Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures, tables and box
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: The flexibility paradox and contexts
- 2 The demand for and trends in flexible working
- 3 The dual nature of flexibility: family-friendly or performance-oriented logic?
- 4 The outcomes of flexible working
- 5 The flexibility paradox: why more freedom at work leads to more work
- 6 The empirical evidence of the flexibility paradox
- 7 Gendered flexibility paradox
- 8 Flexibility stigma and the rewards of flexible working
- 9 The importance of contexts
- 10 COVID-19 and flexible working
- 11 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
- Appendix
- References
- Index
4 - The outcomes of flexible working
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2022
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures, tables and box
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: The flexibility paradox and contexts
- 2 The demand for and trends in flexible working
- 3 The dual nature of flexibility: family-friendly or performance-oriented logic?
- 4 The outcomes of flexible working
- 5 The flexibility paradox: why more freedom at work leads to more work
- 6 The empirical evidence of the flexibility paradox
- 7 Gendered flexibility paradox
- 8 Flexibility stigma and the rewards of flexible working
- 9 The importance of contexts
- 10 COVID-19 and flexible working
- 11 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
- Appendix
- References
- Index
Summary
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we explored the question whether or not flexible working is more of an arrangement used by employers to enhance performance outcomes mainly given to higher-status workers, or is more of a family-friendly arrangement as many assume (Osterman, 1995; Ortega, 2009). We concluded that although there is evidence that both family-friendly and performance/higher-status logics partially explain the provision and access to flexible working arrangements, the explanatory power of the latter was much stronger. Thus, flexible working is not actually necessarily provided to workers who need it most, but to workers in higher-skilled/paid occupations and taken up by those in stronger bargaining positions within the company. This chapter explores the question of the nature of flexible working, but this time, by looking at the outcomes of flexible working. More specifically, I will empirically examine whether flexible working helps workers relieve the conflict felt between work and family life (work-family conflict). If flexible working were to be provided for workers to better meet private life demands, it would help workers reduce the conflict felt between the demands coming from the two spheres, and increase workers’ satisfaction towards work-life balance. If flexible working does not result in enhancing workers’ work-life balance, this makes us re-evaluate the nature of flexible working and how it is implemented. Obviously, the goals of better work-life integration and increased work performance are not necessarily at odds with one another. Performance-enhancing flexible working may also help workers to shape work around private life demands, and family-friendly flexible working can benefit companies due to the improvement in workers’ well-being (Rapoport et al, 2002). This chapter provides us with some evidence of this being the case.
Before we move onto the empirical evidence, this chapter summarises existing literature on the outcomes of flexible working, focusing mostly on meta-analysis or systematic reviews – that is, studies that combine the results of a number of studies (statistically) together. Some key themes that will be touched upon are performance and productivity outcomes, well-being, and work-life balance.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Flexibility ParadoxWhy Flexible Working Leads to (Self-)Exploitation, pp. 54 - 68Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2022