» Network Home

Featured Guest Blogger December 22nd, 2008

Juliet Bourke is a partner at Aequus Partners, a management consultancy on diversity and flexibility that provides strategic research and advice, training and workplace investigations. In 2007, Aequus Partners launched flex-e, an e-tool to assist managers with managing workplace flexibility and in 2008, www.workplaceflexibility.com.au, a free information resource to bridge the flexibility policy to practice gap.  Juliet is also the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia, a not-for-profit organization of diversity and HR practitioners, author of Children, Careers and Workplace Culture (2000) and is listed in the 2009 Who’s Who of Australian Women. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

The current economic crisis is forcing me to articulate a new argument for workplace flexibility and, I confess, I’m feeling a little uncomfortable. Whilst I like the idea of stretching my thinking and, to be frank, trading in the well worn argument that flexibility enables organisations to attract and retain talent (it does, but I’m tired of repeating myself), I’m not entirely comfortable with where the “reshaped” argument for flexibility is heading. It’s like I’m looking at a new pair of shoes – and although they seem attractive I’m not sure they’re for me.

In these times of job loss, pitching flexibility as a way to attract and retain talent is missing the mark. So a new “flexibility” argument is getting a run – and this argument emphasises the benefits of flexibility in terms of reducing overhead and boosting productivity. The new argument highlights the ways in which flexibility can reduce fixed costs (e.g., real estate costs by enabling staff to work from home), reduce staff associated costs (e.g., by offering unpaid periods of leave), and increase outputs (e.g., by enabling staff to be more focussed and fresh and therefore more efficient and creative).

While I agree that flexibility can generate those business outcomes, I am concerned that the whole paradigm has shifted to something a little negative– i.e., flexibility is now about how we get more out of fewer people– and I fear for the unintended consequences of this line of thinking. Will employers see the economic crisis as an opportunity to push flexibility in ‘nasty’ ways, e.g., to reduce an employee’s hours when that is not needed or to make staff work even longer? Have we done enough to embed a “win/win,” or “mutual respect” approach, to ensure that employment practices will benefit both employers and employees?

Maybe I am being a little precious about the “right” motivation for flexibility. At the end of the day if the economic crisis offers a stimulus for managers to get more comfortable with flexibility, then so be it. That comfort (and those implementation skills) will remain when the economic crisis has passed – and the case for flexibility will have gained a greater level of mainstream acceptance. In this regard, the current economic crisis could do for flexibility what the Second World War did for womens increased levels of workforce participation (both during and after)– i.e., break down attitudinal barriers to “talent” and doing work differently.

So now I am looking at these new “flexibility” shoes and wondering if my discomfort is misplaced. In fact, I’ve already taken my first few steps in these new shoes by framing my flexibility conversations with clients and colleagues differently. Instead of thinking about flexibility as a nice to do in good economic times, I’ve started to ask whether workplace flexibility could provide one of the solutions to help employers find their way through these economic times. Early days, but so far, the shoes seem fine.

• Flexible Schedules , Organizations , Scheduling , Workplace