Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures, tables and box
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: The flexibility paradox and contexts
- 2 The demand for and trends in flexible working
- 3 The dual nature of flexibility: family-friendly or performance-oriented logic?
- 4 The outcomes of flexible working
- 5 The flexibility paradox: why more freedom at work leads to more work
- 6 The empirical evidence of the flexibility paradox
- 7 Gendered flexibility paradox
- 8 Flexibility stigma and the rewards of flexible working
- 9 The importance of contexts
- 10 COVID-19 and flexible working
- 11 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
- Appendix
- References
- Index
11 - Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2022
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures, tables and box
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: The flexibility paradox and contexts
- 2 The demand for and trends in flexible working
- 3 The dual nature of flexibility: family-friendly or performance-oriented logic?
- 4 The outcomes of flexible working
- 5 The flexibility paradox: why more freedom at work leads to more work
- 6 The empirical evidence of the flexibility paradox
- 7 Gendered flexibility paradox
- 8 Flexibility stigma and the rewards of flexible working
- 9 The importance of contexts
- 10 COVID-19 and flexible working
- 11 Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
- Appendix
- References
- Index
Summary
Introduction
This book set out to explore flexible working in a more critical way, asking the question whether flexible working actually provides positive outcomes for workers in terms of work-life balance, workers’ well-being and gender equality as many expect it to. The results of the previous chapters show that paradoxically rather than improving workers’ work-life balance, flexible working increased feelings of conflict between work and family. The reason behind this phenomenon was explained through the flexibility paradox, that flexible working can lead to further exploitation of workers’ labour. This exploitation pattern is gendered. Men expanded their employment hours, namely overtime hours, to fulfil their ideal worker and breadwinner masculine image. Women expanded their unpaid working hours, namely increased time spent on housework and childcare adhering to the social norms around their roles as caregivers. What is more, due to these gendered patterns of flexible working or more so the assumptions behind such patterns, women end up being penalised further when working flexibly despite the fact that they are also likely to work longer and harder on their paid work when working flexibly.
However, I have also shown that the take-up and outcomes of flexible working largely depends on the contexts in which it is used. The way we think about work, work-life balance, and gender roles, workers’ bargaining power and insecurity all help shape the outcomes of flexible working. The book also showed that as flexible working becomes more widely used, we see a shift in the attitudes towards flexible working – namely through the decline in flexibility stigma. The pandemic has provided us with some evidence of this, where the large-scale introduction of homeworking has led to profound changes not only in the perceptions towards and practices of flexible working, but also partly the gendered outcomes of flexible working. However, we still see signs that the flexibility paradox still exists, given that many other cultural normative and institutional factors remain largely the same during this period, and because the pandemic has given rise to higher levels of insecurity among workers which may exacerbate the problem.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Flexibility ParadoxWhy Flexible Working Leads to (Self-)Exploitation, pp. 168 - 192Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2022