Making Flexibility More I-Deal: Advancing Work-Life Equality Collectively

Abstract

Current research on negotiated individualized flexible work arrangements focuses on highly paid, skilled professional workers. We refer to this as “flexibility through privilege,” the ability to obtain “flexibility I-deals,” due to high labor market power. Yet as work-life tensions grow across occupations globally, most individuals need increased access to flexibility. As the COVID-19 pandemic illuminated, work-life equality, the ability of workers to have equal access to, opportunity to use, and benefit from flexible working arrangements is a rising form of job inequality. We examine how existing flexibility i-deals can be reconceptualized more broadly to include collectively bargained arrangements across many occupations, and flexible working forms. Our essay advances understanding by (1) broadening notions of the typical employee and occupation involved; (2) expanding negotiation processes beyond an organizational sphere of control; (3) identifying new forms of negotiated flexibility such as control over work-life boundaries and technological availability; and (4) addressing not only employer-employee mutual benefits, but larger societal interests concurrent with new tensions and unintended consequences of mainstreamed implementation. We propose the term “collective flexibility” as the collective right of workers to customize their work schedule, place, workload, boundaries, connectivity, and employment mode with their employer and other stakeholders to benefit employers, employees, and society. We offer a future research agenda. Expanding how we frame and study what a flexibility i-deal is with a collective approach regarding how they are accessed, negotiated, maintained, and who they serve may enhance their potential as a lever for social change to advance economic, social, and health employment rights.

Work-Life Flexibility Policies From a Boundary Control and Implementation Perspective: A Review and Research Framework

“…Highlighting the interconnectedness of societal forces with organizational implementation and Stage 1 of Figure 2, these regulatory influences account for policy adoption at the organizational level (e.g., Giannikis & Mihail, 2011; Kelly, 2010; Paxson, 1995). Despite the lack of empirical research, these same regulatory influences—including the right to request flexibility—also apply to the other types of work–life flexibility policies beyond just parental leave (Kossek & Kelliher, 2022).…”

“…Specifically, this form of implementation consists of the supervisor (n = 24), organizational culture (n = 19), the workgroup (n = 8), and HR systems (n = 4). The supervisor-that is, the gatekeeping role of the manager associated with work-life flexibility policy access-is also by far the most studied actor in flexibility implementation (e.g., Crain & Stevens, 2018;Kossek et al, 2022). Although studies collectively note the gatekeeping role that supervisors play in providing access to work-life flexibility policies (Collins, Cartwright, & Hislop, 2013;Kossek et al, 2016;Williams, Cathcart, & McDonald, 2018), much of the research reveals the complexities of supervision in workplaces with a blend of flexible and traditional work.…”

“…Although valid, this view risks overemphasizing the role of supervisor support in implementation and minimizing the important role of the formal policies themselves. In some countries, formal organizational policies reflect legal codifications of the right to request flexibility (e.g., the United Kingdom; Kossek & Kelliher, 2022). Piszczek and Berg (2014) also argue that scholars need to consider how regulatory institutions, including employment laws or collective bargaining, influence access to control boundaries.…”

“…This can, for example, enhance the accuracy of data captured in reports on government laws, union contracts, company and non-governmental organizations' [(e.g., International Labor Organization (ILO), Office of Economic and Country Development (OECD, United Nations (UN)] annual reports, and social responsibility indices (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017). Such policy-capturing data is critical for reducing work-life inequality and may enhance societal interest in policies in a way that creates or establishes a set of minimum occupational health protections in terms of formal availability and access opportunities for all workers, regardless of one's current level of supervisor or organizational support (Kossek & Kelliher, 2022). Instead of organizations viewing flexibility as a public relations tool when facing a tight labor market (to try and lure workers back to the workplace after the recent "great resignation," Klotz, 2022), but where they retain full discretion to withdraw or limit use at will, a policy approach can shift organizational and broader societal thinking to view flexibility and access opportunities as a fundamental right of workers that must be upheld and protected.…”

Exploring hybrid telework: A bibliometric analysis

“…Within the organizations we find imbalances concerning the employee-employer market power, the bargaining power of the employer being greater. These imbalances in power determine different forms of teleworking [ 43 ].…”