The role of LMIs in supporting nonstandard professional transitions

The succession of economic and financial crises has led to the development of multiple categories of jobs ranging from unemployment and precarious jobs to full-time salaried positions (Schmid, 2015). Between these two “extreme” situations, a “grey zone” of hybrid work categories is developing, with jobs supported by public authorities, temporary jobs, integration programs via internships and intensive training, incubators for new entrepreneurs, franchising, contract work, etc. The main common feature of such hybrid categories is a progressive transformation of the traditional employment relationships towards “multilaterality” (Countouris, 2007).
If a context of nonstandard work arrangements (Cappelli & Keller, 2013) paves the way to nonstandard forms of professional transitions, it may also drive dissatisfaction, as the growing grey zone of hybrid statuses may be associated with cumulated precariousness, without counterparts (Kalleberg, 2009). Professional transitions through alternative work arrangements raise many questions in terms of job security, continuity of wage, skills development, integration into the social security system, etc. (Davidov, 2004; Havard et al., 2009; Keller & Seifert, 2013; Wears & Fisher, 2012). Who should take care of these issues? If individuals are no longer following a classical organisational and/or professional career, to what extent must their career path be automatically considered as their own responsibility and a result of their entrepreneurial capabilities? Between the “hierarchical” steering of organisational careers and the free “market” interplay specific to boundaryless careers (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996), there is a place for median formulas, seeking to both relieve individuals of the administrative difficulties linked to a discontinuous series of different statuses, while offering them new services that meet simultaneously their demands for flexibility and security.
Our paper explores the extent to which such Labour Market Intermediaries (LMIs) can effectively secure nonstandard career paths. In order to characterize their roles, we created a multidimensional grid made up of 6 criteria: 1) partnership logic, 2) responsibility for matchmaking, 3) prevailing regulatory framework, 4) HR packages offered, 5) availability of information produced and 6) innovativeness. We illustrate this analytical framework via several case studies of LMIs operating in Belgium. Beyond the creation of an original multidimensional grid, our results outline two ideal-typical ways of securing nonstandard careers paths. Some LMIs reconstruct internal labour markets and operate as “quasi-employers”. Others suggest more disruptive solutions in which workers are supported while becoming fully responsible for their career as “self-employers”. Between these two extreme situations, many other possibilities may emerge according the variations of each criterion. Our multidimensional grid is an attempt to enrich existing typologies provided by the literature (Autor, 2008; Benner, 2003; Bonet et al., 2013).
At the end of our analysis, a challenging hypothesis emerges from our empirical material. Once the support offered by LMIs goes away from the traditional employment patterns, a radical shift seems to occur in the purpose of career management: it is no longer a question of securing the employment relationship itself but rather a question of smoothing over welfare entitlements and incomes through professional transitions. It probably reflects more profound changes in the labour market, under the aegis of an active welfare State (Van Berkel et al., 2011)…