Comment on the accuracy of the

following statement: “Flexibility is good

for employers, and bad for workers.”
BH2301 Human Resource Management

Shreya Pandey-k0851406
/2009

Word count: 1,076

Table of content:
Title Page Number
Introduction 2
Flexible Workplace 3
Implications of numerical flexibility 4
Versatile Workforce 5
Conclusion 7
References 8
Introduction
The Oxford English dictionary defines flexibility as the ability to adapt to changes to suit

new conditions. Karuppan (2006) defined flexibility as “the ability to adapt to changing

needs both effectively and efficiently.” The importance of flexibility to the Human

Resource Management is in the line of increment since the realization of its remarkable

ability to affect the effectiveness and efficiency of a particular organization.

But, before the realization of its importance, the concept of flexibility was considered to

be preposterous and inane. Flexibility was poorly understood, rarely quantified, and its

implementation was not in synchronization with the organizational objectives (Karuppan,

2006). Gaining its significance slowly, flexibility now acts a motivational tool for both

employers and employees, which rewards them occasionally. Of course, it has its pats

and punches, which indicates that at any given point of time it can yield either positive or

negative results for either employers or employees.

But a short list of con is no hurdle for flexibility gaining its importance. The different

types of flexibilities also have their share of role in the building important. The role of the

types of flexibility is neatly demarcated, which further explicates the effects it has on

employers and employees. But even in this building importance, it should be noted that

different types of flexibility work best in different circumstances for both employers and

employees (Karuppan, 2006).

Flexible Workplace
The extensive analysis conducted by Richman et al. (2008) on the database of a multi-

organization have shown that perceived flexibility and supportive work-life policies are

related to greater employee engagement and longer than expected retention.

The employers have come to realize that effective implementation and provision of

supportive work-life policies and workplace flexibility has resulted in a positive influence

on valued business outcomes. These outcomes include increase in employee engagement

and satisfaction, talent retention, employee commitment, and improving the efficiency

and effectiveness of the organization and thereby reducing turnover and increasing

productivity (Richman et al., 2008). Workplace flexibility acts as a tool to help

employers attract, engage and retain the very best (Sladek & Hollander, 2009).

Workplace flexibility allows employees to be able to float in and out of the various roles

in their lives (Sladek & Hollander, 2009). It influences the decision to join an

organization and its access results in higher level of job satisfaction. Flexible work

practices have been viewed by employees as a valuable tool to facilitate work-life

management and reduce work-life conflicts (Richman et al., 2008).

Implications of Numerical Flexibility
Outsourcing and subcontracting, which can be complied under numerical flexibility, are a

far more common means of securing flexibility than organizational collaboration,

notwithstanding their negative impact. Cappelli & Neumark (2004) cited in

Van Jaarsveld, Kwon, & Frost (2008) referred numerical flexibility as “the adjustment of

work force in response to changes in demand, skill requirements and employment need

through hiring, dismissal, or the use of non-standard contracts.”

On the one hand, numerical flexibility facilitates the employers to hire staff only when

needed and thus adjusting work force size as per requirements (Van Jaarsveld, Kwon, &

Frost, 2008) and on the other it demands a constant monitoring on the part of employers

in case of unskilled or semi-skilled staff (Grugulis, Vincent & Hebson, 2003).

As for the employees, it allows them to focus on the job or task on hand, without having

to perform the administrative functions in the organization. This removal of participation

becomes a key motivational factor for employees to stay on contract. But the rigidly

codified contract jobs leave no room for employee discretion, suffocating skills which

could be quite frustrating to all workers, skilled or otherwise. Plethora of different

working arrangements disturbs and disrupts employees’ expectations of their work.

Ambiguities arise for employees with the existence of a network (Grugulis, Vincent &

Hebson, 2003).

Versatile Workforce
According to Van Jaarsveld, Kwon, & Frost (2008), “functional flexibility refers to a

transformation in how work is organized and the expansion of work-force skills through

cross-training, and is characterized by the use of self-directed teams, quality

improvement teams, and a greater extent of discretion granted to employees in how they

complete their work”. Job enlargement and cross-training are the pillars of labour

flexibility (Karuppan, 2006).

The knowledge and experience that the employees obtain from cross-training is put to

organizational use to obtain the required target. Since the employees start becoming

multi-skilled, they can be deployed as and where required. This deployment helps in

covering the absence of fellow employees. Also, the work is completed on time and not

left pending (Karuppan, 2006).

Flexibility cannot be measured and hence its results cannot be quantified and are unclear.

The vigorous investment or the cost incurred in flexible technologies may prove to be a

bad investment decision. Penalties of cost and time are likely to emerge, since one cannot
expect equal performance across all tasks in terms of productivity and equality

(Karuppan, 2006).

Job enlargement and cross-training have helped workers get a sense of actual contribution

and a better understanding of the overall production process of an organization.

Flexibility, for the workforce, signifies the capacity to perform multiple tasks (Karuppan,

2006). Demand for the multi-skilled employees could increase. The employees gain

experience in different job sectors within the organization.

On the flip side, since worker performance may not be assessed in terms of flexibility,

they might be unaware of its importance, thereby undermining the benefits of flexibility

that can actually help the workers enjoy their jobs. Studies have revealed that the more

the workers were cross-trained, the more they get trapped in a forgetting and relearning

circle. Workers sent to different departments may not be able to exhibit the same level of

proficiency across jobs (Karuppan, 2006).

Conclusion
It would not be appropriate to make sweeping generalizations about the significance and

effectiveness of flexibility since not all kinds of flexibility will necessarily have the same

impact on both employers and employees, and yield the same result for different

organizations at a given point of time. Also, changing market conditions, fluctuations in

the demand and supply of services, production, labor etc. determine the kind of flexibility

required in the work-process or the work-force.

Even though the employers and the employees are an integral part of an organization,

their needs and interests are different and so does the idea of flexibility. The success of a

business enterprise lies in recognizing and addressing to this difference and striving to

bring about reconciliation between them. Flexibility can go a long way in achieving the

relationship of partnership between employers and employees in meeting with the

targeted organizational goals with a lot of sensitivity towards the employees’ socio-

cultural needs.
References
1. Grugulis, I., Vincent, S., & Hebson, G. (2003). ‘The rise of the ‘network

organisation’ and the decline of discretion’. Human Resource Management Journal,

13(2), 45-59 Business Source Premier [Online]. Available

at:  http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=buh&AN=11510446&site=bsi-live  [Accessed: 30 October 2009].

2. Jeffery Hill, E., Grzywacz, J. G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V. L., Matz-Costa, C.,

Shulkin, S., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2008). ‘Defining and conceptualizing workplace

flexibility’. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), pp.149-163 Business Source Premier

[Online]. Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/bsi/detail?

vid=4&hid=103&sid=85005b1f-34f6-4724-91d4b39e803e6cac

%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU

%3d#db=buh&AN=32708205 [Accessed: 3 November 2009].

3. Karuppan, C. M. (2006). ‘Labor Flexibility: Too much of a good thing?’ Industrial

Management, 48(5), 13-18 Business Source Premier [Online]. Available at:

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=buh&AN=22322083&site=bsi-live   [Accessed: 30 October 2009].

4. Richman, A. L., Civian, J. T., Shannon, L. L., Hill, J., & Brennan, R. T. (2008). ‘The

relationship between perceived flexibility, supportive work-life policies, and use of

formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and

expected retention’. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 183-197 Business Source

 Premier [Online]. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=buh&AN=32708212&site=bsi-live  [Accessed: 30 October 2009].

5. Sladek, C., & Hollander, E. (2009). ‘Where is everyone? The rise of workplace

flexibility’. Benefits Quarterly, 25(2), pp.17-22 Business Source Premier [Online].

Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/bsi/detail?vid=4&hid=103&sid=85005b1f-

34f6-4724-91d4-b39e803e6cac

%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU

%3d#db=buh&AN=39976834 [Accessed: 7 November 2009].

6. Van Jaarsveld, D. D., Kwon, H., & Frost, A. C. (2008). ‘The effects of institutional

and organizational characteristics on work force flexibility: evidence from call centers

in three liberal market economies’. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 62(4),

pp.573-601 Business Source Premier [Online]. Available at:

http://web.ebscohost.com/bsi/detail?vid=3&hid=103&sid=7ecd6fab-8077-4b2d-

b145-190c14229eca%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU

%3d#db=buh&AN=42213674 [Accessed: 3 November 2009].