The Australian labour flexibility debate lacks a rigorous analytical framework and concentrates on substantive rather than process issues. Part of the analytical framework can be provided by distinguishing the strategic management objectives of 'qualitative,' 'quantitative' and 'cost' labour flexibility. One of the important process issues currently lacking in the debate is the choice of management style in developing labour flexibility. The assumption that a 'constitutional' management style is inconsistent with qualitative flexibility is shown as mistaken in the light of recent British experience. Also mistaken is the assumption that deregulation is a necessary condition for flexibility. While the development of qualitative flexibility does not require the replacement of constitutional styles or deregulation, it does have three necessary conditions. First is the breakdown of fragmentations in internal labour markets. This can be assisted by integrated personnel and industrial relations policies. Second is a 'new realist; 'strategic' unionism. Finally management attitudes will need to be modified and greater attention given to management training.