The Range of Flexible Workplace Practices Used and the Associated

the respondent, the in-depth interviews asked open-ended questions about the firm’s HR benefits and FWPs. Respondents discussed the FWPs used by themselves and their colleagues, supervisors, or subordinates. Respondents did not always use the label of flexibility. Descriptions of alternative work arrangements that involved changes to the timing or place of work, or the number of hours worked were considered FWPs in this analysis (see Hill et al., 2008). This approach enabled FWPs that are not identified in the web-survey to be included. Sick days, for example, were considered as FWPs by

interview respondents. Small businesses are not legally obliged to give employees paid sick leave in Ontario and Alberta’s Employment Standards Code does not include personal medical leave (see Appendix A). Hence, sick days are considered as a FWP in this dissertation. Interview data also reveals different contextual information because additional perspectives are included.

Table 4.3 illustrates the range of FWPs used at a firm that was identified from the interview data and compares it with the range from the web-survey data, which was taken from Table 4.2. I quantify qualitative data in the 4th column in order to illustrate that additional types of FWPs were identified.17 In one firm (Consyst), the qualitative data identified a lower number of FWPs compared to the quantitative data. Further

investigation of the quantitative data revealed that one of the types of FWPs identified as being used at Consyst was only used by the owner and so caution is taken when

interpreting the range of FWPs at this firm. As shown in Table 4.3, the range of FWPs

17

If over four FWPs were identified in the interview data, I listed ‘4+’ in Table 4.3 because the web-survey had only four options of FWPs.

used among firms varied. I consider firms in which zero or one FWP(s) were used as relatively inflexible compared to firms in which three or more FWPs were used. Firms with two FWPs used, however, are more difficult to distinguish as either flexible or inflexible without further information about the context of each firm.

Table 4.3: The Range of Flexible Workplace Practices Used and the Associated Conditions

SOURCE: WANE web-survey and interview data.

Case pseudonym Inter- national case no. Range of FWPs used (total #) from web- survey Range of FWPs used (total #) from qualitative data Conditions associated with the use of FWPs

E&C Solutions 101 0 1 owe-back-time; face-time

FC Software 104 1 1 owe-back-time

Consyst 107 3 1 owe-back-time; face-time

WebBytes 111/9 1 1 owe-back-time

ComTech 117 2 2 owe-back-time; face-time

Net Host 102 0 3 get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility

Custom Software 103 0 2 get-work-done

Biz Software 105 0 2 get-work-done

Online Design 106 0 2 flexibility-for-flexibility

GP Solutions 108 1 2 get-work-done

A&S Systems 109 1 2 get-work-done

SoftBytes 110 3 4+ get-work-done flexibility-for-flexibility SysSolutions 112 1 2 flexibility-for-flexibility IT Consulting 113 1 2 get-work-done flexibility-for-flexibility PSIT 114 2 3 get-work-done flexibility-for-flexibility Interface Consulting 115 1 4+ get-work-done flexibility-for-flexibility

Advanced Chips 116 4 4+ get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility

Other uses of the qualitative data reveal more fruitful information to classify firms by their flexibility. An emergent finding from the qualitative data is that there were conditions attached to using FWPs among study firms. FWPs were not considered

entitlements that employees could use with no strings attached. These associated

conditions are not independent of a firm’s workplace culture but also cannot be separated from assessments of a firm’s flexibility for employees. These conditions are informative about how FWPs are used in firms. Emerging research informs us that the use of FWPs on an informal basis is accompanied by employees doing something in return for their managers or employers (Atkinson & Hall, 2009; Gonyea & Googins, 1996; Hall & Atkinson, 2006; Wharton, Chivers, & Blair-Loy, 2008). Among study firms, three particular conditions arose that had different implications for employees.

These forms of reciprocity are specified in Table 4.3 by terms that came from the interview data. The condition of “owing back time” required employees to work the actual time or presumed time missed from work as a result of using a FWP. Time presumed to be missed was arbitrarily decided upon by the owners or managers and involved the physical absence of workers from the office. The required presence at the office reflects the gendered ideal behaviour of face-time that was introduced in Chapter 2 as a practice reflective of both managerial control and a gendered workplace (Collinson & Collinson, 2004; Hochschild, 1997). Face-time conflicts with FWPs because these practices involve some time away from the workplace during the workday. These two conditions place limits on the time and place of work and hence, constrain the use of FWPs which involve changing the when, where and for how long work is performed (see Hill et al., 2008). The owe-back-time condition was evident in five firms, three of which also practiced face-time.

The remaining firms had other conditions attached to the use of FWPs. In exchange for the use of FWPs, employees must “get their work done” so that the firm

met its deadlines. Or, employees were required to “be flexible” for the firm by working long hours in the foreseeable future which for purposes of this dissertation is referred to as “flexibility-for-flexibility.” One of the two conditions was present in seven firms and both occurred in five firms. These two reciprocal exchanges are characterized by trust and are instances of responsible autonomy. FWPs can be considered as incentives that owners provide workers so they assume the interests and goals of the firm (see Friedman, 1977, 2000). Through these exchanges, workers are given autonomy in how they perform their day-to-day activities regarding when and where work will be completed (see

MacEachen et al., 2008). As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, the use of FWPs by definition implies that some autonomy is given to workers. The conditions of getting work done and flexibility-for-flexibility, then, facilitate the use of FWPs because they involve giving workers some autonomy.

4.1.4 Classification of Firms by Relative Flexibility for Employees

The combination of the range of FWPs used and the implications of the associated conditions were considered for the overall assessment of firms’ flexibility. As shown in the previous section, applying the range of FWPs used as a measure of flexibility separated the firms with the highest and lowest ranges (three-to-four and zero-to-one, respectively) from one another. Additional information, however, was needed to determine the flexibility status of firms in which two kinds of FWPs were used. The conditions attached to the use of FWPs helped categorize these particular firms as either flexible or inflexible, and confirmed preliminary assessments based only on the low or high range of FWPs used. As discussed above, conditions that require employees to owe

back time and be present at the firm do not facilitate the use of FWPs, unlike the conditions of getting work done and being flexible to the firm. Accordingly, firms with two kinds of FWPs used were classified as inflexible and flexible depending on which condition(s) was present.

Based on the preceding analysis, two ideal types (Weber, 1978) of firms emerge in these data. First are the inflexible firms which I refer to as “Rigid firms.” Firms were inflexible if zero to two kinds of FWPs were used and this use had the associated conditions of owing back time to the firm and the presence of face-time. Into this

classification fall the following firms: E&C Solutions, FC Software, Consyst, WebBytes, and ComTech. Second are the relatively flexible firms that I refer to as “Flexible firms.” Firms were considered flexible if at least two kinds of FWPs were used with the attached condition that employees be flexible and/or get their work done. Flexible firms include Net Host, Custom Software, Biz Software, Online Design, GP Solutions, A&S Systems, SoftBytes, SysSolutions, IT Consulting, PSIT, Interface Consulting, and Advanced Chips. The firms that fall into these two firm-types are grouped together in Table 4.3. The first five firms listed are Rigid firms, and the remaining 12 are Flexible firms. These labels do not appear in Table 4.3 but are used in Table 4.4 in the following section.

This classification of firms based on their flexibility suggests that FWPs are not often used in a straightforward way as entitlements that employees have the right to use (Atkinson & Hall, 2009; Lewis & Cooper, 2005). Research indicates that workplace culture constrains or facilitates the use of available FWPs (Bailyn, 2006; Bond, 2004; Callan, 2007; Hochschild, 1997; Peper et al., 2009). Below, the workplace cultures of

Rigid firms and Flexible firms are assessed in order to determine whether particular workplace cultures accompany them.