Workplace Cultures and Flexible Workplace Practices

In the assessment below, firms are compared by their firm-type and workplace cultures that may affect the use of FWPs. For purposes of this study, I concentrate on one aspect of workplace culture that captures the shared knowledge, beliefs, behaviours, and customs with respect to working time. Measurements of this working time include the typical hours of work per week, the occurrence of overtime hours of work (often, occasionally, or rarely), and reciprocal exchanges for using FWPs. Forms of reciprocity were introduced earlier as conditions attached to using FWPs and include employees owing the firm back time, being flexible back to the firm, and getting work done. These exchanges are reflective of the rules management established about when and where work should be performed. This analysis considers overtime as the hours worked in excess of a nine hour day; working late at night or on weekends, for example, are instances of overtime unless an employee was scheduled to work regular hours during these times.18 These measures are indicative of the behaviours and rules regarding when and where work is and should be performed.

Past research informs us that workplace cultures are unsupportive of the use of FWPs if employees are required to work long hours of work, perceive negative

consequences their individual careers if they use FWPs, and have managers who do not accommodate the use of FWPs or employees’ work-life balance (Andreassi & Thompson,

18

The Ontario and Alberta employment regulatory acts consider overtime as any hours over 44 hours each week (Province of Alberta, 2010; Service Ontario, 2000) See Appendix A for a summary of these

2008; Blair-Loy, 2004; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Lewis & Smithson, 2009; Thompson et al., 1999). These dimensions were discussed in Chapter 2. In this analysis, a workplace culture is considered to facilitate the use of FWPs if the number of hours employees work per week are not excessive (over 44 hours), employees do not often work overtime hours of work, and reciprocal exchanges of being flexible back to the firm or getting work done are present. Workplace cultures that do not reflect these dimensions do not facilitate the use of FWPs. This time and place dimension of workplace culture closely relates to how FWPs are understood in this study. Ergo, Rigid and Flexible firms are expected to have different workplace cultures in this regard.

Table 4.4 compares the workplace cultures with respect to working time of Rigid firms and Flexible firms based on the dimensions described in the previous paragraph. The average hours worked per week by employees in Rigid firms varied somewhat. Hours were frequently long for employees in two of the firms, whereas employees in the other three Rigid firms had more reasonable hours of work per week although they worked overtime occasionally. All five Rigid firms worked on the basis of employees owing back time in exchange for the use of FWPs. Face-time was an ideal behaviour that accompanied this condition in three Rigid firms. Rigid firms’ consideration of employees owing the firm back time in exchange for using FWPs constrained the use of FWPs. For instance at ComTech, employees were required to be present at the firm during the hours of 10am to 4pm, which in turn contradicted with the FWP option of working from home that was offered formally through their HR policies. The reciprocal exchanges in Rigid firms are time-oriented and reflect the owners’ mistrust of their employees. The owners’ direct controlling strategies contrast with the responsible autonomy strategy that is often

promoted and found in knowledge-intensive firms, like in the IT industry (see Chapter 2). This finding will be discussed and elaborated on further in subsequent chapters.

Table 4.4: The Workplace Culture Dimensions of Rigid and Flexible Firms

SOURCE: Average hours per week are from the web-survey data. Overtime hours and reciprocity are from the interview data.

Case pseudonym by firm-type Inter- national case no. Average number of hours per week (mean) Occurrence of overtime hours worked (often, occasionally or rarely) Forms of reciprocity present (conditions associated with the use of FWPs)

Rigid firms

E&C Solutions 101 50.4 Often owe-back-time

face-time

FC Software 104 49.3 Often owe-back-time

Consyst 107 44.1 Occasional owe-back-time

face-time

WebBytes 111/9 42.9 Rare owe-back-time

ComTech 117 43 Occasional owe-back-time

face-time

Flexible firms

Net Host 102 46.8 Often get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility Custom

Software

103 35.0 Rare get-work-done

Biz Software 105 38.5 Rare get-work-done

Online Design 106 42.7 Often flexibility-for-flexibility

GP Solutions 108 41.5 Rare get-work-done

A&S Systems 109 37.8 Rare get-work-done

SoftBytes 110 43.4 Occasional get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility

SysSolutions 112 47.9 Often flexibility-for-flexibility

IT Consulting 113 45.1 Occasional get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility

PSIT 114 37.3 Occasional get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility Interface

Consulting

115 41.4 Occasional get-work-done

flexibility-for-flexibility

Advanced Chips 116 44.2 Rare get-work-done

Table 4.4 reveals variation among Flexible firms with regard to the occurrence of overtime hours and the reciprocal exchanges that take place for the use of FWPs. Most

striking are the differences based on the regularity of overtime. According to the literature recently reviewed above, this case attribute has implications for employees’ experiences of FWPs. Hence, I classify Flexible firms as having workplace cultures that are either “favourable” or “contradictory” to the use of FWPs. Three firms are considered Flexible/contradictory and include Online Design, Net Host, and SysSolutions. In these firms, overtime hours were frequently worked by employees. The remaining nine firms are classified as Flexible/favourable because overtime hours were occasionally-to-rarely worked. These firms include Custom Software, Biz Software, GP Solutions, A&S

Systems, SoftBytes, IT Consulting, PSIT, Interface Consulting, and Advanced Chips. The workplace cultures of Flexible/favourable firms had a more balanced view of individuals’ working and non-working lives compared to Flexible/contradictory firms.

The preceding two analyses have revealed three firm-types that emerged from the data based on firms’ flexibility and workplace cultures with respect to working time. These firm-types include Rigid, Flexible/contradictory, and Flexible/favourable firms. I now turn to examine the characteristics across these types.