Work Design for Flexible Work Scheduling: Barriers and Gender Implications

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the nature of work design in relation to flexible work scheduling (FWS), particularly in respect to participation by women and men. There is a paucity of research evidence on this topic. Work design, essentially an artefact of enterprise culture, is constructed by the social rules of place, distance and time. Work practices that assume that work tasks are only conducted in the workplace during standard work time in the proximity of co-workers and managers do not, in the main, support FWS. While there is no significant evidence in this study that women and men perceive the barriers differently when considering taking up the option to engage in FWS options, the study addresses the reasons for this using a large survey of the Australian workforce. This article concludes that it is time to redefine these critical work design dimensions, in relation to existing power structures, in order to inject real flexibility into the workplace.

Workplace Flexibility across the Lifespan

“…This represents a shift from the research on flexible work schedules which until then primarily focused on availability and use for women and young parents (Brewer, 2000). However, as life expectancy is increasing and retirement ages are slowly being increased across the world, organizations will consist of workers of a wide range of ages, and with them bringing their own more diverse needs and wishes as to how the employment relationship should be formed and developed (Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch 2013).…”

“…With the societal need for extending working lives, and the potential role of workplace flexibility, currently the focus on qualitative flexibility (i.e., internal training and development, task enrichment) remains underemphasized, and is undermined by the dominance of quantitative flexibility. The consequence is that ageing workers increasingly become less engaged in lifelong learning, which ultimately results in lower levels of human resources development across society, as workers are primarily engaged in retaining jobs rather than developing themselves in / across organizations (Brewer, 2000).…”

Discussing Work-Life Fit: Factors that Predict Managerial Promotion of Flexible Work Arrangements

“…Variation can also be influenced by team configurations, where some types of functions require greater amounts of regularity and co-presence, which in turn affects access to flexible work options and managers' capacities to support use (Brewer, 2000). Constraints can take the form of disruptiveness À impinging on the manager's capacity to integrate tasks between workers (Powell & Mainiero, 1999), or dependency À uncompleted tasks in the wake of flexible work use (den Dulk & de Ruijter, 2008;Klein, Berman, & Dickson, 1999;Powell & Mainiero, 1999).…”

Successes in Changing Flexible Work Arrangement Use

“…For example, the tasks of some units may require greater amounts of synchronization and copresence, which in turn limits the types of FWAs managers can support (Brewer, 2000;Powell & Mainiero, 1999). A variety of structural challenges can confront managers, including resource deficits, coordination of work processes, client demands, technological limitations, or other concerns (Lauzun, Morganson, Major, & Green, 2010).…”