Flexibility at Work: Balancing the Interests of Employer and Employee

Citation

Hodgson, J. (2003), "Flexibility at Work: Balancing the Interests of Employer and Employee", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj.2003.24.1.53.3

Workplace “flexibility” is a term that polarises opinion between those who regard it as a necessary precondition to success in the global economy, and those who see it as a means by which the rights of workers are eroded. Such rhetoric is a recipe for conflict. As illustrated in the book, whilst there are examples of the successful introduction of flexible work arrangements, there are also many cases of strikes and disputes over new work patterns and contracts. The key to success, this book argues, is a reconciliatory approach called “mutual flexibility” in which the needs of employers to be efficient and competitive are balanced with the needs of employees to protect their incomes and lead the lifestyle that suits them.

The case for mutual flexibility is logically set out through the book’s structure and illustrated in mini case studies throughout. The first chapter considers the elasticity of the term flexibility and the different mental models held by those responsible for defining employment relationships. Chapter two considers the social and economic context within which the debate about work organisation is taking place. The next two chapters explore what the term flexibility encompasses and why organisations are interested in its various manifestations. The author defines flexibility as being of five different types: functional; numerical; temporal; locational; and financial. There are, argues Reilly, many reasons to adopt flexible work arrangements, i.e. reducing costs, improving quality service, increasing productivity, hedging against change and meeting supply needs, and many solutions, such as outsourcing, multi‐skilling, variable hours patterns and remote working. It is up to the organisation to choose the most appropriate method.

The focus in Chapter five switches to the employee, to consider why employees are interested in flexibility. Acquiring skills, meeting domestic responsibilities and meeting lifestyle preferences are just some of the many benefits that flexibility can offer employees. Indeed, it is a key theme of this book that employees are attracted to flexibility – it is not just a matter for management. Sometimes the reasons why employers and employees are interested in flexibility overlap, sometimes they are in conflict and sometimes there is genuine mutuality of interest. The next two chapters examine these different types of employment relationships and make the case for mutual relations as the best route to introduce flexible work arrangements.

Chapter eight introduces a six‐step model of how mutual flexibility might be developed: understand the environment, mutually inform, negotiate, communicate, monitor and re‐evaluate. Chapters nine and ten give examples of where the model has worked and consider the preconditions necessary for ensuring that mutuality is successful. The next two chapters recognises the problems associated with introducing flexible work arrangements. The constraints and limits to flexibility are discussed and the ways in which mutuality can help solve or mitigate the effects of these difficulties are considered. The author brings the main themes of the book together in the conclusion and argues the practical and moral case for adopting mutual flexibility at work.

Overall, this is an accessible and thought‐provoking book. It makes a useful contribution to the knowledge of the area of employee relations and the author is to be commended for offering a route out of such a contentious area. The issues raised and discussed would be of interest to managers, practitioners and academics.