Introduction

In the previous chapter, we ended with a puzzle of if flexible working was commonly adopted by many companies and countries as a way to address the work-life balance demands of workers, why is it not helpful in reducing their work-family conflict? One major reason for this is because flexible working can lead to the spill-over of work-to-family and other spheres of life, resulting in workers working longer and harder. Several theories help us understand this phenomenon better, for example, the ‘autonomy-control paradox’ (Mazmanian et al, 2013; Putnam et al, 2014), the social exchange, enforced, and enabled intensification theory (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010), and the ‘entreployee’ theory (Pongratz and Vos, 2003) which we will examine in this chapter. Much of the exploration in understanding why the flexibility paradox happens has focused on the employer-employee relationship (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010), or the organisational/professional context (Pongratz and Vos, 2003; Mazmanian et al, 2013; Putnam et al, 2014). This chapter, and ultimately this book, contributes to the ongoing debate by exploring the larger societal context that drives the flexibility paradox – and later on, the gendered flexibility paradox (Chapter 7) and flexibility stigma (Chapter 8). More specifically, by drawing from Foucault's theory of homo-economicus, subjectification and the subjugation of the individual (Foucault, 2010), I understand flexibility and ‘freedom’ at work as another example of how power in contemporary society has moved away from the disciplinary society to a society of control (Hardt and Negri, 2001). Similar to what is being argued in the theory of the ‘entrepreneurial self ‘ (Brockling, 2015), I argue that capitalistic ideas of productivity, performance and profit has now been internalised by workers and understood as their own drive and passion. Thus, increasingly workers are made to organise their own life in an ‘entrepreneurial’ manner where they need to transfer their own labour potential into concrete performance, that is, where workers manage themselves without the need for direct managerial control (Pongratz and Vos, 2003). These theories help us understand why when workers are given more freedom and control over their work, rather than increasing their leisure time, end up being more devoted to work, increasing the hours and efforts they put into work.