Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
FLEXIBLE WORKING PRACTICES IN THE
UK: GENDER AND MANAGEMENT
PERSPECTIVES
Karen Jones and Edward Jones, University of Wales, Newport
Abstract
This article considers some of the implications of flexible working practices,
which became an important focus for the UK Government in the 1990s. It
examines the potential advantages and disadvantages of flexible working
from the organisation’s perspective and that of the worker. Although flexible
working legislation and policies are gender neutral, they are often associated
with female employees wishing to balance work and motherhood. The paper
thus considers the extent to which flexible working is a gender issue and
concludes with the assertion that flexible working practices reflect the
inequalities that exist in the modern workplace.
Keywords: Flexible Working, Implications, Gender, Motherhood
Introduction
Flexible working practices and indeed the concept of ‘work-life balance’
became an important focus for UK government policy throughout the 1990s,
with Lewis & Cooper (2005) believing that this was mainly in response to the
work-family pressures experienced by dual earner couples where both
parents were employed. Whereas Fagan et al (2006) understood there to be
five main drivers that influenced the development of flexible working
practices: namely; globalisation; competition and productivity; learning and
the knowledge economy; active ageing; the long hours culture and work and
caring roles. This view is supported by Faulkner (2001) who believed that
the ‘business case’ for flexible working partially revolves around the
identification of recruitment pools (e.g. women and older workers) that have
yet to be fully exploited. Therefore, this article seeks to explore the nature of
flexible working in the UK, identifies the challenges for employers and
considers the extent to which flexible working can be seen to be a gender
issue.
Context
ACAS (2011) describes flexible working as :-
1
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
…a place of work, for example homeworking, or a type of contract, such as
a temporary contract. Other common variations include: part-time working;
flexitime; job sharing; and shift working.
Hill et al (2001) described flexibility as including a range of practices such as
flexitime, flexispace, job sharing and homeworking. Indeed, it could be
argued that any variation outside of working 9-5, Monday to Friday, at a
fixed location should be classed as flexible working. For example, working
from home is more common across industries, and these practices are
made possible due to advances in mobile technologies (Strategic Direction,
2008). However, Lewis & Cooper (2005) argued that although in principle
flexible working can take many forms, the predominant flexibility that UK
employers offer is that of reduced working hours.
Legislation and Flexible Working in England and Wales
The evolution of flexible working within England and Wales has been
facilitated by many changes in employment legislation that support
employees, allowing them, for example, to have the right to request a
flexible working pattern. McIntyre (2007) highlighted the importance of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 as a major piece of legislation supporting
parents to the right to request flexible working. Other regulations such as the
Working Time Regulations (1998), the Equality Act (2006) and the Disability
Discrimination Act (1995) also support flexible working for eligible
employees. In the UK, the right to request, and duty to consider flexible
working was introduced in April 2003 to provide employees with parental
responsibility for children under the age of six (or 18, if disabled) with a right
to request a change in how many hours, when or where they work, and to
have such a request seriously considered by their employer. In April 2006,
the coverage of this right was extended to employees who care for a
dependent adult; a second extension, from April 2009, extended coverage to
parentsof children under 16. Further extensions were initially planned, taking
the age limit to 18, but this was later repealed as a result of the economic
climate. Perhaps, such legislation lead to the assertion of Lewis and Cooper
(2005) that a reduction in hours is often the only type of flexible practice on
offer; however, the ONS table below appears to indicate that this is not
necessarily the case and other flexible working patterns are available.
2
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
Employees with Flexible Working Patterns, by Sex and Type of
Employment, 2009
Men
Women
Flexible working hours
10.9%
15.3%
Annualised working hours
4.9%
4.9%
Term-time working
1.2%
6.7%
Four and a half day week
1.2%
0.5%
Nine day fortnight
0.5%
0.4%
Any flexible working pattern
19%
28.1%
Flexible working hours
8.6%
10.3%
Term-time working
3.6%
11.6%
Annualised working hours
3.3%
4.6%
Job sharing
1%
2.1%
Any flexible working pattern
18.4%
29.6%
Full-time employees
Part-time employees
Source: National Statistics (2010). Social Trends 40: 2010 edition.
Newport: National Statistics. Available
from:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/SocialTrends40/ST40_Ch04.pdf
Holt & Grainger (2005), in a survey commissioned by the DTI, described
how the awareness of the right to request flexible working has increased
since its introduction in 2003. It was found that almost a quarter of
employees who were eligible to make a request to work flexibly had actually
made a request in the past two years. They also reported that the rate of
refusals had almost halved since the right was introduced with one in five
employees reporting that they had taken time off to care for someone in the
past two years.
3
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
Gender and the Right to Request
Despite this favourable picture regarding the increase in awareness and
requests made and accepted, there is an argument that gender and position
in the organisation is pertinent to the right to request discussion. Lewis et al
(2007) believed that the concept of flexible working practice is difficult to
separate from socially embedded beliefs relating to the actual roles that
fathers and mothers are expected to play. Therefore, although government
policy, strategy and rhetoric in this area refers to ‘parents’ and are on the
surface presented as gender neutral, the reality is that these policies were
initially conceived with women and motherhood in mind. Fagan et al (2006)
were concerned that as policy seemed to focus upon work-family
reconciliation, then flexible working hours have become associated with the
‘mummy track’. They stated that:
large numbers of women work part-time, where a high and persistent
part-time pay penalty is incurred. Part-time work has often been
created explicitly to recruit or retain women, while the continuing
workplace expectation that long hours are to be worked in particular
jobs such as management helps to preserve this area of employment
as a largely male enclave (pg. 7).
It is difficult to obtain up-to-date data regarding actual gender splits for right
to request applications. However, other information sources seem to indicate
that reduced hours are predominantly associated with mothers. For
example, a 2009 CIPD survey indicated that working in excess of 46 hours
per week (including evenings, nights and weekends) was commonplace for
many fathers with children under 14, with 39% of fathers surveyed reporting
working more than 60 hours. Additionally, Hegewisch (2009) explained that
although both men and women are requesting flexible working, women are
much more likely to make requests for childcare reasons. Furthermore, it
was noted that part-timers have been particularly likely to (successfully)
request flexible working, thus suggesting that often such requests come
from women. Prior to this research, a 2006 survey (Fagan et al)
demonstrated that although significant numbers of men have requested
flexible work, they then experienced greater barriers to their requests than
women. In essence, it was argued that men were more likely to have their
requests rejected by their employer (14% of men compared to 10% of
women) and also more likely to have their cases turned down in the
employment tribunals.
Hegewisch (2009) also discovered that employees in managerial jobs,
across Europe, were far less likely both to request reduced hours and have
4
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
their request accepted. As Fagan et al (2006) (see above) asserted that men
were far more likely to be incumbent in managerial jobs, then this could be
seen as discriminatory. Indeed, Hegewisch (2009) believed that male
employees are actually disadvantaged by the ‘soft’ framing of the Right to
Request because, unlike women, they are unable to claim that lack of
flexibility indirectly discriminates against them as a group and consequently
may only challenge employers’ refusals on procedural grounds, not
substantively (pg. 11).
The Employer and Flexible Working
Advocates of flexible working would be keen to highlight the benefits of such
practices for the employer, but it should be acknowledged that flexible
working also brings management and organisational challenges. Sholarios
and Marks (2004), (as cited by Bratton & Gold, 2007, pg.149) suggested that
in this highly competitive labour market, in order to attract and retain staff,
work-life policies and procedures are a must for any organisation. Strategic
Direction (2008) explained that organisations that take a strategic view of
flexible working practises are more likely to succeed and flexible working
should be viewed as a business tool which in turn allows employers to get
more value from their best asset; the employee. The Managerial Law
Review (2006, pg.536) concurred that success in a business environment
involves having a flexible workforce in order to meet changeable demands.
Planned flexible working projects can bring many benefits to an organisation
for both the employee and organisation, such as improved performance on
service delivery and customer satisfaction, efficiency savings, reduced
recruitment and improved retention, improved employee morale, increased
productivity and overall positive impact on the working environment
(Strategic Direction, 2008, pg.9).
In contrast, Hall & Atkinson (2006) suggested that flexible working whether
formal or informal, is merely another management control in disguise, as
workers who feel empowered and valued in the workplace will produce a
higher standard of work and allow workers to take on more responsibility.
Whilst the empowerment moves the control from the manager to the
employee, this often results in more pressure on the employee to perform.
Professional bodies have asserted that flexible working can assist both
organisations and workers in organising work more effectively and thus
reducing stress at work. For example, the CIPD’s surveys on flexible
working showed that flexible working has had a positive effect on
absenteeism, staff retention, staff morale and employee relations,
subsequently creating a positive impact on productivity and profits (CIPD
2003 and 2005).
5
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
Johnson (2004) asked the question when traditional ways of working are
changed, what happens to the traditional way of managing performance and
staff within the workplace? As more staff via away from a traditional working
day, although this means greater flexibility, it also leads to challenges for
both the employer and employee to create a working relationship that suits
both parties. Johnson argued that line managers will have to learn new ways
of thinking in order to derive new attitudes and behaviours. This puts added
pressure on to managers, as their role will also need to become more
flexible and multi-faceted in order to plan, implement and manage these
changes effectively. Within organisations where flexible practices are
granted, hierarchical management structures may not be best suited.
Managers may need to adopt very different roles such as planning, coaching
and also more effective leadership. Objectives would need to be made clear
and transparent in order that staff can perform both in work and away from
the workplace.
Hall and Alkinson (2006) reported that for many employers, an informal
arrangement for flexible working is usually favoured as it gives the employee
a false sense of control. They argued that informal negotiation is evident
throughout many organisations and usually involves some form of
negotiation between the manager and employee, but allows management
persuasion at times. Such informal agreements allow managers to review
the situation regularly and allow greater flexibility than a more formal
application process. As many staff are unsure what flexibility they are
actually entitled to, this management style allows managers to appear
accommodating, whilst giving the employee some control over their working
time but in an informal manner, allowing for boundaries and control to still be
present. However, although this informal, practical approach may be
favoured by both employees and employers, it should not be in breach of
employment legislation that grants employees rights, such as the right to
request flexible working.
There are also specific difficulties for SMEs when introducing flexible
working practices. Maxwell et al (2007) explained that within smaller
businesses, there is not always a Human Resources department on hand
and there are usually very informal approaches to Human Resources in
general. It is very common for smaller businesses to have an
owner/manager structure and the need to balance both formal and informal
practices in line with employment law, along with maintaining flexibility, is not
always viable. Union presence is sometimes non-existent within smaller
firms and employees are not always aware what they are entitled to and how
HR policies fit in with their everyday role.
6
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
Work Life Balance and Home Working
The discussion above has touched upon the concepts of work life balance
and family friendly policies, terms that will now be discussed more fully.
Work-life conflict is a term that relates to the interference that one’s working
life has on one’s personal life. Messersmith (2007, cited in Perkins & White
2008) believed that an imbalance between work and an employee’s other
activities will cause the employee to eventually stop thinking about their
employment at all and may even lead to long term sickness or absence. It
could be argued that it is in the manager’s best interest to resolve these
issues by establishing ‘family friendly’ policies. However, Griffiths et al
(2005) argued that although business and policy discussion seems to frame
work life balance in terms of family friendly or female friendly workplaces,
nothing much can be done to challenge the inequality long connected with
domestic and caring responsibilities. Gatrell (2005) sympathised with this
viewpoint, believing that although fathers may wish for equality in terms of
parenting, this does not necessarily mean that they also want equality in
terms of domestic labour. Indeed he believed that most men preferred to
cast themselves in the role as ‘helper.’ Brugel& Grey (2005) found that
men’s domestic and caring contribution did increase as women devoted
more time to employment (although not necessarily proportionately);
perhaps supporting the view that a reduction in working hours for women
may merely lead to an increase in domestic responsibility. Barnett et al
(2010) studied this issue in depth and concluded that:
Mothers may find it distressing then if more ‘involved’ flexible
fatherhood’ still allows men to partake in unencumbered contact with
children, whilst they are obliged to ‘mop up’ the additional domestic
chores. So, whilst it may indeed be a particularly hard time to be a
father, it seems the pressures associated with the budding desires to
flexibly navigate the cultural expectations of being a good employee
and a good dad are very much predicated upon the expectation of,
unsung, maternal support (pg. 16).
In the light of the above discussion, the case for home working improving
work life balance issues is at best mixed.
Messersmith (as cited by Perkins & White, 2008) argued that although
working from home or ‘virtual’ working practices benefit the employee and to
the employer to some extent, there are reported downsides. Messersmith
believed that once the boundary between work and personal life is removed,
it is more likely that levels of work-life conflict will be introduced, as the
employee is kept ‘out of the loop;’ and loses links with colleagues and the
workplace. Secondly, this way of working will only be successful if the
7
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
employee is willing to invest in new technologies in order to access work
systems from home and finally, there is a risk that staff who work in isolation
may miss out from any development or promotion opportunities that may
arise. Furthermore, Wilson and Greenhill (2004) asserted that home working
ignores the fact that being available to both your employer and family may
actually be mutually exclusive leading to increased conflict between work
and home.
Conclusion
This article has emphasised some of the implications of flexible working
practices for employers and employees. From the employer’s perspective,
allowing employees to work in a flexible manner can increase performance
and productivity, increase efficiency savings and improveretention. Flexible
working also benefits employees, as they have the opportunity to better
manage the work-life balance and can experience higher levels of morale.
Although flexible working can benefit the worker and the organisation, it also
presents both parties with a number of challenges. For example, the
employer may have to rethink his or her management style, particularly if the
employee is working from home, whilst the employee will require selfdiscipline and, if he or she is working from home, the ability to work alone
and to access and utilise appropriate technology. It should not therefore be
assumed that flexible working will suit all employers and employees.
Although flexible working legislation was drafted in gender neutral terms, it
was conceived with women in mind. Indeed, data demonstrates that women
are more likely to request flexible working than men and are also more likely
to have their request granted. One of the reasons why men make fewer
requests for flexibility and more often have their request rejected, is that men
are more likely to be in management positions that do not lend themselves
to reduced hours or working away from the office. In addition, flexible
working has become associated with the ‘mummy track’ which itself may
deter male employees from making a request. Flexible working practices
thus highlight equality issues that are ever present in the modern working
environment.
REFERENCES
ACAS, 2011.http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1616 accessed
04/04/2011
Blakebeard, S., O’Neill, R., Ingols, C. & Shapiro, M. 2010. Social
Sustainability, Flexible Work Arrangements and Diverse Women. Gender in
Management: An International Journal. 25(5), pg. 408-425
8
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
Bratton, J. and Gold, J. 2007. Human Resource Management, Theory &
Practice.4thEdn. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
Bruegel, I., and Grey, A. 2005. “The future of work and the division of
childcare between parents” in Houston D. (ed.) Work/life Balance in the 21st
Century London: Palgrave
Burnett, S.B. 2011.
http://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/admin/uploads/Chapter%20%20Fatherhood%20and%20FWP.pdf
Carlson, D., Grzywacz, J. and Kacmar, K. 2010. The Relationship of
Schedule Flexibility and Outcomes via the Work-Family Interface.Journal of
Managerial Psychology.25(4), pg. 330-355
CIPD. 2003. “A parent’s right to ask: A review of flexible working
arrangements” available from
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/wrkgtime/flexwking/prntrighttoask.htm?IsSrch
Res=1
CIPD. 2005. “Flexible working: Impact and implementation - An employer
survey” London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
February:
London
CIPD,
2011.http://www.cipd.co.uk/search/searchresults.aspx?recommended=True
&Query=flexible+working&PageIndex=1&sortby=relevance&sitetype=REDE
SIGN_MAIN accessed 10.04.11
Contractor UK, 2011.http://www.contractoruk.com/news/002859.html
accessed 13.4.11
Department of Social Protection (Ireland)
2011.http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/work_fam/Pages/chapter3.aspx
accessed 12.4.11
Fagan et al, 2006. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/outoftime.pdf
Faulkner, F. 2001 ‘The technology question in feminism: A view from
feminist technology studies’, Women's Studies International Forum, Vol. 2,
No.1, pg.79-95.
9
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
French, J., Andrew, J., Awramenko, M. and Coutts, H. 2005. General
Practitioner Non-principals Benefit from Flexible Working.Journal of Health
Organization Management.19(1), pg. 5-15
Gibson, V. and Luck, R. 2004.Flexible working in Central Government:
Leveraging the benefits.Department of Real Estate & Planning
University of Reading Business School
Griffiths, M., Moore, K.And Richardson, H. 2005. Gender on the Agenda:
Flexible Working and the Work-Life Balance in the UK ICT Industry
http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk/GRIS/winit/Publications/WINIT_Gender_on_the
_Agenda_corrected_version.pdf
Hall, L. and Atkinson, C. 2006. Improving Working Lives: Flexible Working
and the Role of Employee Control. Employee Relations. 28(4), pg. 374-386
Hegewisch, A.
2009.http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/16_flexib
leworking.pdf
Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., Ferris, M. & Weitzman, M. 2001. ‘Finding an Extra
Day a Week: The Positive Influence of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and
Family Life Balance’ Family Relations, 50(1): pg.49-58.
Holt, H. and Grainger, H. 2005. Results of the second flexible working
employeesurvey, Department of Trade and Industry Employment Relations
Research Series No. 39. London DTI
Johnson, J. 2004. Flexible Working: Changing the Managers Role.
Management Decision. 42(6), pg. 721-737
Kattenbach, R., Demerouti, E. and Nachreiner, F. 2010.Flexible Working
Times: Effects on Employee’s Exhaustion, Work Nonwork Conflict & Job
Performance. 15(3), pg. 279-295
Lewis, S. and Cooper, C.L. 2005. Work-Life Integration: Case Studies of
Organizational Change, Chichester: Jon Wiley and Sons.
Lewis, S., Gambles, R., &Rapoport, R. 2007. ‘The Constraints of a Work-life
Balance Approach: an International Perspective’ The International Journal of
Human ResourceManagement, 18(3) pg.360 – 374.
10
Women in Society
Volume 2, Autumn 2011
ISSN 2042-7220 (Print)
ISSN 2042-7239 (Online)
Lewis, S. and Humbert, A.L. 2010. Discourse or Reality?Work Life Balance,
Flexible Working Policies and the Gendered Organization.Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion: An International Journal. 29(3), pg. 239-254
Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. 2007. Human Resource Management at
Work.3rdEdn. London:CIPD
Maxwell, G., Rankine, R., Bell, S. and MacVicar, A. 2007. The Incidence and
Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements in Smaller Businesses. Employee
Relations. 29(2), pg. 138-161
McIntyre, E. 2007.Business Law. 3rdEdn. Essex: Pearson
ML, 2006. Flexibility and the Workplace: The Battle to Control Working Time.
Managerial Law. 48(6), pg. 536-540
National Statistics, 2010.Social Trends 40: 2010 edition. Newport: National
Statistics. Available from:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/SocialTrends40/ST40_Ch04.pdf
Perkins, J. and White, G. 2008. Employee Reward Alternatives,
Consequences and Contexts. 1stEdn. London: CIPD
Sparrow, P. and Hiltrop, J. 1994.European Human Resource Management
in Transition.Essex: Pearson
Strategic Direction, 2008.Flexible Working as Human Resources
Strategy.Strategic Direction. 24(8), pp. 9-11
Wilson, M. and Greenhill, A. 2004. ‘A critical deconstruction of promises
made for women on behalf of teleworking’, 2nd International Critical
Reflections on Critical
11