Flexible work options

Scholars acknowledge that flexible work options such as flexitime and home-working are increasingly available in the UK (see Crompton and Lyonette, 2011) and other more economically developed countries in the West (see Gambles et al., 2006; Kossek et al., 2010).

However, it is widely recognised that even when work–life balance measures are extensively available in organisations, such measures are not necessarily utilised (Pocock, 2005). The lack of utilisation of work-life policies has been linked to an array of factors. I will explain these in turn. First, studies highlight that that women find it difficult to access flexible work options since employers implement these practices for only the core employees that they especially wish to retain and motivate (see Tomlinson, 2004; Dex and Smith, 2002; and Lewis, 2001).

For instance, in the context of the Hospitality industry in the UK, Tomlinson (2004) argues that employers provide flexible working arrangements for only highly skilled managerial employees. Her findings reveal that the option to work flexible hours is often informally negotiated in organisations and such arrangements are not universally accessible to everyone.

However she suggests that being a trusted employee and possessing a good working relationship with decision makers helps in negotiating flexible work arrangements (Tomlinson, 2004). Dex and Smith (2002) similarly state that employees with a greater amount of discretion are more likely to be offered the option to work flexible hours than others. These findings suggest that professional and managerial employees have a bigger chance of accessing work-life balance options in comparison to their professional or non-managerial counterparts. However Lewis (2001) has argued that even among professionals and managers, flexible work options are made available for only the core workforce that the organisation especially wishes to retain.

Second, scholars argue that flexible working practices are incompatible with long work hour cultures in workplaces, since many organisations associate commitment with time spent within the organisation (Tomlinson, 2004). The need to spend extended periods of visible time in the workplace is backed by the idea of making customers the number one priority, a discourse exacerbated by the competitive nature of business environments. In the context of the accountancy profession, Anderson-Gough et al. (2001) argues that trainee accountants are told to put clients‟ demands ahead of their own lives. According to Lewis (2007) accountants who leave office earlier than other colleagues, give the impression that they are being unprofessional due to prioritising their own demands over clients. This scenario is popularly coined by the term „ideal worker‟, defined as employees who „demonstrate commitment in terms of long hours and exclusive dedication to the job‟ (Gambles et al., 2006: 45). In the light of this definition, those employees who are not willing or unable to give their maximum time to their employing organisation are likely to be classified as less desirable. According to Gambles et al. (2006), assumptions about the „ideal worker‟ prevail in workplaces of many national contexts, especially among professionals and managers.

Given that long-hours cultures and associated ideal worker norms are tied to promotion possibilities in organisations (Crompton and Lyonette, 2011), we can expect employees who exercise work-life initiatives to be disadvantaged in their careers. Research findings highlight that employees are increasingly reluctant to utilise flexible work options available within their organisations, since they perceive negative career repercussions to follow (see Gambles et al., 2006, Crompton, 2001, Rapoport et al., 2002; Crompton et al., 2003; Cross and Linehan, 2006). For example, in the context of UK, France and Norway, Crompton (2001) argues that male and female retail bank managers often hesitate to take up flexible options made available by their employers, due to the fear of appearing uncommitted and therefore

jeopardising their career prospects within their organisations. Based on a study of managers‟

and professionals‟ use of work-family policies in the USA, Blair-Loy and Wharton (2002) argues that employees are likely to use these policies if they work with powerful supervisors and colleagues who could protect them from perceived negative effects on their careers.

Third, studies highlight that work intensification in organisations is increasingly incompatible with available flexible work options (Brannen et al., 2001; Perrons et al., 2007; Blair-Loy and Wharton, 2004). For instance Crompton‟s (2001) findings of retail bank managers in Britain, Norway and France reveals that managers are often not able to exercise work-life initiatives available within their workplaces due to their excessive workloads. Scholars suggest that heavy workloads are the result of globalisation and the intense demands of corporate work conditions (see Blair-Loy and Wharton, 2004). In the case of UK, several pieces of legislation have been introduced which includes the initiation of a maximum working week of 48 hours for employees (Gambles et al., 2006). The Employment Relations Act 1999 sets out the legal minimum required of employers in the UK with respect to certain employment rights. However, Hogarth et al.‟s (2001) survey data suggests that only a modest proportion of employers in the UK (precisely 20%) reports detailed knowledge of these regulations.

All the above findings highlight that organisational structures and cultures undermine flexible work policies in workplaces (Gambles et al., 2006) classifying those individuals who utilise these measures as uncommitted and therefore unsuitable for the demands of high-level organisational work. Lewis (2001) argues that non-standard work arrangements are often interpreted as favours rather than entitlements by employees, and a low sense of entitlement to work-life initiatives is likely to lead to employees accepting prevailing work structures.

Moreover when employees interpret non-standard work options as special benefits,

employers will continue to award these options to only their core workers and work-life policies will remain underutilised.

Employees would utilise work-life measures if they feel that they are entitled to modify prevailing work structures for family reasons. For instance, Lewis and Smithson‟s (2001) cross national findings reveal that individuals from countries with greater state support in general felt more entitled to employer support. Here participants from Ireland, Portugal and the UK had not expected employer provision for childcare despite the greater need for it while Swedish and Norwegian participants had felt entitled to employer support due to it being constructed as morally right. Lewis and Smithson‟s (2001) findings illustrate the significant role state policies play in constructing what individuals perceive as fundamental rights and therefore what they demand from their employers. Crompton (2001) however remains sceptical of the extent to which the state support could mitigate the effects of competitive market forces which intensify workloads. Thus she argues that corporate changes such as control of work hours are essential if employment and family are to be reconciled.

Gambles et al. (2006) similarly argue that existing workplace practices and cultures that weaken the effectiveness of life balance policies should be changed to facilitate work-life harmonisation for employees.

In sum, the extant literature seems to depict rather bleak prospects for professional women‟s careers in more economically developed western countries like the UK. For instance, women‟s careers are seen to be constrained by domestic labour (see Crompton et al., 2005), childcare (see Duncan et al., 2004), lack of part-time work at higher levels (see Crompton and Birkeland, 2000) and implementation gaps in work-life policies in organisations (see Gambles et al., 2006). Indeed this literature seems to suggest that separation from home and

family is essential for women to progress in their careers. For instance, Lyonette and Crompton (2008) argues that women with children may choose not to pursue top level jobs in organisations since they cannot manage job related demands with their roles at home.

However, I would argue women are increasingly making it to the top in professions such as accountancy (see Alvesson and Billing, 2009) and it is not only women without families who do so.

We are well aware of the constraints women in economically developed western countries encounter in developing their careers. However, what we lack is understandings of how women enact their careers in the light of prevailing structural constraints. I am interested in how women manage the interplay between home and work in order to develop their careers.

However this appears to have received only little attention in the extant literature.

Significantly, I would argue that our knowledge of women‟s home-work dynamics is limited to the more economically developed countries in the West. Indeed we are unaware of how women from less economically developed non-western nations perceive and manage home and work. Given that socio-cultural contexts differ to one another considerably, I would argue that it is extremely important to learn how women in nations that have received less research attention perceive and manage home and work.