Abstract
Objective. Gross mode, the work climate has been studied as an area inherent in leadership. In the case of the one that is distinguished by its communication and vertical motivation, the work environment has been addressed as a determinant of flexibility in terms of conditions, salaries and benefits. In this regard, the objective of this paper has been to explore the dimensions of climate and labor flexibility in order to establish the dependency relationships between its indicators. Methodology. A non-experimental, cross-sectional and correlational study was carried out with a non-probabilistic sample selection of 300 employees from central Mexico. Results and conclusions. The labor climate determines the flexibility, although the most recent literature warns that rather the climate mediates the relationship between the flexibility policies on staff turnover, the informal salary and the absence of benefits. Research lines are recommended concerning the incidence of leadership styles in the variables in question.
Highlights
The working environment for the purposes of this paper, refers to tasks, support s and innovations
The general internal consistency of the instrument exceeds the minimum required. This means that the Flexibility and Organizational Climate Scale can be applied in different contexts and samples, yielding results similar to those of the present study
In relation to the theoretical, conceptual and empirical frameworks, which highlight leadership as a factor linking climate and labor flexibility, establishing that bidirectional communication and intrinsic motivation are indicative of levels of external demands and internal resources, weighting of equilibrium s when establishing a climate of relationships, tasks, supports and innovations with respect to conditions, rotations, salaries, rewards and benefits in situations that are increasingly contingent on the market
Summary
The working environment for the purposes of this paper, refers to tasks, support s and innovations. The economic crises and the technological advances that affected the organizations during the 20th century, in central countries and peripheral economies, gave rise to labor flexibility, but climate change meant the establishment of scenarios and their effects on future production (Piedrahita, Angulo & López, 2013) In this way, labor flexibility is indicated by 1) legislation adjusted to unemployment, subsidies and informal vacancies; 2) precarious conditions in terms of selection, training and training reflected in the reduction of salaries; 3) the unfair competition and the monopoly supposed an increase of the demands and the decrease of the quality of the processes and products; 4) export strategies sponsored by the State and specialized labor willing to work long hours with low income; 5) energy crisis and its effect on the maquiladora industry, mainly the automotive industry that encouraged mass production without quality control; 6) the contraction of public investment and massive unemployment that meant the pauperization of jobs; 7) proliferation of power groups as a barrier to entrepreneurship and innovation that enhanced mass production without quality; 8) state intervention that exacerbated compensations for illnesses and accidents, as well as unemployment insurance that led to the entry of unskilled labor; 9) public policies that generated poverty, pollution and agglomerations of workers in a single industrial sector; 10) corporate, union and state pacts that produced corruption, inequality and Sabotage mobilization, strikes, boycotts, confrontations, meetings. The ineffectiveness of the state model meant the emergence of informal sectors that demanded clientelist public services, while the productive sectors were inhibited by the protectionist and trade union bureaucracy (Abreu, 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
