Managers_Still_Frown_on_Use

MANAGERS STILL FROWN ON USE OF FLEXIBLE WORK OPTIONS INTRODUCTION Local Situation Despite having more women, one still finds much less women in the local labour force. Statistics shows that in September 2003, only 27.4% of the total population worked: - 17.4% worked full-time; 3.9% worked part-time and 1.1% worked full-time with reduced hours. This compared to 48.8% of males engaged in full-time employment (National Statistics Office News Release, 2004:37). Female participation in further Education kept increasing throughout the years. In fact in 2001/2002, 56.9% of the University students were female. Yet, as we have seen before, very few women work and statistics showed in 2003, only 89 women (15.7%) held top positions (ibid). This clearly shows that the majorities of women are ambitious but are restricted to continue their careers in order to raise families. One of the main reasons is that there are not enough family-friendly measures available. Flexible work schedules such as reduced working hours or part-time work, are not available in all workplaces, probably because many employers are not in favour of part-time work or reduced hours and very often they see flexibility as an extra cost (Bartolo, 2005). Also there is the perception that a woman who requests flexible work schedule is no longer serious or interested in her career and the insignificant statistical amount of women on reduced hours demonstrates that where some benefits are instituted they might be underused. Organisations seldom ‘walk the talk’ of family-friendly policies. These issues shall be critically analysed, supported with research and experience. CRITICAL ANALYSIS Employers’ views : Employers view flexibility as an extra cost This implication is supported in a study carried out by Rizzo (2003), where it was found that the majority of managers representing 35 firms from the manufacturing sector, service sector and state run/owned enterprises view that changing the working time to suit the needs of employees would create problems to the firm. Only 10 managers out of 35 respondents stated that workers opting to take reduced hours would not create problems to the firm. According to this study, the managers blame the issue of globalisation and imply that the imperatives of the market as the responses of employers indicate, leave little room to manoeuvre for managers to adjust working time arrangement to the needs of the employees. There seems to be constraints inherent in the work practices dictated by the logic of the market that militate against the introduction of flexitime, granting reduced hours to workers and finding ways to design working time arrangement to accommodate workers’ needs. Many firms in the manufacturing and service sector state that they cannot afford to go beyond the provisions of minimum standards about family friendly measures laid down in labour law. While managers see flexible work schedules as a disadvantage to their organisation, on the contrary to the employees’ perception, in a study carried out by Camilleri (1997), when the women in the selected population were asked their opinion on whether flexibility is to their advantage or to their employer’s, the usual responses expressed were that it is more profitable to the organisation. The researcher highlighted a limitation of this study that the employers’ views and intentions remain unknown in this study. But is family-friendly flexible working cost-effective for employers' Locally, there are few statistics or measurements in most companies/organisations to support the business case for work-life balance. Organisations tend to be convinced of the benefits or disadvantages by instinct and experience rather than by formal measurement procedure. Studies in the United States, Northern Europe and in United Kingdom demonstrate a different view on the cost effectiveness of flexible working options. In a European survey, one finds that top of the pile are the Fins, with the highest percentage of employers implementing flexible working schedules, whilst Sweden has the highest amount of respondents claiming to widely use flexi-working (European online recruitment, the editor, 2004). Much of the prior research on flexible work schedules has taken an organisational perspective by focusing on the impact of these schedules on outcomes that primarily benefit organisations (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright and Neuman, 1999). In general, flexible work schedules are expected to provide such organisational benefits as increased employee satisfaction, organisational commitment, and productivity, and decreased absenteeism and turnover. More recent literature tends to confirm these findings. For example, a recent literature review on family-responsive work policies, including alternative work arrangements, concluded that productivity, organisational commitment, retention, and job satisfaction are all positively affected by these policies (Glass & Finley, 2002). Almer and Kaplan (2002) found that Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) on flexible work schedules reported higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Rau and Hyland (2002) examined the impact of flexible work arrangements on applicant attraction to an organisation. They found that employees were more attracted to organisations offering flextime. In the United Kingdom, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission (2005), which is the leading agency working to eliminate sex discrimination in 21st Century Britain, nine out of ten employers find family-friendly flexible working to be cost-effective. Many companies have found that their productivity has improved through better retention rates and improved morale since implementing flexible working policies. Also, one study has found that family-friendly work practices are associated with above average financial performance, above average labour productivity and reduce labour turnover among private sector firms. It seems that flextime and other alternative work schedules improve worker productivity, but employers in Malta have not got the message. Research on flexible work schedules has focussed mainly on benefits to organisations. Yet one of the reasons why flexible work schedules have been recommended is to help female employees reduce work-family conflict by allowing them more control over their work schedule. There has been less research on whether the expected benefits especially to employees who want to advance in their career actually occur, which might be one of the main reasons that where flexible work options are instituted, they are underused. Potential Benefits for Employees: Flexible working is an Underused Resource, Why' The research findings although not definitive suggest overall, that having an alternative work arrangement, such as a flexible work schedule, may reduce work-family conflict, as expected. In fact, in a survey carried out in UK by Women and Equality Unit (2001) found that access to flexible working options on return from maternity leave can also be an important factor in the decision to return to work. It was also found that 92% of non-working mothers said that flexible working arrangements would be either essential or important to help them back to work. Another potential benefit to employees, especially women, of having flexible work schedules is that it may make it easier for them to progress into upper management positions. Research suggests that women face a number of barriers to advancing into upper management (Cohen & Single, 2001; Friedman & Galinsky, 1992). Because of this, many have suggested that a ‘glass ceiling’ keeps women out of these roles (Kay & Hagan, 1995; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Maume, 1999; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). One such barrier may be the difficulty of balancing work and family responsibilities (Collins, 1993). Some women who are faced with this conflict choose to forgo advancement at work so that they can devote adequate time to their families (Conlin, 2000). If given the opportunity to have a flexible work schedule, the greater ability to balance work and family that results may make it more likely that career oriented women will remain in their jobs, even when these jobs are demanding. This should lead to greater numbers of women advancing into upper management. One does not know, however whether flexible work schedule have enabled women to move into higher-level management positions. In fact, it is possible that taking advantage of a flexible schedule may have the opposite effect. According to Hammonds et al., (1997), “career derailment” is a concern of employees who are using, or considering using, a flexible work schedule. Specifically employees fear that they will be seen less committed to their career if they do so or that they will be less visible to those making advancement decisions because they may not be in the office during all regular business hours. Consistent with these concerns, Almer et al., (2003) found that an employee’s decision to participate in an alternative work arrangement was affected by both career considerations and the perceived supportiveness of the organisational culture. Others have noted that because an alternative work arrangement tends to change the nature of the work employees do, the amount of their workload, or both, and employee’s career progression is likely to be affected (Almer & Kaplan, 2000). Regardless of the reason, employees on a flexible schedule may be seen as less suitable for career advancement than employees on a regular schedule. In fact, from personal experience, when a nursing officer in charge of a main unit requests a flexible work schedule such as a reduced hour week, her request creates concerns, the top management perceiving that the demands of her position will not be met such as attendance to meetings, day-to day issues, emergency situations, as her physical presence will be less. It is interesting to note that although managers may have these kinds of concerns about workers who use flexible schedules, research suggests that they may be unfounded. Specifically, research indicates that employees have fewer unnecessary absences when they work flexible schedules than when they work a regular schedule (Baltes et al., 1999; Dalton & Mesch, 1990; McGuire & Liro, 1987) and that their work performance (Baltes et al., 1999) and organisational commitment are higher (Grover & Crooker, 1995). That work performance has been found to be better with a flexible schedule suggests that, in fact employees may be more committed to their jobs when they adopt a flexible schedule as found by Scandura and Lankau (1997). In the study carried out by Rogier & Padgett (2004), it was found that perceptions of employee capability were unaffected by the use of a flexible work schedule. This suggests that if working a flexible schedule negatively affects women’s career advancement potential, it is because they are perceived as having less job and career dedication and less desire to advance, and not as lacking in ability. On the one hand, this is good news for women seeking to advance because it suggests that they are likely to be perceived as having the ability to succeed in higher-level jobs. On the other hand, the bad news is that perceptions of employee motivation and career dedication are much more subjective than perceptions of employee performance and thus are probably more subject to error as well as more difficult to change. CONCLUSION Rather than legislating alone, persuading employers including managers of the benefits of family-friendliness is imperative, and though costly, research into the economic effects of such policies should be considered. Also one should focus on the actual (rather than potential) career consequences of adopting alternative work arrangements to see the extent to which the less favourable perceptions translate into less favourable career outcomes. What people do and how they do it can frequently be more important than the amount of their time it consumes. A “family-friendly” workplace could include a number of factors, such as supportive managers, supervisors, and flexible work options and, specially, a “family-friendly” organisational culture. Whatever strategies a workplace uses to deal with work/family conflict and tension it is important to remember that change is slow; it needs leadership and it needs to be encouraged, evaluated and fine-tuned. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Almer, E. D., Cohen, J. R., & Single, L. E. (2003). Factors affecting the choice to participate in flexible work arrangements. Auditing, 22: 69-91. Almer, E. D., & Kaplan, S. E. (2000). Myths and realities of flexible work arrangements. CPA Journal, 70: 14-19. Almer, E. D., & Kaplan, S. E. (2002). The effects of flexible work arrangements on stressors, burnout, and behavioural outcomes in public accounting. Behavioural Research in Accounting, 14: 1-34. Baltes, B., Briggs, D., Huff, J., Wright, J., & Neuman, G. (1999). Flexible and compressed work-week schedules. A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48: 496-513. Bartolo, R. (2005, Janaury 23). MCWO: working for more worth for women. The Sunday Times [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php'id=175728 Accessed on 16 February 2005. Camilleri, F. (1997). Women in the Labour Market: A Maltese Perspective. Malta: Mireva. Cohen, J. R., & Single, L. E. (2001). An examination of the perceived impact of flexible work arrangements on professional opportunities in public accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 32: 317-328. Collins, K. M. (1993). Stress and departures from the public accounting profession. A study of gender difference. Accounting Horizons, 7: 29-38. Conlin, M. (2000, September 5). The new debate over working moms. Business Week, pp. 102-104. Dalton, D., & Mesch, D. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 370-387. Equal Opportunities Commission. (2005). Flexible working: New rights for parents. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.oec.org.uk/EOCeng/dynpages/About-EOC.asp Accessed on 16 February 2005. European online recruitment. (2004, April 8). A year on two thirds of Brits don’t see flexible working as a reality [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.onrec.com/content2/news.asp'ID=3904 Accessed on 23 February 2005. Friedman, D., & Galinsky, E. (1992). Work and family issues. A legitimate business concern. Frontiers of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 5:168-205. Glass, J., & Finley, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family responsive workplace policies [Special issue: Changing views of work and family roles]. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 313-337. Grover, S., & Crooker, K. (1995). Who appreciates family responsive human resource policies' The impact of family-friendly policies on the organisational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48: 271-288. Hammonds, K., Furchgott, R., Hamm, S., & Judge, P. (1997, September 5). Work and Family Business Week, pp. 96-99. Kay, E., & Hagan, J. (1995). The persistent glass ceiling. Gendered inequalities in the earnings of lawyers. British Journal of Sociology, 46: 279-310. Lyness, K, & Thompson, D. (1997). Above the glass ceiling' A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 359-375. Fetherolf Loutfi, M. (ed.). (2001). Women, Gender and Work: What is Equality and how do we get there' International Labour Office: Geneva. Maume, D. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators. Work and Occupations, 26: 483-509. McGuire, J. B., & Liro, J. R. (1987). Absenteeism and flexible work schedules. Public Personnel Management, 16: 47-59. Morrison, A., & Von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45: 200-208. Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies. (2004). Reconciliation of Work and Family Life (Summary). Germany. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion-.net Accessed on 5 February 2005. Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55: 111-136. Rizzo, S. (2003). Work-Life Balance with Focus on Family [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.exchange.usg.uu.nl/irec/papers/3-Rzzo.doc Accessed on 16 February 2005. Rogier, S.A., & Padgett, M.Y. (2004). The impact of utilising a flexible work schedule on the perceived career advancement potential of women. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15: 89-107. Scandura, T., & Lankau, M. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility, and flexible work hours to organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 18: 377-391. Women and Equality Unit. (2001). Parents’ perceptions of and attitudes towards Government and work-life balance initiatives – a survey of parents, survey. In: Equal Opportunities Commission. (2005). Flexible working: New rights for parents. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.oec.org.uk/EOCeng/dynpages/About-EOC.asp Accessed on 16 February 2005.