Workplace Flexibility

Workplace flexibility has been defined as "the opportunity to adjust the where, when and how of work", which "encompasses the degree to which time, location and task features of work are adjustable to meet life, family and personal needs" (Putnam et al., 2014, p. 414). 

Organisations have always used flexible arrangements - such as overtime, shift-working, fixed term contracts, short time working etc - to ensure staffing meets system needs, and interestingly, while flexible work arrangements are often structured by HR, they are usually implemented by line managers. Arguments for flexible working can be made for the organisation, and for the worker, but it is more common for organisational outcomes to be prioritised. Even so, some organisations have made flexible working arrangements an HR key performance indicator (KPI). 

Like flexible work, the image illustrating this post may be 'seen' in different ways. Some may see the freedom to self-determine where work happens; others may see this as 'having' to work even in private time. The tension between organisational and employee needs is an HR constant: "Workplace flexibility initiatives as a potential remedy for work−life conflicts are the focus of [a great deal of] research [yet] findings reveal tensions and contradictions in the ways that employees, managers and organizations develop, enact and respond to these flexibility initiatives" (Putnam, Myers & Gailiard, 2014, p. 413). 

So workplace flexibility is a 'contested' field. In the blue corner: workplace flexibility gives employees greater control and scope to manage life and work. In the red corner: workplace flexibility is an organisational tool which increases organisational competitiveness to the detriment of employees due to less job security, more variable work and intensification of work. How do we fight this out? The truth is situational - varying from context to context - and lies between the blue and the red. 

Recently many organisations have extended flexible arrangements beyond those used traditionally. The environment (e.g. GFC, Covid-19), legislation (e.g. the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill 2006), and organisational practice (e.g. zero hour contracts) have pushed the boundaries of how flexible workers should be expected to be. 

Yet the shifting demography of the workforce has forced organisations to consider how to best support diverse workers with their diversity of responsibilities and commitments outside their employment. In this context, advocates, legislation (e.g. the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act 2007; 2014) and organisational practices (such as flexi-time, working from home, leave arrangements) have begun to push the boundaries of how flexible organisations should be expected to be.

It is important that organisations take a nuanced approach to workplace flexibility, flexible working arrangements and other 'family friendly' practices and hear the employee voice in the process. 

Sam

References:

Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713495704