Improving working lives: flexible working and the role of employee control

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate employee perceptions of the flexibility they utilize or have available to them in an NHS Trust and relate these perceptions to the concept of control.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopts a constructivist approach and uses semi‐structured interviews, allowing employees, in their own way, to explain what flexibility policies, and practice mean to them. The paper conducted 43 interviews and one focus group across five directorates, to include a range of staff levels and job types.FindingsThe findings in this paper show that informal rather than formal flexibility was more widely used and valued; and that, although staff needed to be proactive to access formal flexibility, some staff did not see formal flexibility as relevant to themselves; and informal flexibility generated an increased sense of employee responsibility. Uses the perspective of employee control over their working lives, in order to interpret the impact of flexible working.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper shows that these findings may be context‐specific, and further investigation of informal flexible working is needed in different settings.Practical implicationsThis paper shows that organizations need to communicate flexibility well, and train their managers' adequately but, critically, they need to understand what different forms of flexibility mean to employees, and how they are valued.Originality/valueThe paper shows the prevalence and value of informal flexible working, and its potential. Uses the concept of control to explain why different individuals value different forms of flexible working differentially.

Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements

“…The BHPS/Understanding Society lacks employer-reported data on availability/use of FWAs which would enable assessment of gaps in knowledge pertaining to FWA availability. Meanwhile, research should also explore the relative incidence and impact of informal flexibility, shown to offer employees greater control over the distribution of work-time (Hall and Atkinson, 2006;Atkinson and Hall, 2009). It will also be important for future research to consider the effects of the recent extension of 'right to request' in the FWRs.…”

The Role of Gender in Varying Forms of Flexible Working

“…While the perception was expressed that even informal flexibility may be unfairly allocated to women with young children, on the whole such flexibility was considered to be widely applied. This informal flexibility, or time sovereignty (Sheridan, 2004), affords a high degree of control over working time that is highly valued by employees (Hall and Atkinson, 2006).…”

“…Examples of this include compressed working weeks and flexitime schemes where employees work agreed core hours but are then permitted to arrange the balance of their working hours within certain agreed parameters. While they are flexible, in the sense that employees can reduce or vary their working time, these formal practices nevertheless impose structural and rigid solutions upon employers who are required to honour the arrangements (Hall and Atkinson, 2006).…”

Flexible Working, Individual Performance, and Employee Attitudes: Comparing Formal and Informal Arrangements

“…For example, Richman et al () identified informal arrangements simply as those that are occasionally used, while Troup and Rose () described them as those that “were negotiated in a need‐based way with supervisors or management” (p. 474). For Hall and Atkinson (), the immediacy and responsiveness to employee needs are key, because they defined informal arrangements as the ability to alter planned working time on an ad hoc basis at short notice. Eaton () went further and referred to informal arrangements as covert arrangements outside the scope of formal policies: “Supervisors can permit more flexibility than is formally allowed, encouraging employees to take time off unofficially, so that flexibility becomes invisible to higher‐level managers” (Eaton, , p. 147).…”