The Coal Mine: The Environment of Today’s Organizations

In the 21st century, the needs of businesses and employees are changing rapidly and that means that there is an increased need flexible workplace arrangements (FWAs). In Canada flexible work schedules of some sort are utilized by at least 57% of workers (Zeytinoglu, Cooke, & Mann, 2009, p. 567). Different organizations may have different types of FWAs that they offer for their employees to encourage a better work-life balance; more specifically, it FWAs are defined as “the ability of workers to make choices influencing when, where, and for how long they engage in work-related tasks” (Grzywacz, Carlson, & Shulkin, 2008, p. 200). Our text lists examples of FWAs such as “variable work schedules, flexible work schedules, extended work schedules, job sharing, and telecommuting” to name a few (Griffin & Moorhead , 2012, p. 136). This section will further outline: why FWAs are important, the positive findings of studies about FWAs, who advantages most from FWAs and finally, it will address how organizations can implement policies that encourage FWAs.

Many organizations may wonder why they should implement FWAs for their employees, especially since commonly accepted beliefs state that a person cannot balance divided allegiances (such as work and home life). In fact, some organizations have been found to be downright complacent “with a short-term glut of available talent and [they have] not take[n] steps to create an organization that secures its existing human resource,” (Shapiro, Ingols, Black-Beard, & O’Neill, 2009, p. 53). If organizations desire to be competitive employers then they must implement appropriate steps to ensure that people will want to stay at their organization. FWAs are one of the many ways that organizations can meet the needs of today’s employees. One recent article discussed the expectations of employees now-a-days; the article cited:

Employees expect an increasing level of flexibility from employers so they can better meet the demands of their work and personal lives…organizations looking to attract and retain top talent should consider how to facilitate work-family enrichment by offering specific policies that permit greater schedule flexibility, which may indicate an overall supportive work environment (McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010, p. 77).

In other words, to be competitive an employer must at least consider accommodating workers’ needs.

Encouragement of work-life balance and incorporating considerations of family time into an organization has historically been considered something that Christian-based organizations do but studies show that it can benefit all types organizations. Studies cited in an article by Grzywacz, Carlson, and Shulkin (2008) showed that flexibility in work scheduling contributed to “better health” as well as “less stress and burnout” (pp. 200,212). An article by Hayman (2009) presented findings of enhanced “integration of work, family, and personal life” when flexibility was offered with scheduling (p. 336). Yet another article, this one by Richman, Civian, Shannon and Hill (2008), painted a picture of “increased engagement and retention” through even sporadic use of flexibility for employees (pp. 194-195). This means that multiple studies have found positive outcomes that are attainable if organizations simply implement some strategies or policies that will offer or enhance FWAs. You may look at this and say, this is all well but what about quantitative evidence? An article and study by Galbraith (2010) cited these findings:

When Chubb Insurance Co. implemented a flexible workflow program, it gained a 9-percent increase in daily customer contacts, an 11-percent increase in timely benefits payments and three hours per day of extended business coverage, since some employees wanted to start work earlier and others decided to finish later (p. 46).

This means that qualitative and quantitative evidence are proponents for the implementation of FWAs!

Historically women have been the catalyst for most FWAs but now-a-days the seekers of flexibility have diversified greatly. Most people in professional careers have been found that their careers required “life altering tradeoffs, such as choosing between one’s children and one’s job,” (Galbraith, 2010, p. 45). While other people opted for different kinds of work if they needed flexibility; often they found themselves in jobs that severely under-utilize their skills (Fursman & Zodgekar, 2009, p. 53). This means that there are qualified, willing employees out there who are being forced to choose between their careers and home or they are taking work that will fit their family’s needs but does not fulfill them. This also means that there are organizations that are missing out on the opportunity to meet and work with these individuals. While this phenomenon has primarily impacted women in the past, it has the potential to impact anyone and these days, it is impacting all kinds of people. An article by Zeytinoglu, Cooke, and Mann (2009) noted that “flexible work schedules are primarily created for business reasons…rather than assisting females, married or common-law-relationship workers, and workers with dependent children to achieve work-life balance interests” (p. 569). Therefore, FWAs can be utilized by anyone and the needs of people are becoming more and more diverse and this means that more than just women can benefit from their implementation!

FWAs are becoming more widely accepted but there are still many places that have a lot to learn about them and have a lot of work to do in order to implement them properly. Proper implementation can be difficult to define since the ability of each organization and industry may look a bit different. The aforementioned article by Shapiro, Ingols, Black-Beard and O’Neill (2009) offers some thoughts for all organizations to consider when thinking about FWAs:

As long as “flexibility” is seen as the exception rather than the norm, male and female employees accurately perceive their use as career suicide. Their future career opportunities may be sidelined as their commitment to work is questioned; their co-workers may resent having to “pick up the slack;” and their managers often see them as a lost resource in meeting business objectives (pp. 56-57).

So the authors are saying that the efforts to make change may not be easy but as cited in the above paragraphs the changes will be worth it for the betterment of the organization and its employees.

Employers can begin implementation by re-inventing their concept of a model employee. One article suggested that as an employee, “He/she must have the necessary skills and commitment to meet performance outcomes; and, in exchange, employees manage their own career by negotiating when, where and how much they will work,” (Shapiro, Ingols, Black-Beard, & O’Neill, 2009, p. 57). This means that organizations need to be willing to offer FWAs as long as the employees are meeting their end of the work arrangement (which could be qualitative or quantitative). This same article continued on to discuss other potential arrangements that organizations could implement and retain a capable staff; the article cited:

Some organizations are instituting HR practices to allow self-agents to come and go…and come back again as their lives shift, while enabling organizations to tap populations that have, in the past, largely been ignored: employees who have left for life adventures or responsibilities, older employees nearing retirement and mothers who want to contribute in limited hours…The path to retirement can be slowed dramatically, allowing tenured employees to move into project work, and training and mentoring to gradually reduce work hours. Finally, to lure ex-employees back, companies like Monsanto contact retirees to fill temporary vacancies or serve as mentors. (Shapiro, Ingols, Black-Beard, & O’Neill, 2009, p. 59)

In other words some organizations are finally recognizing the unique talent that they have losing over the years due to their rigid approach to scheduling and work-life balance.

As you can see FWAs come in many shapes and forms and the need for and benefit of implementing them should be sought after by all organizations. As the article by Shapiro, Ingols, Black-Beard and O’Neill cited:

Just as canaries were lowered into a mine shaft to determine if the shaft was safe for coal miners, women, through their career decisions, are signaling to organizations that the conventional career model, with its attending organizational practices and work cultures, no longer works for them, and more broadly, the workforce of the 21st century (Shapiro, Ingols, Black-Beard, & O’Neill, 2009, p. 53).

In other words the needs of the workforce have changed (whether anyone likes it or not) so organizations can rise to the occasion and keep up with the cream of the crop or they can be skimmed right out of the business – the choice is theirs!

Regurgitated Food for Thoughts

The experiences of people over time are similar to those that I am having these days, which is that business places often do not offer flexible work arrangements (FWAs) because they do not see their advantages or they offer them but with a catch. As workers of the 21st century the expectations for employees commitment and qualifications has greatly increased but studies show that FWAs do not detract from individuals’ performance. If organizations would spend a bit more time working on policies to properly implement FWAs they would likely find increased performance in their organization as well as improved levels of employee satisfaction. As cited above, it is key for organizations to redefine who their ideal employee is (not by giving a specific face but by being open to all the human resources that are out there and looking for work). This call should go beyond simply FWAs, it should remind organizations to also put aside stereotypes that women are less devoted to their work if they are married or have children. Time and studies have proven that women are capable of multi-tasking and they can be loyal to their families and still be committed workers.

References
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t . New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Fursman, L., & Zodgekar, N. (2009). Making it work: The impacts of flexible working arrangements on New Zealand families. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand(35), 43-54.

Galbraith, S. (2010). Creating ‘female-friendly’ organizations. Financial Executive, April, 45-47.

Griffin, R., & Moorhead , G. (2012). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Grzywacz, J., Carlson, D., & Shulkin, S. (2008). Schedule flexibility and stress: Linking formal flexible arrangements and percieved flexibillity to employee health. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 199-214.

Hayman, J. (2009). Flexible work arrangements: Exploring the linkages between percieved usability of flexible work schedules and work/life balance. Community, Work and Family, 12(3), 327-338.

McNall, L., Masuda, A., & Nicklin, J. (2010). Flexible work arrangments, job satisfaction, and turover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 61-81.

Myskillsprofile.com. (2011). Leadership potential indicator: Abbey Harty. Myskillsprofile.com.

Richman, A., Civian, J., Shannon, L., Hill , J., & Brennan, R. (2008). The relationship of percieved flexibility, supportive work-life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occassional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 183-197.

Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., Black-Beard, S., & O’Neill, R. (2009). Canaries in the mine shaft: Women signaling a new career model. People and Strategy, 32(3), 53-59.

Zeytinoglu, I., Cooke, G., & Mann, S. (2009). Flexibility: Whose choice is it anyway? Department des relations industrielles, 64(4), 555-574.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *