Generation Flex

Things began to change, however, as the 1990s produced a backlash against many of the attitudes espoused during the previous decade. There was now an increased awareness of the need to balance work and life, as well as a greater focus on general wellbeing. In order to address these needs and feelings in working life, people began to turn to flexible working. Advocates of a flexible approach to work steadily grew in number throughout the decade and organizations slowly began to take notice.

After implementing various flexible working options, a considerable number of businesses remarked on increased employee morale, reduction in casual absence and staff turnover rates, as well as a perceived improvement in staff commitment and performance. Organizations also realized that when they did have to recruit new employees, the offer of flexible working meant that they could reach out to a much wider pool of potential employees than previously. With findings such as these being readily highlighted, flexible working began being talked of as something that could offer real business benefits.

The implementation of flexible working across a wide range of businesses over the past decade has seen the variety of flexible working options offered grow from the choice of part-time work or job sharing, to include flexitime, annualized hours, compressed weeks and career breaks. Furthermore, advances in technology have led to the rise of teleworking, which now often forms part of organizations’ broader flexible working programs.

Continuing Reservations

However, despite the growth and continuing popularity of flexible working, a significant number of employees continue to have reservations over opting to work flexibly. Indeed, a survey by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) found that while demand for flexible working was high, with employees in the organizations participating in the IES study typically wanting more flexibility and the possibility of reduced hours, actual uptake of the options offered was considerably lower than expected. [1] The study surmised that ‘there appears, therefore, to be a work–life balance take-up gap.’

Employee explanations as to why this dichotomy exists included: [2]

• a perceived negative impact on career prospects
• the culture of the organization, i.e. long hours culture, lack of support from managers and colleagues
• workloads so heavy that the work simply could not be done in a different way
• a lack of communication on what was available and suitable for individual employees
• a lack of infrastructure and/or materials to support the options on offer
• a negative impact on earnings

The IES survey also found that line managers often experience difficulties in helping their employees take up flexible working options. These difficulties included deciding entitlement and/or suitability for the options on offer, as well as problems restructuring workloads. Managers themselves expressed a desire for more support and guidance on how to manage the process of flexible working.

Closely associated with these lack of guidance and communication issues, are perceived feelings of inequality between employees working flexibly and those colleagues who are not. These concerns were expressed by both types of worker. The colleagues of flexible workers indicated that they often felt as though they were being left with an unfair share of the work. They also indicated that there were communication problems, leading to difficulties establishing who was responsible for the completion of tasks and projects. Many flexible workers said that they were aware of such feelings being directed toward them and that this led to them working over and above their allocated hours in order to prove to their colleagues that they were pulling their weight.

Eliminating Negative Perceptions

Fears are now being raised over the conflict between work–life balance and restrictive organizational cultures. It is clear that in order for work–life balance to work effectively, individuals must be adequately supported by their organizations. Managers and organizations need to ensure that:

• effective internal communications systems are in place
• information about the options on offer is easily accessible
• changes are made to organizational culture in order to facilitate new ways of working
• managers and their staff receive guidance and support on how to reorganize and restructure work patterns and workloads
• staff opting not to work flexibly are made aware of the work being undertaken by their flexible-working colleagues

In order to make new working arrangements successful for all concerned, employees should be clear about their work–life priorities and schedules. Creating clear and firm routines will serve to protect a flexible workers’ time at work, as well as keeping their colleagues informed about duties and schedules. There should also be rules about the flow of communications and the role of the flexible worker in meetings and discussions.

Future Issues

One of the most discussed aspects of flexible working is the possible solution it could hold for the problems associated with changing demographics, loss of skilled and knowledgeable workers and the pensions crisis. Indeed, flexible retirement is set to be the next big issue in flexible working.

One of the leading proponents of the introduction of flexible retirement is the Employers Forum on Age which campaigns for an age-diversive workforce and views flexible retirement as a real workplace solution. A study by the EFA found that ‘flexible retirement could boost the economically active population by 3 million, which could raise [UK] GDP by £50 billion or more per year’. [3]

Increasingly, workers over 50 are being encouraged or forced to take early retirement for a variety of reasons. These may include organizational restructuring and downsizing, changes in life circumstances or even the ageist attitudes of some employers and colleagues. Flexible retirement offers the prospect of retaining valuable experienced employees of retirement age. This would help combat skills shortages and allow employers to create an age-diverse workforce (of particular necessity since 2006, when UK legislation on age discrimination was introduced).

Of course, some have expressed concerns that this is a step in the wrong direction and that it would actually work against work–life balance by making people work until they fall down – unable to take advantage of their ‘golden years’. However, the EFA and other advocates of flexible retirement are discussing a variety of flexible options designed to offer older workers the best of both worlds. These include:

• phased retirement (i.e. a reduction in working hours over a period of months as workers move towards retirement) NB the default retirement age of 65 was abolished in 2012
• the option to work part-time or job share, up to and after having their retirement
• short-term contract working, e.g. overseeing or contributing to a project over a short period of time
• teleworking, e.g. working from home to relieve the burden of commuting or to help care for a spouse or dependent
• seasonal working, e.g. using skills and experience during busy periods when they are most needed

There are many reasons why older and retired workers would be interested in these options. Indeed, many would welcome the financial relief work would offer. Others have expressed a desire to keep physically and mentally active without enduring the stress of full-time work.

Despite the attention being given to the topic of flexible retirement. The current social and cultural atmosphere does include a number of disincentives to the establishment of flexible retirement as a mainstream working option. Typically, these disincentives include:

• entrenched organizational culture unable to properly accommodate new ways of working
• the range of pension schemes which only consider final salary (i.e. employees opting for part-time work leading up to retirement would lose out)
• complications involving benefits and tax rates for those who work only occasionally
• the reluctance of companies offering financial services to consider retirement as anything other than a fixed and immovable event

There are also barriers in the form of workplace perceptions and attitudes that older workers are incapable of making coherent decisions, out of touch with modern practices and thinking, and unable to take the strain of a heavy workload, as well as general fears about change on the part of managers. But with rigorous efforts on the part of the EFA and others to combat these obstacles and show how flexible retirement can benefit both business and employee, we can expect the topic to remain firmly on the people management agenda.