Aequus Partners' Diversity and Flexibility e-newsletter, April 2009

Dear Colleagues

The issue of work/family balance has been on the agenda of government policy makers and employers of choice for some years, and in this newsletter we explore legislative changes in Europe and Australia to close the gap between policy and practice for those employers lagging behind.

Exciting new research from IBM shows that these legal imperatives will not cause a detriment to business as workplace flexibility creates win/win outcomes for employees and businesses around the globe.  A case study from an Australian pharmaceutical company further demonstrates the reality of these benefits in a business with high levels of workplace flexibility.

In this newsletter we profile (i) new legislation to provide (some) Australian employees with a “right to request” flexibility; (ii) an analysis of the effectiveness of the UK’s “right to request” legislation – in comparison to other Western nations; (iii) international research on the positive business (eg productivity) and employee (eg reduced work/life conflict) outcomes associated with working from home and schedule flexibility; and (iv) a case study on some unexpected business benefits of workplace flexibility in a pharmaceutical company.

In particular we look at:

1. AUS legislation:  Right to request flexibility  This month new industrial legislation formally commenced in Australia which includes ten National Employment Standards.  One of those Standards provides (some) employees with a right to request a flexible work arrangement.  This Standard will come into operation on 1 January 2010 and prompt a significant change to the way in which flexible work practices are negotiated at the workplace.  We discuss the terms of the legislation and how employers might ensure compliance.
   
   
2. UK report:  Flexible working policies: A comparative review  This research examines the effectiveness of the UK approach to facilitating workplace flexibility, particularly through the UK’s ‘right to request’ legislation, in comparison with a number of other Western countries.  The report author, Hegewisch, concludes that although the legislation has helped to increase the flexibility options available to employees in the UK, it is not the magic bullet to reducing work-family conflict.  In all countries, women continue to be more likely to take-up flexible working options than men and are more likely to use them because of caring responsibilities.  Flexible working, and associated rights contribute to work-family balance, however, adequate childcare for parents and a cap on working time for employers overall provide important incentives for flexible working.  Critically, managerial training and support is identified as essential to the success of flexibility policy and legislative objectives.
   
   
3. US research:  Workplace flexibility, work hours and work/life conflict in a global context:  Finding an extra day a week (or two) around the world  This exciting new research on IBM by Hill and Jacob (Brigham Young University) and Ferris (IBM) demonstrates that workplace flexibility for full-time employees (namely working from home and schedule fit) reduces work/life conflict and enables employees to be more productive.  In essence the researchers found that increased work hours are associated with increased work/life conflict, but that working from home and schedule flexibility reduces work/life conflict and enables employees to work longer before experiencing work/life difficulty.  In particular working from home enabled employees to work four hours per week longer, schedule flexibility enabled employees to work 7 hours per week more, and for those who primarily worked from home and had high schedule flexibility there was an even greater benefit compared with those who did not.  These outcomes (with one exception) held true for employees and businesses located in 75 countries grouped into four regional areas (East, West-developing, West-affluent and the United States), suggesting that a win/win outcome is a global phenomenon.
   
   
4. AUS case study:  Flexibility at Aspen Pharmacare  The Australian arm of Aspen Pharmacare has structured its workforce such that three-quarters of employees work flexibly.  In the Sydney head office, work is shared to ensure all facets of a particular team’s tasks are completed, and in the sales force, representatives are given complete trust to decide when, how and where to work.  An additional intrigue in this company is the employment of mature age workers to the extent that the average age of sales representatives is 60 and the oldest is 83!  This case study describes the flexibility and business outcomes experienced at Aspen Pharmacare.

1.  AUS legislation:  Right to request flexibility

On 7 April 2009 the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) formally commenced.  The Fair Work Act (FW) is industrial legislation which regulates Australian workplace relationships and includes ten National Employment Standards.  One of those Standards provides (some) employees with the right to request a flexible work arrangement.  This Standard will come into operation on 1 January 2010 and prompt a significant change to the way in which flexible work practices are negotiated at the workplace.  In particular we predict a higher take-up of flexible work practices by eligible employees and greater transparency, consistency and thoughtfulness in decision-making by employers.

1.1  Provision

Section 65 of the FW Act provides that an eligible employee has a right to request of their employer access to a flexible work arrangement.  Whilst such arrangements are not defined formally in the FW Act, examples are included in the “note” to the section, namely changes in work hours, patterns of work and location.

1.2  Who is eligible?

The National Employment Standards are minimum terms and conditions that apply to all national system employees (eg an employee employed by a corporation or by the Federal Government).

Under section 65(1) employees who are parents of (or care for) children under-school age, or a child under 18 who has a disability, may request a “change in working arrangements”.

The provision applies to both permanent and casual employees.  In particular an employee must have completed 12 months continuous service before making this request, or if the employee is employed on a “casual” basis, the employee must be a long term casual and have an expectation of continued employment.

1.3  What does the provision require?

The request:  The employee must make a request in writing demonstrating: (i) the reason for the change (ie how the requested change will assist the employee to care for their child); and (ii) the nature of the change.

The response:  The employer must respond in writing within 21 days of the request.  The response must identify whether the request is granted or refused, and if refused the response must detail the reasons why.  These reasons must demonstrate that the refusal was made on “reasonable business grounds”.

1.4  What are reasonable business grounds?

The Standard does not define “reasonable business grounds”, nevertheless a body of Australian case law on family/carers’ responsibilities discrimination suggests that relevant issues will include (i) the nature of the role; (ii) the impact of the request on business/team operations; and (iii) associated costs as well as the benefit to the individual and the business (eg turnover and productivity).

1.5  Enforcement

The FW Act provides that all national system employers must comply with the National Employment Standards, including the provision that an employer provide reasons for accepting or refusing to grant a request for flexibility.  The maximum penalty for non-compliance is AUS$6,600.  There is no capacity however for a review of the reasons provided by an employer to ensure that they meet the “reasonable business grounds” test (this is specifically excluded by section 44(2)).  The Standard is thus designed to provide a platform for a conversation between an employee and employer, and a mechanism for transparent and consistent decision-making.  Having said this, no doubt an aggrieved employee will seek to use an employer’s written response as the basis for a family/carers’ responsibilities discrimination complaint under State or Federal legislation.

1.6  What should employers do to ensure compliance?

Given the likelihood that employers will be held to account for their decisions in relation to an employee’s request for flexibility, it would be prudent for employers to educate their managers about the factors to be taken into account when determining such a request.  A checklist of factors would include:

1. Whether a work/family policy exists within the organisation;
2. Whether a similar request has been granted elsewhere in the business;
3. The nature of the role and key performance indicators;
4. Options for change (eg including modifications to the request);
5. The impact of the change on the team/business unit; and
6. The cost of the change vs the cost of not making the requested change (eg turnover).

In the spirit of evidence-based decision-making, consideration of whether there are “reasonable business grounds” to accept/reject a request might also prompt an employer to introduce the requested change on a trial basis, ie to determine the practicality of the requested change.  Finally, in order to ensure that the employer’s assessment is perceived as reasonable a prudent employer would engage in a consultation process with the employee which demonstrates an open-mind towards the employee’s needs and encourages mutuality.  Clearly just saying “No” to a request because it has never been done before will not be sufficient to meet the spirit of the legislation.

For more information on the “right to request” Standard and management training strategies, email Juliet Bourke..


2.  UK report:  Flexible working policies:  A comparative review

2.1  Introduction and background

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the (UK) Equality and Human Rights Commission recently released a report assessing the effectiveness of the UK approach to facilitating workplace flexibility, particularly through the UK’s ‘right to request’ legislation.  Following a comparative analysis of the approach taken in other Western countries, the report author, Ariane Hegewisch identifies the conditions necessary to maximize the effectiveness of such legislation (including managerial training).  She concludes that the legislation has increased the flexibility options available to employees in the UK, however it is not the magic bullet to reducing work-family conflict and additional supports are required to create systemic change.  The report is very comprehensive and this note provides a summary of key findings.

2.2  Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the UK experience with policy and legal approaches in other Western countries.

2.3  Method

The evaluation was conducted primarily by a review of the literature on rights to alternative work arrangements in other countries via policy documents, contact with national experts and stakeholders.

2.4  Findings

By way of summary, the report found that: (i) differences in the social and economic context of each country influenced the framing of their legislation; (ii) the availability of workplace flexibility in the UK has increased; (iii) there remains slow progress in regards to the take-up of flexibility in managerial positions; (iv) litigation has been more limited than expected and avenues for redress differ for men and women; and (v) line managers are critical in the success of flexibility, and training, tools and resources are essential for their engagement.

These findings are explored in more detail below in terms of (i) the legislative context; (ii) access to flexible working in practice; (iii) professional and managerial jobs; (iv) men; (v) long hours and work intensification; (vi) litigation; and (vii) employer perspectives.

2.5  Discussion

2.5.1  Legislative context

A review of 20 OECD countries in 2007 found that all bar one had laws facilitating the change in number or scheduling of employee hours.  These laws reveal that workplace change has lagged behind demographic change resulting in lower labour force participation or marginalisation of those who cannot participate in full-time work.  This trend has increasingly become the concern of public policy, leading to legislative and other policy initiatives to increase the speed of change.

Legislative approaches to workplace flexibility can be broadly differentiated into three groups:

1. Statutes which make rights to flexible working conditional to specified activities, eg the care of young children (eg UK);
2. Those which provide access to flexibility not as an employment right, but as part of protection against discrimination on the basis of sex or care-giving responsibilities (eg some states of Australia); and
3. Those which provide flexible working rights to all employees, irrespective of their reason for seeking change (eg Belgium, France, Germany).

A summary of the statutes for the UK and some European countries include:

1. UK:  The right to request, and ‘duty to consider’, flexible working were introduced in April 2003 to provide employees with parental responsibility for children under the age of 6 (or 18 if the child has a disability) with a right to request a change in how many hours, when or where they work, and to have such a request seriously considered.  In April 2006, the coverage was extended to employees caring for a dependent adult.  A second extension (introduced in April 2009) broadened coverage further to parents of children under 16.  These changes are permanent contractual changes to the work arrangement.  The UK statute differs from others in that it broadens the scope of workplace flexibility beyond part-time work, in particular allowing arrangements which vary, but do not reduce, the number of hours worked.
2. Norway:  Parents are entitled to paid parental leave for one-year, and can combine this with working between 50-90% of their usual working hours for up to three years.  Parents of children under 10 have the right to reduce their working hours on welfare grounds and may be exempt from working overtime.
3. Belgium:  Parents can access full-time job-protected parental leave of 3-14 months and combine this with working 80% of usual work hours.  Every employee has the right to a Time Credit (sabbatical) of one year (partially paid) leave which can be extended for up to five years at 80% of usual hours.
4. Sweden:  Parents have a right to reduce their working day by 75% until the youngest child turns 8.
5. New Zealand:  Similar to the UK, however, all caregivers are covered, not only spouses, relatives or co-residents.
6. Australia:  Currently two States include flexible working as a direct employment right to be protected against discrimination through the relevant Anti-Discrimination legislation.  In 2010, new National Employment Standards will introduce the “right to request flexibility” nationally (see Article 1 above for more detail).
7. The Netherlands, France & Germany:  These countries have a right to request reduced hours for all employees, regardless of the reason for seeking change.  A change to part-time work presents a permanent change in the employee contract and there is a limit to the number of times an employee can make a request.  There is also a legally enforceable request for increased working hours or full-time employment.  In addition, in Germany, parents can work between 15 and 30 hours per week for up to three years and are entitled to return to an equivalent job.

Conclusion:  Soft rights, hard rights and employer rights
In all jurisdictions, employers can refuse the request for flexibility on reasonable business grounds, however the UK design is regarded as a “soft” law.  This provides an employee with a right to a process although as long as the employer follows the process correctly, the employee does not have the right to appeal refusal at an employment tribunal.  In other countries, various avenues of redress are available to employees who perceive the employer’s refusal of a flexibility request as unfair.

2.5.2  Access to flexible working in practice

This section of the report discusses how far workplace practices have changed as a result of these flexible working statutes.  Hegewisch argues that it is important to recognise that different countries have different motivations and drivers for the development of their particular legislation (eg legislation could be directed at reducing unemployment through sharing work, addressing work-life balance, encouraging women to return to the workforce following childbirth or to increase labour supply).

The UK experience: The right to request legislation is widely credited with having made a significant contribution to the increased availability of flexibility for employees in the UK.  A number of surveys outlined in the report suggest that a great many more employers now offer flexibility than had previously done so (under a quarter in 1998 to more than nine out of ten in 2008).  However, it has not resulted in an increase in the proportion of employees requesting change; this remains constant at 17%.  There has also been an “evening out” in the distribution of requests between different forms of flexible working (ie part-time and flex-time).

There is evidence to suggest that the change in law has increased the likelihood that employers will respond positively to a request.  The majority of requests are accepted, with an equal proportion resulting in partial acceptance.  Research conducted in 2007 showed that those who currently had a statutory right to request (ie parents with young children or a child with a disability) were more likely to approach their employers than others, but so had a fifth of employees with older children and a sixth of those without children.  It is therefore, not clear whether the higher share of requests from the covered group are a consequence of their position under law, or the result of other changes in this group.

Unfortunately, the research found there is little data to explain what happens to employees whose request is rejected (ie do they face retaliation, leave their job or continue as before?).

In regards to those employees in the UK who reduce their working hours:

• evidence suggests that the objective of the ‘right to request’ legislation to increase the ability of working mothers to continue at the same level of responsibility and with the same employer has not been substantially met; and
• analysis of pay data in the UK largely fails to find a positive impact of the ‘right to request’ legislation on reducing the pay gap between part and full-time workers.

2.5.3  Professional and managerial jobs

People working full-time in managerial jobs are less likely to make a flexibility request in the UK.  A significant proportion of workplaces which formally allow a transition from full to part-time jobs exclude managers.  One of the highest proportions of full-time management is found in retail, with almost one-fifth of employers making full-time work a condition of management positions.  Senior staff often have greater scope for flexibility in when they work, but little scope to reduce the number of hours they work.  This trend is particularly prevalent in Germany where a recent survey of HR practitioners found the majority rejected the possibility of reduced hours in management jobs.  Both the German and UK Governments have produced best practice initiatives to increase the acceptability of part-time employment in managerial positions.

2.5.4  Men and flexible working rights

All laws discussed in this report are framed as being equally open to men and women, however the UK picture suggests a traditional paradigm of greater numbers of women making requests, particularly by those with young children.  However, because there are more men in the workforce than women, men’s share of requests may be more equal than first thought.  43% of all requests (not only those covered under the legislation) were made by men and the most common reason was for childcare.  Men were, however, much more likely to make a request to return to education than women.

Finally, the distribution of requests for part-time and flexi-time work is almost reversed between men and women.  Given the greater number of non-care giving requests, it is not surprising men face a considerably higher rate of rejection than women, although there is no data available to examine the types of requests which are rejected.  Typically, in the UK, following childbirth a mother will reduce, and the father will increase, their working hours, however Dutch fathers appear to be reducing their hours at a greater rate than those in other countries.  Studies of the Belgium sabbatical leave process show a rapid increase in use by men and women; women are more likely to take the leave for caring responsibilities, whereas men were more likely to use it for education purposes or to build up a business.

2.5.5  Long hours and work intensification

In many European countries restrictions to work hours have been introduced in an effort to stem the trend of long hours and intense work demands.  In the UK, however, policies aimed at facilitating individual adjustments in work arrangements play a greater role in addressing work-life balance.  The report discusses research which shows that in most cases for Germany, Denmark and France working time restrictions have increased opportunities for workers to access flexibility and the figures in those countries are substantially higher than in the UK.

2.5.6  Litigation vis flexible working

In the UK very few claims to employment tribunals have been directly related to the ‘right to request’ legislation, and the cases which have proceeded suggest that the statute has played a role in challenging employer prejudices, for example “we cannot employ anyone in this position part-time”.  The majority of cases lodged at tribunals are not directly related to flexibility, but it may be a secondary cause of complaint in a sex discrimination case.  The report outlines two recent UK cases as examples of this type of complaint.  The combination of claims regarding flexibility and sex discrimination have meant that men have fewer avenues for complaint in the UK as they are unable to claim indirect sex discrimination in relation to flexible working and they are less likely to claim direct sex discrimination.

The report outlines recent cases taken to court in other European countries.  In the Netherlands and Germany, there has not been an increase in cases taken to court as a result of their working time adjustment laws, and those in court were mainly due to employers failing to show adequate business reasons for refusal.  The majority of claims have been made by women, as in the UK, and although there have been successes by men in cases in Germany, there are clear limits for men wanting to work part-time in traditional male jobs.  In regards to Australian law, carer discrimination legislation provides an obligation for employers to reasonably accommodate care-giving needs (see article 1, above, for more detail on current Australian legislation).

In all jurisdictions, the law has helped employees challenge blanket refusals from employers who cannot demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to assess a request for flexibility.  Overall, the number of cases brought to court were lower than had been predicted.

2.5.7  Employer perspectives about flexible working

(a)  Business benefits
Literature summarised in the report supports the positive effects of flexibility for business, including increased profitability, productivity, attraction and retention of staff.  Despite those benefits, the real distribution of flexibility remains uneven across businesses.  Prior to the implementation of the statutes, fears included a rush of requests, an increase in the number of complaints and the costs associated with work changes, however these fears have remained largely unfounded.  In the UK and other countries, the introduction of flexible working rights has been largely positive or at least unproblematic.

(b)  Availability of flexible working
In the UK there has been an increase in the proportion of employers offering flexible working, however a substantial minority continue to be unaware of the ‘right to request’ statute.  In addition, private sector employers and those employing more men than women are less likely to introduce flexible working than public sector and female dominated organisations.

There are differences in availability across sectors, and differences in the amount of information, options and policies available to employees across organisations.  Research outlined in the report suggests manager knowledge and implementation is variable and that line-manager support and facilitation of flexible working is critical to its success.  The ‘right to request’ legislation has enabled human resource departments to develop a process and criteria for managing flexible working requests, yet the technical know-how and management of flexible workers remains a key challenge.  In practice, many managers report not having the resources or training they need to implement the flexibility requested.

Research about an online training programme taken by line managers, followed by group discussions found that employees working with those trained managers were more motivated and had reduced level of health and stress absences that those whose managers had not been trained.  Similarly, initiatives aimed at increasing flexibility at a senior level have been focused on designing managerial capability tools to support success.

(c)  Small and medium-sized employers and flexibility
Small employers are more likely to provide flexible working informally, but for medium-sized employers, there is often a difficulty in being too small to set up a formal process, but too big to rely on informality, resulting in problematic implementation.  In New Zealand and Germany (and recently Australia, refer to our newsletter of January 2009 for details of the Fresh Ideas for Work and Family programme), governments have been targeting small and medium-sized businesses with flexible working programmes.  They have been providing advice, case studies, solutions and resources for companies in implementing flexibility through research institutions, employer associations, trade unions and relevant foundations.

2.6  Conclusion

In this review of the UK ‘right to request’ legislation and other Western countries’ statutes, Hegewisch concludes:

• The UK approach differs from other countries in that it is not limited to the part-time/full-time work dimension; it offers more limited enforceability of flexible working rights; and requests lead to a permanent change in contract.
• The statutory framework matters, but it is not the “magic bullet” for changing gender specific flexible working patterns and women continue to be more likely to take-up flexibility than men.
• There is insufficient data to evaluate whether the ‘right to request’ legislation has achieved improved work-life balance for employees.
• Access to flexibility continues to be difficult at the senior levels of organisations, and whilst legal rights have provided some avenues of redress, full-time requirements for managerial work are still widespread.
• Of those cases which have been taken to tribunals, the types of cases have been quite similar in that they are related to employers showing insufficient consideration of requests, or because of purported unreasonable business costs associated with the change.
• Men are bringing a minority of claims, and men are disadvantaged by having fewer enforceable rights of redress.
• The UK is lagging behind other countries in terms of access to flexibility, although there has been considerable increase in the options offered by employers.  Progress is uneven across organisations, sectors and business size.
• Governments and institutions are working proactively to support and encourage employers to implement flexibility, to increase the capabilities of line managers.

Hegewisch concludes that the ‘right to request’ legislation is not a panacea for work/family conflict and childcare availability is still a major constraint on women’s workforce participation.  Hegewisch observes that the data profiled in this report were collected in times of tight labour markets and strong economic growth, and that the current recession may provide an impetus to flexible working as employers look for alternative options to wage increases to motivate employees.

For more information, see Hegewisch, A. (2009) Flexible Working Policies: A comparative review Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Research report 16  www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publicationsandresources/pages/publications.aspx


3.  US research:  Workplace flexibility, work hours and work/life conflict in a global context:  Finding an extra day a week (or two) around the world.

This month at the Community, Work and Family conference in Utrecht (Holland) Jeff Hill (Brigham Young University) presented a paper on his exciting research on the dual impact of workplace flexibility on work/life conflict and workplace productivity.  By analysing data from a survey of 24,436 employees across 75 countries, Hill, together with Jacob (Brigham Young University) and Ferris (IBM) found that workplace flexibility is related to reduced work/life conflict as well as a capacity to work longer hours (between ½ day and 2 days per week) before experiencing work/life difficulty.  In essence, Hill et al demonstrated the win/win benefits of a commitment to implementing workplace flexibility for all employee groups (ie beyond women with young children).  Whilst the findings held true (overall) for employees/businesses located in four regions (ie East, West-developing, West-affluent and the USA), slight differences between some regions will be of interest to global HR practitioners.

3.1  Aim

The aim of the research was to examine the relationship between workplace flexibility and work hours on work/life conflict.  In particular, the researchers examined whether an employee’s ability to primarily work from home and/or an employee’s perception about the degree to which they could control their work schedule, were related to (i) the number of hours worked; and (ii) an experience of work/life conflict.

3.2  Method

Data were drawn from the 2007 IBM Global Work and Life Issues Survey administered in 75 countries with 24,436 IBM respondents.  Questions covered work/life conflict (“How easy or difficult is it for you to manage the demands of your personal/family life”) and work hours (“How many hours per week do you typically work for IBM?”).  Respondents were categorised in terms of whether they primarily worked from home, and their perceptions about the degree to which they could control their schedule (“How much flexibility (personal control) do you have in scheduling when you do your work”?).  Notably schedule flexibility was assessed on the basis of perceived schedule flexibility, rather than the actual use of flexibility.

Data were also collected on gender, age and whether the employee had a child under 5 years old.

Innovatively the data were analysed in terms of a “break point”, ie the point at which 25% of the sample responded that they had a difficult or very difficult time managing their work/life demands.  This is an important distinction as it measures the point at which conflict is experienced by the worker, not the number of hours being worked.  For some employees this point is very high (eg >50 hours per week), whereas for others this may be lower, but the research was not looking at working hours per se, rather it was examining the point of work/life comfort for employees and how that is impacted with autonomy over schedule and work from home.

Comparisons were made between those employees who worked primarily from home and those who did not; those who reported high levels of flexibility with those with little or no flexibility; and those who both worked primarily from home and had a high flexibility with those who had neither.

Data were also analysed in terms of location, ie whether the employees in the 75 countries were located in the East (14 Asian countries with a collectivist culture), a West-developing country (ie 31 individualistic cultures with a per capita GDP of <$US20,000 per annum), a West-affluent country (ie 29 individualistic cultures with a per capita GDP of >$US 20,000 per annum) or the USA (an affluent country with an individualistic culture and limited governmental intervention).

All employees in the study worked on a full-time basis.

3.3  Findings

A baseline was created by making findings in relation to hours of work, the proportion of employees who experienced difficulty with work/life conflict overall and according to the country grouping.  Specific findings were then made in relation to (i) working from home; (ii) schedule flexibility; and (iii) the combined impact of working from home and schedule flexibility.  Additional findings were made in relation to the impact of children on women’s employment experiences.

1. Baseline:  One-third (31%) of employees reported difficulty with work/life conflict, from 37% in the East to 30% in the West-affluent countries.  Work hours were significantly related to work/life conflict for all regions, ie the greater the number of hours worked the more likely an employee was to report work/life conflict.
   
   
2. Working from home:  Whilst 15% of employees primarily worked from home, the range was more extreme: from 31% in the US to 2% in the East.
   
   In terms of the personal benefits, working from home was significantly related to reduced work/life conflict for all regions except the East (where it was hypothesized that small houses make working from home impractical).
   
   In terms of the business benefits, the “breakpoint” for employees working primarily from home was 50 hours per week, compared with 46 hours for employees not working from home.  That is, it was reported by employees primarily working from home that they could work an additional 4 hours per week from home before it became difficult to manage the demands of work and personal/family life.  This result was even more pronounced for those in West-affluent countries (50:42 hours) and in West-developing countries (61:45 hours).  This suggests the significant benefit in implementing working from home strategies in these countries.
   
   
3. Schedule flexibility:  Overall 36% reported high schedule flexibility, ranging from 38% in West-affluent countries to 31% in West-developing countries.  Schedule flexibility was significantly related to reduced work/life conflict in all regions and the affect was even stronger than for working from home.  Those with high flexibility were only one third as likely (13%) to report work/life difficulty compared with those with low flexibility (35%).
   
   In terms of business benefits, a perception that an employee can control their work hours led to a greater capacity for hours to be worked without work/life conflict.  Overall the breakpoint for those with high schedule flexibility was 54 hours per week compared with 37 hours for those with low flexibility.
   
   
4. Combined working from home and schedule flexibility:  The combined effect of working from home and schedule flexibility on reducing work/life conflict was even greater than for either in isolation.  Employees who primarily worked from home and reported high schedule flexibility reported a breakpoint of 58 hours per week compared to 38 hours per week with those who did not work at home and had low schedule flexibility.
   
   
5. Additional findings:  Particular groups experienced an emphasised impact of these general findings, eg women with young children.  In terms of working from home, the breakpoint analysis demonstrated that when women with young children primarily worked from home they experienced work/life difficulties at 41 hours per week, compared with a breakpoint of 30 hours for those not working from home.  In terms of schedule flexibility, the breakpoint analysis was 40 hours for those with high flexibility compared with 13 hours for those with low flexibility.  Finally only 17% experienced work/life difficulty if they worked from home and had a high level of schedule flexibility compared with 55% of non-working from home, low flexibility employees.

3.4  Conclusion

The study clearly demonstrates that workplace flexibility (namely working from home and schedule flexibility) is of benefit to individuals and businesses around the world because it reduces work/life conflict and enables employees to work longer before experiencing work/life difficulty.  Hill et al cautioned however that “all flexibility is not created equal”, and demonstrated a sliding scale of benefits in terms of the combined impact of schedule flexibility and working from home, followed by scheduled flexibility, followed by working from home. Hill et al also noted that whilst overall the findings held true across all countries, working from home had little or no positive impact in the East, suggesting that workplace flexibility policies may need to be nuanced for maximum effectiveness.

Hill et al postulated that one of the key reasons why working from home and schedule flexibility is related to reduced work/life conflict is the associated reduction in commuting time, especially during peak hour traffic.  The researchers also suggested that working from home may provide families with the option to live in more affordable housing areas, and we also suggest a benefit to the household budget in terms of reduced spending on private/public transport.  There may also be additional savings in terms of care costs, eg if an employee is enabled to work from home to provide low level care such as to an adolescent or elderly parent.

Finally, whilst the researchers observed the benefit of workplace flexibility to all employees regardless of their life stage, they noted the particular benefit for women with young children.

To obtain a copy of this paper email Jeff Hill at jeff_hill@byu.edu.


4.  AUS case study:  Flexibility at Aspen Pharmacare

At Aspen Pharmacare the workplace is marked by two distinct features; (i) nearly 75% of staff work flexibly, either part-time, from home, using flexible start and finish times, or a combination of all three; and (ii) the average age of the sales force is around 60, with the youngest sales representative aged 40 and the oldest age 83 (amounting to an accumulated 1480 years of experience!).  According to Greg Lan (the Managing Director) and Rob Koster (the Director of Sales and Marketing) Aspen’s high level of flexibility has shown demonstrable business outcomes in addition to the attraction/retention of diverse talent, including consistently meeting sales objectives and extremely high value customer relationships.  We interviewed Koster and Lan to find out what’s going on.

4.1  Background

Aspen Pharmacare is a South African based company which commenced operation in 2001 in Australia.  The Australian arm employs 79 staff across sales, service and management roles, and of the 53 sales and marketing staff, 38 work flexibly (part-time with flexible hours).  The company has a portfolio of products which generate current annual sales of around $150 million and are owned by the Aspen Group and also licensed by other companies, including pharmaceutical multinationals.

The head office is based in Sydney and every state has a storage facility so that interstate employees work can from a “regional home office”.  There are 26 people in the head office who work in supply, accounts, finance and regulatory affairs, and of these staff, 8 are full-time and the remainder work flexibly.  Everybody in head office “multi-tasks” (eg by answering a ringing phone or responding to a customer when needed) rather than responding according to a rigid hierarchical task allocation.

4.2  Flexibility and maturity at work

Of the 53 sales representatives at Aspen, 38 work part-time, also accessing work from home and/or flexible start and finish times.  The organisation provides workstations at the Sydney office, but when and where sales staff complete their work is up to the individual.  A very high level of trust and autonomy is afforded to staff at Aspen who are allocated their customers and defined sales territories and left to decide how best to conduct their sales strategy depending on the number of days they work.  When workload becomes too high, or employees want more work, they can negotiate a change.  This model differs markedly from many other pharmaceutical companies where flexibility in the sales force is restricted by historical cultural barriers (eg head count) which dictate a requirement for full-time sales staff.

Interestingly, within head office, where a high proportion of staff work flexibly, each team shares the workload according to capacity and hours.  So, for example, a team of five in a particular department may all work part-time, but structure their days, hours and workload to ensure that all tasks are covered and deliverables are met.  Rather than “job-share” Aspen has employed “work-share” as a job design strategy.

The mature age workforce at Aspen was the result of a strategic decision to employ people who had experience, a track-record, existing contacts and reliable relationships that they could bring with them to the job.  Frequently, the people applying for positions in the company who bring these attributes are also mature age, and highly motivated to continue working.  The company offers flexibility to respond to many of these people’s need to reduce their very heavy workloads whilst maintaining a good salary and interesting work.  Tax benefits associated with fewer hours often mean that an employee’s salary is still competitive despite working part-time.

4.3  The business outcomes

(i)  High quality customer relationships
Aspen has data which demonstrate the success of their sales force in comparison to their competitors.  A survey conducted in 2008 by CEGEDIM of Doctors assessing pharmaceutical sales representatives showed that Aspen ranked higher than many other companies on their objective and ethical behaviour, quality of relationships, flexible and adaptive behaviour and the ability to handle questions and objections.  Some sales staff at Aspen who service regional Australia actually stay with the Doctors they sell products to, rather than hotels, an example of the close personal relationships they have established over time.

(ii)  Achieving sales targets
Aspen consistently achieves its sales targets and their focus is very much on products which have a well-established and particular use, so the sales staff know where and how the products should sell.  Their sales strategy is deliberately non-aggressive, they provide the information without pushing and because of many of their long-term relationships, individual sales staff know the products a particular customer will want.

(iii)  Positive work environment
Staff concentrate on their core activities at Aspen and because the company is small and flexible, sales staff spend only essential time on administration and additional activities.  The work environment is positive and employees can discuss their flexibility requirements openly with colleagues and management.  All internal salaries for sales staff are equal, so people can move around, take-up or reduce their workload without the hierarchical constraints found in more rigid workforce structures.  According to Lan and Koster salary is not the driving motivational factor for staff, rather work-life balance, work satisfaction and customer relationships are the drivers for engagement.

4.4  Conclusion

The organisational model of Aspen Pharmacare is unique in the Australian pharmaceutical industry and there are elements of it which are made possible because of size and autonomy from their global parent and which may not be possible in a larger Australian pharmaceutical.  However, in terms of the mindset and culture around flexibility, the elements of openness, responsiveness, trust and autonomy within the organisation could be useful lessons for other companies employing a sales workforce who are struggling with flexibility for this group.

For more information about Aspen Pharmacare, go to www.aspenpharma.com.au.  Thanks to Greg Lan (Managing Director) and Rob Koster (Director of Sales and Marketing) for sharing their experiences.


Regards,

Juliet Bourke and Dr Graeme Russell
Partners
Aequus Partners
www.aequus.com.au

If you do not wish to receive information from Aequus Partners via email, please let us know by emailing Juliet Bourke.