Flexible Workplaces: the New Trend - Case Study Example

Evaluation and analysis case study Flexible workplaces: the new trend Name of Student: Student No: Course: Date: INTRODUCTION The workplace in the 21st century has shifted its focus to the performance of employees as the primary asset of any organisation. Different flexible working models continue to evolve in tandem with the dynamics of the market requirements from the wishes of Baby Boomers to the predilections of Generation Y. New techniques must be developed to improve and measure performance which means that skills in problem solving and creativity will achieve greater prominence (Nicolson and Nairn, 2006). A powerful tool to maximise both individual and organisational efficiency in the contemporary workplace, is flexibility. There are several changes in the demands of the working environment that take their toll on employees’ lives. In order to adapt to these changes and better manage the development strategies of organisations, it behoves workers to improve their efficiency and output via smart ways of working and living. This is advantageous for the company, as well as the employees (Clark, 2009). Acquisition of new management tools in the new dynamic workplace will be mandatory for every business executive in order to devise more flexible working places in order to encompass the needs of diverse staff, many of whom will be increasingly part time. In order to achieve this improvement in output and efficiency, human resource managers have given a great deal of thought to the motivation of workers. The average worker is said to spend half their waking hours in the office and therefore in order to maximise their motivation, material rewards need to be augmented by other ‘perks’ such as challenging or interesting tasks to perform and a healthy work/life balance. The effective manager therefore comes up with job designs that take all these aspects into account (Kreitner, 1986). This essay will seek to examine how flexibility works in the workplace; whether it has led to increased efficiency in work output, motivated workers more or benefited the organisation in any way. This will be done by answering a series of questions within our discussion by which we will hope to obtain the answers we seek. DISCUSSION The Sydney Morning Herald (2009) in its executive style section featured an article on the flexible workplace as a new trend. The article featured Olympic silver medallist James Marburg and how he manages to combine rowing practise with working as a communications adviser for a bank. The article stated that almost 2.5 million Australian employees take their work home with them for various reasons with 8% of the population apparently working more from home than anywhere else. The reasons for this will be discussed below. I. MECHANISTIC VS. ORGANIC ORGANISATIONS. The concept of structural organisation has been laid out in several ways and reveals a systems viewpoint of organisations as made up of elements which are interrelated and amalgamate to form a unit that still reflects individual characteristics (Checkland, 1999). The Mechanistic structure is adopted by organisations that operate under the premise that a) organisations are rational bodies. b) Designing an organisation is scientific in nature. c) Individuals are economic entities (Burnes, 2000). This implies that there is a four dimensional element to the structure of the organisation; clarity within the hierarchy (Wright & McMahm, 1992); Decision is a bureaucratic process that follows chain of command and is finally revealed to the workforce (Ahmed, 1998a); departmental integrity is maintained at all time with no intermingling of work designations (Ahmed, 1998a); All power and decision making concentrated at the top of the management chain (Hankinson, 1999); the structure is very formal with little room for individual initiative (Ahmed, 19998a); communication is not free flowing – knowledge is restricted. Organic structure on the other hand views the organisation as comparable to a living organism in which elements interrelate and compete. The overarching philosophy of this structure is that; a) emotion is inherent to individuals. b) An organisation is a cooperative, communal structure. c) Organisations contain an informal framework that has systems and standards as well as formal rules and regulations (Burnes, 2000). This organic framework can be broken down into the following dimensional components; hierarchy is minimised with emphasis on team work and decision-making delegated horizontally and cooperation across functions encouraged (Hedlund & Rolander, 1990). There is interdepartmental mingling to facilitate teamwork amongst various designations (Cross, 2000); empowerment of employees to fully participate in the decision making process (Hankinson, 1999); informality in communication, lack of rigidity in structure and enhanced communication amongst all job classes (Ahmed, 1998a). Management entails administration of all strata from human to technological to mechanical. Emphasis is on interaction and interrelation across job designations to facilitate proliferation of knowledge and decision making is flat and flexible (Piercy & Cravens, 1994). Figure 1: MECHANISTIC VS. ORGANIC STRUCTURE II. DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY WORKPLACES In the case of James Marburg and ANZ bank, he was working in a boat shed between training sessions for the London Olympics with work done from a laptop using technology. Kate Hobson whose injury restricts her movement is forced to remain indoors every so often. Her job as communications manager at AXA is facilitated by the flexibility they afford her in when she can come to the office. This strongly suggests that ANZ bank as well as AXA are organisations that are structured organically. According to Burns and Stalker (1968) the organic management system entails a continuous modifications and flexibility of job tasks while knowledge is shared and not limited to specialities. Thus the personal needs of individuals are taken into account in these cases and flexibility to when and how they get the work done is afforded them. III. MAIN DEVELOPMENTS THAT ENABLE GROWTH OF FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS. According to Clark (2009), there are several modifications that have taken place in the corporate world that have impacted on the necessity of creating flexibility in the way that work is done. Innovation in technology that has enhanced telecommunication enables employees to work from varying locations at any time. This augments the shrinking boundaries between work and life with too much of the former and not enough of the latter. Furthermore, with increasing globalisation, organisations are operating across time and geographical zones which could lead to increased travel and work for business executives. This puts pressure on employees to increase working hours and reduce leave taking days in order to cope. Finally, the influx of more women into the working environment and situations where both partners in a spousal relationship are in the workplace has led to shifting needs in employees’ needs, especially in the new generation of workers whose expectations are different. Due to all these developments and the attendant shift in dynamic it entails, it behoves employers to employ a greater flexibility in how and where employees work. IV. MAIN BENEFITS TO THE ORGANISATION The power of flexibility is an oft underutilised tool in the battle to increase output and efficiency of employees. It is a means of attracting and retaining talent as well as increasing morale, employee satisfaction and engagement. The focus that flexibility turns on work processes and productivity minimises distractions that employees, work teams or individuals may otherwise entertain, increasing their creativity and effectiveness. It also highlights leadership qualities within the staff (Clark, 2009). Each organisational structure has its benefits and disadvantages (Mintzberg, 1979) and there may not be one that is ideal. However, it is clear that in the rapidly changing global business climate, a static corporate structure will not fit well in terms of complexity and dynamism exhibited (Martinsons & Martinsons, 1994). In order to be successful, an organisational structure must have a robust plan (Hankinson, 1999) and be able to meet both internal (in terms of technology and planning) and external demands (Bierly, Kessler & Christensen, 2000). This implies that the organic structure provides better opportunity to thrive in this knowledge economy. V. MOTIVATION THEORY Moorhead & Griffin (1998) in their article ‘Need-based Perspectives on Motivation’ claimed that motivation at work depends on three factors; Inspiration, Aptitude and Atmosphere. In other words, to achieve success in their work, and employee must be willing work (inspiration), be capable of performing (aptitude) and have access to material and tools to enable him/her to carry out the job (Atmosphere). When one of these is missing, the quality of work is compromised. The Expectancy Theory This theory was advanced by Victor H. Vroom in the 1960s. It is based on the idea of individuals reasoning out and choosing whether or not to put in the effort that would achieve success. It relies on the subjective probability of cause and effect. The individual’s discernment is key to this theory. The strength of motivation is heightened by the correlation between effort-performance and performance-reward probability. Employees will put in more effort if they are convinced that this will result in reward (Kreitner, 1986). This theory operates on the belief that workers equate the amount of effort that they put into their assignments with a reward. When they feel that the more effort they expend on a task, the higher the likelihood of it being rewarded in a way that the employee values such as accolades, financial bonuses or promotions, then they are sufficiently motivated to work unsupervised from their homes. Should they feel that however hard they work, they will not achieve the rewards they desire, then they will not be motivated to work hard in an unsupervised environment. Managers would therefore be obligated to provide motivation by outlining with clarity what rewards would be expected for work done. This works on the assumption that the employees on flexible work schedules subscribe to the expectancy theory. CONCLUSION The case study assesses the relatively new trend in which employees are allowed to work in places other than the office due to various reasons. The intention behind it is to enable the employees accomplish other personal aims as they accomplish their employer-appointed tasks or else due to health or other reasons, they may be unable to come into the office. By not enforcing a situation where it is mandatory to be in a certain office space within certain designated hours, the employer ensures that the organisation is able to maintain the best talent, the most experienced people and the most motivated (Nicholas and Nairn, 2006). This situation can only occur in organisations that are organic in nature that is their nature is to be dynamic and versatile with a high differentiation of tasks and a high degree of integration where the decision making is decentralised and the atmosphere is informal. This enables flexibility to be an integral part of the standard operating procedure as opposed to mechanistic structures that tend to be more rigid, not accommodating of individuality with centralised hierarchical decision making that would make it difficult to have different centres of output. The development of this structure has been facilitated by developments in technology that have made communication over distances and time zones much simpler and the exchange of information much faster. This has been aided by the more convenient forms of travel available and has led to new methods of measuring work output to accommodate this paradigm shift. This has led to more streamlining in efficiency and productivity due to the minimisation of distractions that plague the conventional manager-employee relationship, politics of the workplace, and time lost in commuting. Several theories have been forwarded to explain the willingness and enthusiasm of workers to operate from their homes without the benefit of supervision. While perhaps it is difficult to pin down just one that would account for every person, due to the fact that motivation is very much a personal phenomenon, the expectancy theory goes a long way towards explaining how employees are able to work without supervision and stay motivated. Their expectation that the quality of their output will determine the reward that they receive will enable them to put in maximum effort in order to reap maximum rewards. This is of course in combination with other factors but essentially, as long as managers ensure that when the quality of work is good, the reward is commensurate with it, the employee will be motivated to produce ever better quality of work. Word Count: 2014 References Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation European Journal of Innovation Management 1(1) pp. 30-43 Burnes, B. (2000). Managing change: a strategic approach to organisational dynamics 3rd Edition (Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall). Burns, T., Stalker, O. M. (1968). The Management of Innovation, Tavistock. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: includes a 30-year retrospective (New York: John Wiley and Sons). Clark, N. (2009). Building a Flexible Workplace. Women’s Media Newsletter. 19th July. Cross, R. (2000). Looking before you leap: assessing the jump to teams in knowledge-based work Business Horizons 43(5) pp. 29-36. Hankinson, P. (1999). An empirical study which compares the organisational structures of companies managing the world’s top 100 brands with those managing outsider brands Journal of Product & Brand Management 8(5) pp. 402-414. Hedlund, G. & Rolander, D. (1990). Action in heterarchies: new approaches to managing the MNC, In: C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz & G. Hedlund (Ed) Managing global firm (London: Routledge). Kreitner R. (1986). ‘Motivating Job Performance’. In Kreitner R. ‘Management’, (3rd edition), Houghton Mifflin Company: USA Moorhead G & Griffin R. (1998). ‘Need-Based Perspectives on Motivation’. Houghton Mifflin Company, USA. Nicholson, J. & Nairn, A. (2006). The Manager of the 21st Century. The Boston Consulting Group. Innovation and Business Skills, Australia Ltd. Piercy, N. & Cravens, D. (1994). The network paradigm and the marketing organisation European Journal of Marketing 29(3) pp. 7-34. Sydney Morning Herald. (2009). Flexible workplaces the new trend. Retrieved 11th October, 2011 fromhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/executive-style/management/flexible-workplaces-the-new-trend/2009/05/08/1241893896200.html Wright, P. M. & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management: new directions in theory and practice Journal of Management 18(2) pp. 295-320. Read More