The future of work is flexible. Work that is rigidly defined by time in location is less the norm than it once was. Where once organisations might have made allowance for flexible work to ‘show willing’ in appeasing employee requests, today to not offer flexible work is to be left behind in the race to recruit and retain talent. In particular, to secure the capacity and capability of talented women. The demand for flexible work is no longer a ‘nice-to-have’ or the ‘right thing to do’ but rather a core organisational need. 

To understand how to respond to flexible work it may be worth considering the underlying change that has occurred over time.

The factors driving the rise in demand for flexible work are a mix of social changes and market pressures. The underlying forces mesh together through time and are difficult to separate into single threads. 

The increasing participation of women in the workplace is an outcome of broader social trends that have changed our society. However, these changes alone are not enough. They must be matched by institutional changes in workplace arrangements. 

The lifting of the bar on the employment of women in the Commonwealth Public Service is illustrative. The restriction required existing female permanent officers to retire from the Service on marriage. It also meant that married women could only be employed as temporary staff, restricting their promotion opportunities. Being a temporary employee restricted the ability of married women to accumulate superannuation and meant they were the first to be targeted for redundancies when significant downsizing occurred.
The path to removing the bar can be traced in broad brush strokes from 1923 through 1958 to 1966. 

In 1923, Edith Cowan, social worker and politician, introduced a private member’s bill that would become the Women’s Legal Status Act 1923. As she introduced it, the bill would have prevented anyone being disqualified by sex or marriage from exercising any public function, from holding any civil or judicial office or practising law or any other profession. The bill was amended by the Premier, Sir James Mitchell, so that marriage remained an allowable ground of exclusion from the professions or public life (for women). The Premier was concerned over the consequences for the family if wives were no longer economically dependent on their husbands nor available to look after the family. The removal of the marriage bar in the Commonwealth Public Service was first recommended by the Boyer Committee in 1958 but it took another eight years to be expressed in the Public Service Act (No. 2) 1966 which allowed for the permanent appointment of married women to the APS and removed the requirement for existing female permanent officers to retire from the Service on marriage.

The combination of sustained social change combined with institutional reform lead to a tripling of the number of women in permanent positions in the three years after the bar was lifted. 

Other institutional factors have worked to reduce the opportunities for flexible employment. For example, prescriptive workplace arrangements that rigidly specified the ratios of part-time to full-time workers, the upper and lower limits on the hours that could be worked part-time and the benefits to be received by part-time workers have given way to the removal of such restrictions that created the conditions for an increase in the number of people working flexibly.

Also over time, increased uncertainty in business conditions has led organisations to embrace flexible work as way to better manage growth and decline in operational demand. The lessons of downsizing of the 1980’s was that organisations that responded to changing conditions with flexible workforce arrangements were better placed to respond to upswings in the market than those who laid off experienced workers. The growth in flexible forms of work has quickened through the late 1990s and 2000s with that latest figures showing that in 2016 more than 86 per cent of total net jobs created over 12 months were part-time.

So, social change accompanied by institutional reform and organisations adapting to changing market conditions are all mutually reinforcing factors in creating the conditions for flexible work. However, all these conditions were necessary but not sufficient. What is it that makes flexible work ‘real’?

Flexible employment is a strategy of matching labour to uneven operational requirements. The increased need for organisational flexibility has placed greater value on the role of flexible employment across a broader range of industries than might have been the case in the past. Ultimately, it is how leaders and managers give life to flexible work inside the organisation that matters most. 

The conversation on how organisations balance individual and organisational demand for flexibility is often confused. It can become by framed in ways that place the needs of the individual over those of the organisation, or as the organisation rigidly defining the nature of employee contribution and commitment. The former leads to inequity in the workplace as individual need trumps organisational requirement, and the latter gives rise to separation and loss of talent.  Whether seeking flexibility in the way individuals work or whether trying to employ a more agile workforce, it is important to ground our views about flexibility in the realities and practicalities the organisation’s requirement. 

A consistent conclusion of the research into flexible work is that managers are the make or break point in making it work. Our own experience is that line-of-sight management remains a strong feature of middle management in many organisations. Similarly, we see that managers are the least likely cohort to be accessing flexible work.  Management is still seen as full-time, on-site and longer than standard working hour’s position. If this remains the norm, how well placed are these key people to see the value of flexible work?

Managers are where the tension between the individual and organisational need is resolved. At times, difficult conversations will have to be had. These conversations will be simpler if leaders and managers have clarity about the purpose and benefits of workplace flexibility that is aligned to business need. They would be further improved by managers with some experience of working flexibly. 

There is a need for organisations to more clearly understand drivers for workplace flexibility and the way it contributes to organisational outcomes. Workplace flexibility should always start from organisational individual need rather than seeking to accommodate need but more creative solutions should be entertained and the management styles more commonly associated with industrial-age production need to be challenged.

There is a need to put flexible work—in all its many forms—into a clear organisational framework. One that appropriately positions the need of the organisation and the individual. Our collective views and approaches to enabling flexible work appear to have accumulated over time.

There are many ‘toolboxes’ for manager and employees to access. There is plenty of policy and procedure to be followed. What seems to be lacking is a clear ‘first principles’ articulation of flexible work. A view that does not dictate a specific solution or response but rather provides the principles for how managers can get the best solution for the organisation and the individual. 

About the Authors

Sally Dorsett is passionate about improving access to flexible work. She has been responsible for leading and implementing workplace change to improve flexible working practices throughout her career.

David Schmidtchen is fascinated by people, work and organisation. He interested in the growing diversity of employment types and how organisations will respond.

The views expressed in this article are the views of the authors, not their employer. 
This article is provided as general information not advice.
 

Sources
APS News, Australian Public Service Commission

Australian Women’s Timeline, Married women allowed to work in the Commonwealth Public Service

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Women and Government in Australia

Part Time Employment: the Australian Experience, Productivity Commission, 2008,