Flexibility & Work-Life Balance: Who Benefits?

HRM Assignment
Assignment No:

Student Name:
 1
FWB HRM Assignment

Introduction: Flexibility and work-life balance are two terms that go hands-in-hands with
HRM practices, however, there is much confusion between the meanings of the two and despite
of its presence in the practices they are not clearly differentiated (Christensen & Schneider,
2010). Work-life balance aims to provide a balanced life to an employee to satisfy his/her needs
and to keep a balance between the work/ paid vocations, and personal life or the life outside the
office. Flexibility refers to the various arrangements made by the employer to ease their
employees while trying to get more output. A few decades ago, when things were not as fast as
they are today, flexibility and work-life balance were directly proportional to each other. The
higher the flexibility the higher was work-life balance(Shagvaliyeva & Yazdanifard, 2014). It is
because the employers understanding towards flexibility was different than what they perceive
today. The purpose of flexibility was to create a link between the needs of customers and
businesses while recognizing the family caring responsibilities. Flexibility in working hours
allows employees to choose their working hours and workplace as per their
convenience(Christensen & Schneider, 2010). In the past, the reason for offering flexibility to
employees was to benefit the customers, organizations, and the employees at the same time.
From the perspective of customers, the flexibility allowed them to access goods and services at
different times other than the normal working schedules. For organizations, flexibility provides
them a clear understanding of the efforts and performance of their employees to maximize profit.
For individual employees, flexibility gives a better work-life balance for a prosperous career and
personal life(Christensen & Schneider, 2010). Unfortunately, the meaning of flexibility has
changed in the recent years because of the rapidly increasing competition and transforming
corporate world. Today, employers are using flexibility for the betterment of the organization,
customers and personal benefits and the benefits of employees are jeopardized. This compelled
the employees to work even longer hours other than their normal hours to gain economic relief.
As a result employee has less or no time to spend on their personal activities. Moreover, Nick
Gteenhalgh identified that the longer working hours has made the employees disillusioned,
unproductive, resentful and dissatisfied (Kramar et al., 2014). The labor unions and employee
rights and legislation agencies should consider the negative shift of the paradigm of flexibility
and should make some efforts to provide better work-life balance to employees for the benefits
of all the stakeholders of a business.
 2
FWB HRM Assignment

Juliet Brouke, a partner at Aequus Partners claimed that the real essence of the flexibility has
been shifted to a negative side that is flexibility is now turned to the competition for employees
that how they can get more performance out of a few people/employees(Kramar et al., 2014).
This is absolutely true, because the modern world employers are treating people as machines
who have to work hard with consistent potency throughout the day. Employees, on the other
hand, are impotent to show their resistance because they have to earn a good living to offer a
standard life to their family and by showing their resistance they can lose their job and finding a
new and competent job is a hectic. The real essence of flexibility was to help employers in
controlling costs while at the same time allowing employees to get a proper balance between
their personal and professional lives. Since employers used flexibility to further economic
development, the majority of the employees are dissatisfied (Anon., 2013). According to the case
information, most Australians are failed in bringing a proper balance between the professional
and personal life due to the change in the paradigm. Over 20% of people work continuously for
48 hours or more while more than 60% do not request for regular holidays(Kramar et al., 2014).
It can be easily judged that the flexibility has been moved from its original paradigm and people
are impotent to follow a schedule prepared by their employer because they do not have any other
option as almost all the employers are following the same phenomenon just for the sake of their
own benefits. The original paradigm of flexibility was designed to benefit all the stakeholders
(customers, employer, and employee) but the new paradigm is compensated only the former two
while the later one is at the extreme edge of disadvantages and dissatisfaction. Employers are
rapidly adopting the new paradigm with a perception that it is more beneficial for the
organization, however, the truth is totally different, and they are actually neglecting the negatives
of the new paradigm that is stressing their employees to work beyond their capabilities(Conway
& Sturges, 2013).

The new paradigm of flexibility and work-life balance has resulted in a number of performance
related issues such as decrease in productivity, an increase in dissatisfaction, high employee
turnover, and decrease in overall performance and is also leading to a number of other
implications(Ahmed & Ramzan, 2013). It has been observed that some employers are using
flexibility as an economic development tool in which they are offering a tough schedule to their
employees in which employees have to work for about 48 hours a week on average and in some
 3
FWB HRM Assignment

cases the figure can be increased to 60 hours. People who are working 48 hours a week have to
work for about 9.8 hours a day. They only have 14.2 hours to perform other activities. In the
remaining 14.2 hours a day, an employee have to sleep, spend time with family, friends and on
other activities which is not possible for them and as a result the majority of employees do not
take proper sleep(Pain, 2014). As a result, employees cannot perform efficiently at their work
places and a competitive and out performer can soon become a less productive and poor
performer. As per the case information, more than 60% people also work on their holidays which
mean they have to work more than 12 hours per day. The reduction in work-life balance is not
only affecting the performance and productivity of employees but at the same time it is
confronting them with a number of health issues and family conflicts(Ahmed & Ramzan, 2013).
A few decades ago, Boundary theory was considered as the foundation of flexibility and work-
life balance. Analysts identified boundary theory for the help of employers to set an appropriate
working schedule for employees. Boundary theory was considered as an effective tool to bring
balance between personal and professional life of an employee that increase the mindfulness of
employees, which in turn increasing job satisfaction of employees and their performance
level(Kaiser, 2011). Unfortunately, the boundary theory has been eliminated from the flexibility
and work-life balance, which increased negativity among employees, emotional exhaustion,
reluctance to change, and job dissatisfaction. The elimination of such effective theories and tools
has further complicated the HRM practices for the management and as a result many employers
are taking wrong steps to improve their overall performance (Bulger et al., 2007). Key
implications of excessive work of employees include stress, work overload, tiredness, stalled
work, and emotional exhaustion. All these things lead to poor performance and low productivity
that instead of benefiting causes several issues for the employers. According to the research of
Pew research center conducted in 2013, over 56% working women are dissatisfied from their
working schedule as it is impossible for them to create a proper balance between their personal
and professional life while about 50% men are found dissatisfied in this research from their work
schedule(Gangwisch, 2014).

Critics, on the other hand support the shift in the original paradigm of flexibility and work-life
balance by arguing that the use of the original flexibility technique is not applicable in the
economic downturn because an employer needs to have a great workforce to work in different
 4
FWB HRM Assignment

working hours. The larger the workforce the higher will be the operating costs of an organization
(K.Moore, 2010). Therefore, they believe that the new paradigm is actually effective and realistic
because it is not possible for every employer to compensate accurately an army of workers with
limited/finite resources. Moreover, critics also believes that managing a diverse and massive
workforce is very difficult and it has a number of risks for the organization and for the employer,
therefore, the use of the new flexibility paradigm is justifiable as it is financially benefiting the
employees and is helping the employer to reduce costs. By getting more output from fewer
employees, an employer can improve the expertise of his/her employees in the relevant field and
can effectively boost productivity and performance(Kaiser, 2011). Critics have a long list of the
advantages of limited force and they also argue that having excessive working hours is not as bad
for an employee as it is perceived. In this rapidly shaping world, everyone have a desire to offer
a good living standard for him/her and for the family members. This is not possible for a person
to meet all the increasing demands with a regular job/working hours. To satisfy such needs,
employees have to work for some additional hours to make some more money(Naithani, 2010).
A few years back, people were not money-minded as they are today; therefore, they are also
willing to work for extra time and are keeping all of their personal activities for annual holidays.
People living in rich countries are competing with each other to improve their life style while
people in poor countries are working hard for further development. This is showing that the new
phenomenon of flexibility and work-life balance is also acceptable for employees and this is
really unfair to blame only the employers for the change. The change in the philosophy of
flexibility and work-life balance is beneficial for both groups (employer and employee) as well
as for the customers(OBrien, 2008).

When it comes to health and safety of the employees, the supporters of excessive work hours
argue that the health and safety condition of the employees depends on the self-management
skills of an employee. This is the responsibility of each employee to have an overtime policy
which will help the employee in maintaining good health and performance level(Rothwell et al.,
2012). All employers have a determined schedule in which they are offering a break to its
employee every three or four hours of work, it has been noted that many employees do not take
the advantage of the break, which means they are not taking care of their health. It is the
responsibility of an employee to effectively utilize the break to relax his/her mind and muscles.
 5
FWB HRM Assignment

Similarly employees should avoid double shifts in the greed of making extra money(Poelmans &
Caligiuri, 2008). For example, if an employee have to work for 8 hours, he/she should not opt to
work for another 8 hours consistently. Moreover, it is the moral and legal right of an employee to
request a proper overtime schedule from his/her employer. However, it has been observed that
many employees do not have any information about their legal rights, safety measures, the rules
and regulations of their organization regarding employees control environment and regarding
overtime (Simmons, 2012). Critics also argue that the new meaning of flexibility is not as bad as
it is made by some employers due to their negative reactions. There are a number of employers
who have not enough information about this technique; hence, they are using it as per their
understanding, which is creating problems for both the organization and for the employees. By
setting up a proper system, work schedule and health and safety measures, employers can ensure
a healthy work environment for their employees in excessive work hours(Pain, 2014). Such
safety measures and arrangements ensure good performance, high productivity, controlled cost,
low absenteeism and high employee satisfaction. In this regard, it is totally unfair to blame the
change in the paradigm of work-life balance because the negative results of this change are
because of the poor management skills of some employers and employees (Rothwell et al.,
2012). To justify their claims, critics argue that why only 56% women are dissatisfied instead of
100% and why only 50% men are not satisfied rather than 100%. It is showing the rest of 44%
and 50% are properly managing this shift and are satisfied with the change, respectively. It
means the problem is with people not with the system itself, and in this fast moving corporate
world, this is the only way to keep up with the competition (Hart, 2004).

Critics have presented a good rebuttal to the above discussed facts, but still, their position is quite
weak in supporting this global issue. The first claim of the supporters of the new work-life
balance was that the new flexibility paradigm is a tool that is used by employers to cope with the
economic downturn. This is not an appropriate way to deal with the economic downturn because
in this way they are simply negotiating the work-life balance and is creating problems for
employees only. There are a number of other ways that an employer can use to facilitate work-
life balance while reducing costs and improving productivity(K.Moore, 2010). Employers can
offer a relaxation to employees using technology, which means employers should set some goals
and objective for a specified time and should assign the portion of work to each employee to
 6
FWB HRM Assignment

complete within the given time. Employers should give flexibility to an employee to work from
home instead of forcing him/her to work for longer hour in office. Work from home will not only
help the employer to control costs but will also help the employee to complete office work in a
more relaxed and informal environment. During hard economic times, instead of firing
employees, the employer should opt for unpaid vacations. Even employee understands the
position of an employer and they also prefer unpaid leave instead of firing from job(K.Moore,
2010). The employer can divide his/her employees in groups and can retain out performers at
first during economic recession and after some time, for example, after a month or two, the
employer can send this group on unpaid leave and can call the other group for further work. Such
a technique will not only allow the employer to retain his entire workforce but will also allow
him to not compromise on the quality and performance. On the other hand, the technique will
also help employees to enjoy a work-life balance even during the hard economic times(K.Moore,
2010). The employer should call a meeting or should use other ways to communicate the
economic situation and required changes with different levels of management. This will make
the work easy as those employees who are willing to work for longer hours will approach their
managers. Employer should try to stay calm because the results of a research in which 22
countries participated have shown that people are more likely to work for longer hours in poor
economic conditions(Naithani, 2010). In this regard, the supporters of the new phenomenon of
work-life cannot justify their position by linking the issue with responding to the economic
downturn.

Critics also claimed that the shift in the paradigm of flexibility and work-life balance became
worsen due to the poor management skills of employees and some employers. It is also not the
case on behalf of employees, because it is a matter of common sense that how a person can
effectively manage or distribute 12 or 14 hours a day in various tasks or activities including
family time, personal grooming activities, exercise and in a proper sleeping time(Kumar &
Shivakumar, 2011). Moreover, pointing out that if proper management is not an issue, then why
only 56% women and 50% men are dissatisfied from their schedules instead of 100%. The
reason behind this information that Pew research center provided is that these workers have to
work for longer hours because their employers have limited resources and limited staff. When
situation become rough at work, the majority of long hour workers take their work home and
 7
FWB HRM Assignment

strike at their families and when situation become tough at home they than cannot focus on work
in office(Guest, 2002). They further concluded that it is beyond the control of employers and of
employees to keep things consistent all the time. It has been scientifically proved that consistent
exposure to stress, pressure and emotional exhaustion ends up with serious health
issues(OBrien, 2008). Even Barbra Holmes of Managing Work Life Balance International
identified that the new approach is extremely hazardous for the health of employees because
human body can only cope with long working hours up to some extent(Kramar et al., 2014). The
only solution to such issues is the use of the original paradigm of flexibility and work-life
balance in which there are sufficient employees for various shifts and in which employees can
share jobs with each other and can even ask for leave to manage their personal
issues(Christensen & Schneider, 2010).

Conclusion:From the above discussion and arguments, it became clear that the purpose of the
original paradigm of the flexibility and work-life balance was to benefit customers, employers
and employees all at the same time. In the recent years, due to increasing competition, modern
employers have changed the essence of the flexibility and have neglected the importance of
work-life balance(Christensen & Schneider, 2010). For modern employers, it is just a tool to
improve economic outcomes. Due to modern practices people became confused between the
definition of flexibility and work-life balance. Moreover, people today are mostly materialistic in
nature, which are in the race of making more and more money; hence, they do not understand the
real advantages and disadvantages of a particular approach. Juliet Bourke is right in claiming that
the flexibility has shifted from its original purpose which posed several health and psychological
issues to employees. The shift in the paradigm of flexibility and work-life resulted in
disillusioned, unproductive, and resentful employees with high absenteeism and high turnover.
From all the facts and figures discussed in this essay, it is concluded that for a healthy and safe
work environment and for high performance, employers should implement the traditional
flexibility approach based on job sharing, flexible working hours, annual hours, staggered hours
and compressed hours to facilitate employees(P.Delecta, 2011). This will not only bring a proper
balance between the personal and professional life of an employee but will also help the
employer to facilitate employees even during economic downturn. The advantages of the new
approach are far less than its disadvantages and the current approach is only benefiting
 8
FWB HRM Assignment

employers for a limited time. It is the responsibility of the HR experts in an organization to

properly implement flexibility and work-life balance thinking about the benefits of employer and
employees(Poelmans & Caligiuri, 2008). (Shagvaliyeva & Yazdanifard, 2014)
 9
FWB HRM Assignment

Reference
Ahmed, A. & Ramzan, D.M., 2013. Effects of Job Stress on Employees Job Performance A
Study on banking sector in Pakistan.

Anon., 2013. How do Work-family Balance Policies Affect Women's Work-family

Reconciliation?: Direct and Indirect Effects on Womens Labor Income. Health and Social
Welfare Review, 33(1), pp.120-66.

Bulger, C.A., Matthews, R.A. & Hoffman, M.E., 2007. Work and personal life boundary
management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration
continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4), pp.264-375.

Christensen, K. & Schneider, B.L., 2010. Workplace flexibility. 1st ed. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Conway, N. & Sturges, J., 2013. Investigating Unpaid Overtime Working among the Part-time
Workforce. Brit J Manage, 25(4), pp.755-71.

Gangwisch, J.E., 2014. Work-life Balance. SLEEP.

Guest, D.E., 2002. Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance. Social Science Information,
41, pp.255-80.

Hart, R.A., 2004. The economics of overtime working. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

K.Moore, 2010. Work-life balance during a recession. Strategic Direction, 26(6).

Kaiser, S., 2011. Creating balance? 1st ed. Heidelberg: Springer.

Kramar et al., 2014. Human Resource Management in Australia. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill
Australia).

Kumar, D.A. & Shivakumar, D.P., 2011. A RESEARCH STUDY ON MANAGING WORK-
LIFE BALANCE. International Journal of Knowledge and Research, 1(2).

Naithani, P., 2010. Overview of Work-Life Balance Discourse and Its Relevance in Current
Economic Scenario. Ass, 6(6).
 10
FWB HRM Assignment

OBrien, P.M., 2008. Work-Family Balance Policies. University of East Anglia.

P.Delecta, 2011. Work Life Balance. Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(4), pp.160-89.

Pain, E., 2014. Improving Your Work-Life Balance. Science.

Poelmans, S.A.Y. & Caligiuri, P., 2008. Harmonizing work, family, and personal life. 1st ed.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rothwell, W.J. et al., 2012. The encyclopedia of human resource management. 1st ed. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Shagvaliyeva, S. & Yazdanifard, R., 2014. Impact of Flexible Working Hours on Work-Life
Balance. AJIBM, 04(01), pp.20-23.

Simmons, S., 2012. Striving for work-life balance. AJN, 112(1).