comparative classi® cation, this implies that organised decentralisation does not cause a change in the most important bargaining level. Traxler, 1995: 5As the Netherlands can, so far, be seen be seen as an example of the `organised' group, it is interesting to evaluate how the process of decentralisation takes place in practice and ± more importantly ± what the effects are for the existing system. Given

Age‐related differences in the relations between individualised HRM and organisational performance: a large‐scale employer survey

“…The trend of individualisation in organisations is a reflection of a broader societal trend of individualism (Oyserman et al ., ), indicated by the decline of collective social structures, and a stronger focus on the individual's responsibility for their own welfare and well‐being. This has also affected the traditional system of collective bargaining (De Leede et al ., ), with collective agreements as the basis for HRM practices slowly decreasing (Glassner and Keune, ). In response to the decrease in employee protective collective agreements and a decentralisation of bargaining to the individual employee level (De Leede et al ., ), individualisation has grown significantly as the basis for organisational strategic HRM, and thus individualised HRM has become more common in organisations.…”

“…This study contributes to research on individualisation of work arrangements by being the first to investigate the effects of individualisation on organisational‐level rather than on individual‐level outcomes (Hornung et al ., ). Demonstrating that individualisation contributes to the bottom line not only furthers our understanding of individualised HRM, but it also investigates the effects of individualisation in a society where collective agreements are slowly disappearing (De Leede et al ., ). Moreover, the study contributes by investigating the conditions under which individualisation is most effective.…”

“…As organisations increasingly stress the importance among employees to be responsible for their own careers (Greenhaus et al ., ), a growing number of employees have begun to negotiate individual work arrangements with their employers (Rousseau, ). Moreover, this trend of individualisation has occurred along with a decrease in collective agreements for employees (De Leede et al ., ; Glassner and Keune, ). Accordingly, academic interest has begun to focus on how employees proactively shape their careers and negotiate individual agreements (Rousseau, ; Grant and Parker, ; Bal et al ., ).…”

Age-related Differences in the Relations between Individualized HRM and Organizational Performance

“…Individualized HRM practices may entail various types of agreements, but previous research has shown that the most prevalent agreements are aimed at development (i.e., training and career development), flexibility in work schedules (i.e., working hours), and financial agreements (i.e., salary; De Leede et al, 2004Leede et al, , 2007Rosen et al, 2011). Hence, in this study we differentiate among development, work schedules and pay arrangements practices, and we expect that these three practices will be differentially related to types of organizational performance.…”

“…Theoretically, it could be that high performing organizations may start to offer and use more individual deals, and especially when it concerns financial and developmental agreements, since these types of individualized HRM may be costly for organizations. However, previous research has shown that individualization of HRM is a consequence of societal changes, rather than performance of organizations (De Leede et al, 2004. Moreover, the study was based on self-reports of organizational representatives.…”