Читать книгу Changing Contours of Work - Stephen Sweet - Страница 34

In the old economy, workers were commonly expected to be physically present at their workstations and to structure their time commitments in accordance with rigid daytime/full-time schedules. Perhaps the most iconic characteristic of the old, manufacturing-centered economy, was the factory, an innovation designed to concentrate workers in one place, make it possible to take advantage of large-scale technology, and maximize employers’ ability to monitor and control the workforce (Freeman 2018). As work began to shift from manufacturing to services, the basic principles of the factory were transferred to the modern office, in which large numbers of employees are clustered together and directly scrutinized by managers and supervisors. However, as the labor force shifted to include increasing numbers of women, and as new technologies and organizational designs developed, many argued that jobs can, maybe even need to become more flexible. Do new technologies make it possible to monitor workers’ performance at a distance? Do new types of workers really need to be clustered together and as closely scrutinized as workers in the old economy? If flexibility is now possible, can this “carrot” rather than the old economy “stick” be used to motivate employees to work well and hard? In stark contrast to the practices and philosophies central to the old economy, the thesis underpinning the implementation of flexible work arrangements is that the rigid schedules and physical co-presence of workers are not necessarily the best ways to design jobs.

Before discussing the extent of flexibility present in jobs in the new economy, it is important to note that flexibility is not always intended to help ease the balancing of work and family or to maximize the liberating potential of technology. Thus, we must ask, “flexibility for whom?” For example, the fast-food worker who is sent home early because business is slack, or who is told to stay late because of an unexpected rush, has a flexible work arrangement that operates primarily for the employer’s interests. Sometimes organizational flexibility is used to legitimate dismissal of workers or justify the dismantling of work sites. The temporary work industry has very effectively used the idea and rhetoric of flexibility to persuade employers and employees that insecure jobs are mutually beneficial (Hatton 2011, Smith and Neuwirth 2008). These are not the types of flexible work arrangements we are concerned with here, although, as we discuss later in this book (especially in Chapter 4), this dark side of flexibility is a potentially growing phenomenon in the new economy.

The brighter side of flexibility is how it can be used to reconfigure job designs to suit the needs of workers. For example, sometimes workers seek flexible work arrangements to help them take care of a child or an aging parent. These types of needs might be satisfied by telecommuting, by reducing the number of hours worked, by scheduling work differently, or possibly by allowing a sabbatical from the job. Additionally, these arrangements may fit changing cultural preferences. For example, older workers commonly wish to remain integrated in the labor force but work fewer hours or work part of the year (Moen 2016). It is now clear that when they are applied with the employee’s interests in mind, flexible work arrangements tend to help workers harmonize their lives with their jobs, as well as mitigate negative personal and family outcomes that result from work–family conflict (Kelly et al. 2008).

There are essentially three broad types of flexible work arrangements. Move work arrangements include programs and practices that enable schedule variability, changes in starting and quitting times on a time-to-time basis, compression of workweeks, and opportunities to work at home, off-site, or at different worksites. Note that for these arrangements the amount of work remains the same, but the place or time at which the work is to be performed varies. In contrast, reduce work arrangements include programs and practices that enable workers to scale back work hours, to job share, to phase into retirement with reduced hours, or to work part of the year for a reduced amount of time. These options offer the prospect of temporarily limiting the amount of work to be performed. A third set of options can be considered pause work arrangements. These include programs and practices that enable workers to take temporary career breaks, sabbaticals, or paid or unpaid time for education or training to improve job skills. If employment opportunities are shifting in the new economy, we would anticipate that many of these move, reduce, and pause work opportunities would be available to workers. Are they?

Consider findings from one study of American companies, presented in Exhibit 2.3 (Sweet et al. 2014). Over half of the employers (54%) provided no flexible work arrangements to most or all employees. It is also evident that the availability of flexible work arrangements varies widely across sectors. Organizations in the manufacturing sector are the least likely to enable employees to move, reduce, or pause work, with 75% of organizations not offering any of these options to the majority of their workforce. In contrast, employers in the professional, scientific, and technical services sectors and in the accommodation and food services sectors are much more likely to offer access to flexible work arrangements (most commonly the option to move work in accordance with schedule flexibility). Among employers that offer flexible work arrangements, the most common approach is to enable workers to alter where or when they did their work (39%). Few employers provided most of their workers with the option to reduce work (15.8%) or pause work (16.1%).

Exhibit 2.3 Percentage of Companies Offering Flexible Work Options to Most or All of Their Employees: United States, 2009

Source: Adapted from Sweet, Besen, Pitt-Catsouphes, and Golden (2014).

The availability of flexible work arrangements also varies by the type of job being performed and by the type of worker performing that job. Ironically, the workers who often need flexibility the most—especially women—are the least likely to receive these options (Swanberg, Pitt-Catsouphes, and Drescher-Burke 2005). Office administrative assistants, for example, are usually expected to work standard 9-to-5 shifts and to be at their desks during the workday, every day, even if work is slack. The managers for whom they work, however, may have numerous options to make “I-deals” that might configure their schedules to meet their personal needs, to work at home, or to negotiate reduced work if they wish (Rousseau 2005). The unevenness in the allocation of these types of opportunities is a critical concern in reconciling work and family for workers in all segments of the economy.

In sum, the existing evidence shows that some types of flexibility are more prevalent than others, but the option to reduce work or to take a break from work is not commonly provided to workers. Why is the availability of flexible arrangements so limited? Some evidence suggests that these practices help bolster workplace performance, facilitate retention, enhance the job, and may even contribute to a company’s reputation (Arthur and Cook 2004, Richman et al. 2008). And if this is the case for all employers, then the limited implementation may simply reflect a structural or cultural lag that likely will be reconciled eventually. However, at present there is conflicting evidence about the extent to which different types of flexible work arrangements consistently result in positive “returns on investments” (Kelly et al. 2008). In the end, employers are the ones who decide whether to extend flexibility to employees, and they look for evidence that the benefits of doing so (increased productivity, decreased turnover) outweigh the costs. And decisions in organizations are not only made at the top, but also at the local level by individual managers, who vary in their personal beliefs on the impact of new ways of organizing work (Sweet, Pitt-Catsouphes, and James 2017). In the contemporary economy, in which managers find themselves under pressure to reduce labor costs, the case for truly flexible work arrangements must be based on evidence that it enhances the bottom line and does not complicate management demands (Hatton 2011, Thompson 2003). In the absence of clear evidence of this result, it should be expected that the availability of flexibility will remain limited and uneven across industry sectors and occupations. In this sense, the potential of the new economy to make possible new ways of working remains constrained by a much more traditional set of concerns that emerged in the old economy.