4IpaUJbnm

esource management may have two diverse directions: “employee-driven” and
“managerial”.
Innovations may be developed and implemented principally on employees’ initiative and
not necessarily with direct support of the management of the company. Concept of
“employee-driven innovation” refers to all bottom-up innovative initiatives (De Spiegelaere,
Van Gyes, Van Hootegem, 2014). Company’s workers are unique resource, and may be
competitive advantage, which cannot be easily replicated by other market players (Išoraitė,
2011). Manager’s task comes down to support of organizational values and to providing
functional autonomy, flexibility and challenging tasks to employees. This is essential
element to enable workers to use their innovative potential and reduce their resistance to
workplace innovations. Promoting of “learning organization” culture is very closely related
to companies’ ability to innovate in this why. Essential policies of support of learning culture
are: a) vocational training; b) pay for performance; c) consultation and assessment; d)
assistance to employees. In the countries where work is principally organized to support
high levels of employee discretion in solving complex problems, firms tend to be more
active in terms of innovations development through their own in-house creative efforts.
Employee careers there are often structured around series of projects and not advancement
within company hierarchy (Ischinger,Wyckoff, 2010).
Organizational innovations may also be based on managerial “top” to “bottom” leadership
and decisions on aggregation, allocation, disposal (if they become redundant) of resources
(including human) and affordability of the costs. “Employee driven” innovations are more
rewording, but also more risky, demanding greater investment in employees. “Managerial”
innovation seems to be more dynamic, with more predictable results and can easily by
applied in small, low-tech service companies. However flexibility or rigidity of labour
regulation is influencing the managerial decisions through costs of hiring and firing or
redeployment of personnel. (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, Van Hootegem, 2014). Company’s
According to survey of CEOs of Lithuanian low-tech sector companies, strict labor market
regulation is one of the main restrictions, hindering their company’s competitiveness.
(Venckuvienė, Sabonienė, 2015).
There are several types of flexibility at work. Scientific debate tends to concentrate on
functional and contractual flexibility and the implications of adopting either one or the
other (Carvalho, Cabral-Cardoso, 2007), but locational flexibility, wage and working time
flexibility are also distinguished. Functional flexibility focuses on (1) job rotation schemes,
(2) the skill variety and (3) the capacity of employees to swiftly redeploy their tasks
(autonomy). In job rotation schemes, employees are frequently allocated different jobs in
the organization. This practice through multi-skilling may potentially increase employee’s
capabilities for innovative work behavior. Contractual flexibility (or numerical flexibility)
tends to cost-saving approach and covers the rigidity of the hiring and firing the regulations
on using temporary, part-time or agency employment contracts. (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes,
Van Hootegem, 2014). Functional flexibility is associated with “learning organizations” and
employee “driven innovations” while contractual flexibility – with organizations of
“managerial” type.
251