The Viability Of Flexible Working Hours For Increased Productivity

Factors That Require Flexibility at Work

Flexibility at work places is not a new concept and in real sense some of the past and current working methods can be considered to be flexible. This trend can be viewed from different points relating to employers, laborers and some of the professional employees (O’Connell  and Russell, 2005). Some factors require this form of flexibility and they include changes in technology, sectorial structure, an increase in competition pressure, convenience in the working hours and levels of unemployment.

1. Unemployment and economic crisis; when the economic immobility increases and unemployment levels rises then it’s necessary for a flexible working environment to be adopted. For example this was done in the 1970’s when there was a crisis in the petroleum industry (Brannen, 2005).
2. Developments in technology; these developments hold an important place in the flexibility concept. The usage of computer controlled systems has become very widespread thus transforming the labor market through use of the information communication technology. This calls for the need of workers with technology knowledge who can easily adapt to such changes and increase development.
3. Competition and globalization; when economies go beyond their national frameworks and thus competition becomes more international then there is need to shift to a flexible working environment by the involved parties (Drew et al., 2003).
4. Deregulation; this is not synonymous to flexibilization but it’s the reduction in the norms of hectoring but it has an effect of flexibility due to the fact that with it more room is left for flexibility in the contracts of work.  
5. Need for spare time by employees; the world has become more complex with many needs to be met by individuals and the desire to strike a balance between their work and personal duties. Therefore for any business to get employee commitment at work they have to create working conditions that are good for their staff (Russell et al., 2004). To achieve this flexibility has to be adopted and a shift from the old paradigm where people had to be at work full time is necessary.
6. Creation of employee loyalty; to win the loyalty of employees’ flexibility has to be embraced. If the flexible conditions of working are supported by the relevant stakeholders i.e. colleagues, managers and employers then a positive effect on the balance of work-life is felt and thus sense of loyalty enhanced (Gornick and Meyers, 2003).
7. New societal values; the desire for employees to develop personally meaningful  has been increasing  and thus the need for them to feel their working relationships  as being adult-adult and not parent child has necessitated the need of flexible working conditions.
8. Rapid globalization; this trend is presenting many businesses with new opportunities and to get hold of such opportunities and meet the demands of customers there is need for a 24/7 culture which is more flexible. This will ensure sustainable growth. The current generation also demands a lot of flexible working conditions for them to deliver on their duties unlike the tradition in the past (Fisherand Layte, 2004).The economy has grown globally and for anyone to fit in they have to be very flexible in terms of business.

1. Some employees thrive well in office environments; such employees find it difficult to do some duties in the absence of some of their colleagues who may not be in the same schedule as they are. This then explains why most employers prefer to have specific days and even hours when all employees are at work (Brandth  and Kvande, 2002).
2. Lack of clear delineation between home and work;  When flexible situations are used one may tend to work all or any time and the tendency of mixing work and family is very high (Warren, 2004).
3. Difficulty in meeting up; If employers are allowed flexibility it becomes difficult to meet up as teams and deal with the business of the organization. Such situations require some set guidelines to adopt the flexible working conditions.
4. Taking advantage of flexibility; Flexibility can be taken for advantage by some employers who may choose to work from home and thus not deliver well unlike if they worked from office environment (Gornick and Meyers, 2003).
5. A good number of managers who are used to monitor their employees in terms of when and how they arrive and leave office find it hard to adapt to the flexible working conditions.
6. Some people are office oriented and tend to view their colleagues who work in a flexible environment as slackers because they fail to see their productivity physically. This may cause friction in the working relationships.
7. Some clients expect to be served five days a week and may not happy if they find their service providers missing on certain days. This negatively affects the image of the business and they may lose some clients to other competitors (Brannen, 2005).
8. Some jobs require one on one interaction with customers and therefore adopting the flexibility nature may hinder progress. For instance a patient gets more satisfied with the doctor’s prescription if they meet up face to face than talking on phone.

Flexibility at work is good however it has its own problems especially when it comes to measuring productivity.  Therefore to deal with such problems the management has to put in place rules and regulations to govern the employees. For instance a staff should be present ot meet the needs of the client if necessary and only work on flexible basis where such needs do not arise (O’Connell  and Russell, 2005).

The management should plan its working schedule in such a way that the employees alternate in being at the office so that clients get to be served anytime. Those people who chose to work from home should have a clear delineation between work and family time so that neither of them is compromised.

The work at home staffs should be productive enough so as not to be viewed as slackers by the staff that works from office environment (Gambles et al., 2006). Clients should be made aware of the flexibility in the organization so as to ensure they come in to be served by the member of staff they would like when only they are in office. this cuts down on inconveniences and maintains a good relationship between the employee and clients.

The viability of such approaches for organizations of different sizes (Russell et al., 2004). This approach is very viable especially to organizations with different sizes because it creates an environment that is conducive for any employee to be very productive in service delivery (Kugelberg, 2006). With this approach different organizations are able to utilize the available resources maximally to their own advantage. This will be a good approach in making use of insufficient resources. For example staff members may report at different times to work in situations where only few computers are available for use and still get to serve their clients with ease (Lewis, 2007). The approach is also quite viable in the sense that an employee feels the freedom of having to do other activities pertaining to their life. It strikes a balance between work, family and even illness.

Challenges of Measuring Productivity in Flexible Working

The approach also creates good working conditions and relationships between the employee and the employer. This is because the employer has developed trust of their staff to an extend of allowing them work from the home environment or report to work on during those hours that they are needed (Gallie, 1996).

The best industry where such approach can be adopted with less effect on the employee productivity is in the aviation industry. It’s not necessary for all the staff to be present at work if not needed on duty. This saves a lot on resources and also ensures quality service delivery by those on duty. To achieve this its recommended that the management of such an airways industry operates on flexible means by adopting the following (Bonney, 2005).

Leaving flight attendants to come to work only when needed on board and not full time working This creates a good working environment for the staff who in return serves their customers with zeal. This attracts more customers on board.

Planning their pilots work schedule in such a way that they come to work only when on duty they can then use the other times for skills development or family time which creates a good working environment for them as well (Drew et al., 2003).

The same flexibility should be applied to the technical staff within the industry.

Conclusion

The Justatia approach in doing business should be a welcome idea by any organization that strives to thrive well in this global environment. With increased completion in businesses the rate of employee turnover is high and therefore to ensure their retention and maintain the image of an organization there is need to provide flexible working conditions for the staff as proposed by Justatia. Most people leave their current bosses in search of working conditions that are flexible enough to accommodate their other daily activities like family issues. To grow in business one has to take care of their staff and the staff will take care of the clients. The kind of life in the 21^st century also contributes to adoption of such trends in the sense that the current generation can only work and deliver on their duties if a conducive and flexible environment is provided to them. Also with advancement in technology flexibility at work cannot be evaded.

References

Bonney, N. (2005) ‘Overworked Britons? Part-time work and work-life balance’. Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 19 (2): 391-401.

Brandth, B. and Kvande, E. (2002), Reflexive fathers: Negotiating parental leave and working life, Gender, Work and Organization, 9(2), 186-203.

Brannen, A (2005), Time and the negotiation of work-family boundaries: Autonomy or illusion?, Time and Society 14, 113-131.

Drew, E., Humphreys, P. & Murphy, C. (2003) Off the Treadmill: Achieving Work/Life Balance, National Framework Committee for Family Friendly Policies.

Fisher, K. and Layte, R. (2004) ‘Measuring work-life balance using time diary data’. International Journal of Time Use Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-13.

Gallie, D. (1996) Employment, Unemployment and the Quality of Life: The Employment in Europe Survey 1996, Report to DG Employment.

Gambles, R., Lewis, S. and Rapoport, R. (2006), The myth of work-life balance: The challenge of our time for men, women and societies, Wiley.

Gornick, J. C., Meyers, M. K, (2003), Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kugelberg, C. (2006) Constructing the deviant other: mothering and fathering at the workplace, Gender, Work and Organization, 13 (2), 152-173.

Lewis, S (2007) Working time, client time and family time: accounting for time in the accountancy profession., in van der Lippe, T and Peters,P, Competing Claims in Work ad Family Life , Edward Elgar.

O’Connell, P.J. and Russell, H. (2005) Equality at Work? Equality Policies, Flexible Working Arrangements and the Quality of Work’ , Dublin: Equality Authority Research Series.

Russell, H., Layte, R., Maitre, B., O’Connell, P., and Whelan, C., (2004) Work-Poor Households: The Welfare Implications of Changing Household Employment Patterns. ESRI Policy Research Series No 52. Dublin: ESRI.

Warren, T. (2004) ‘Working part-time: achieving a successful ‘work-life’ balance?’, British Journal of Sociology, Volume 55, Issue 1, 99-122.