Work Design for Flexible Work Scheduling: Barriers and Gender Implications

WORK DESIGN FOR FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULING 33

Ann M. Brewer*

The purpose of this article is to examine the nature of work design in relation to flexible work scheduling (FWS), particularly in respect to participation by women and men. There is a paucity of research evidence on this topic. Work design, essentially an artefact of enterprise culture, is constructed by the social rules of place, distance and time. Work practices that assume that work tasks are only conducted in the workplace during standard work time in the proximity of co-workers and managers do not, in the main, support FWS. While there is no significant evidence in this study that women and men perceive the barriers differently when considering taking up the option to engage in FWS options, the study addresses the reasons for this using a large survey of the Australian workforce. This article concludes that it is time to redefine these critical work design dimensions, in relation to existing power structures, in order to inject real flexibility into the workplace.

Introduction article attempts to identify the barriers and hence, the facilitators in terms of men’s and he emergence of flexible work scheduling women’s engagement in FWS. There is a T(FWS), principally telecommuting, the paucity of research evidence to date on this compressed work week and flexitime, has topic. implications for the way work is designed and the type of workers who benefit from it. Driving forces of flexible work scheduling FWS refers to the use of telecommunications and/or information technology to modify As work is distributed away from centralized and/or replace the commute to the usual workplaces, the work organization is tending workplace by salaried workers, thereby pro- towards a ‘virtual’ context with managers viding them with flexibility such as improved and workers using technology to enable them choice about use of time and work location as to perform work, which may be at variance well as combining work and home demands. spatially and temporally with each other. With These factors may have greater appeal for distributed work, new work contexts become women if it is accepted that family roles com- accessible, such as access to other organizations pete more strongly with work roles and time (e.g. network organizations and strategic for women than for men. alliances), workplaces (e.g. home, car, tele- Introducing FWS into the work organization centre) or work sites (e.g. customer service has far-reaching implications for the division outlet) (Venkatesh and Vitalari 1992). of labour and how it structures the options There are two driving forces underlying for men and women to participate and benefit FWS: first, an increasing perception that in- from it. A number of studies (e.g. Mahmassani formation is a significant economic resource, et al. 1993; Mahmassani and Chen 1992; and second, a need for greater flexibility in Bernardino and Ben-Akiva 1996) focus on the conducting business regardless of national, role of the employer in influencing workers’ market, industry or time boundaries (Salomon Address for opportunities to participate in FWS but under- and Schofer 1988; Warf 1989). These forces correspondence: * Ann M. Brewer, play the barriers imposed by work design. lead to a requirement for organizational Institute of Transport The purpose of this article is to examine the flexibility in the face of intense competition Studies (Sydney and nature of work design in relation to FWS in and increased labour costs, which are placing Monash), The Australian practice, particularly in respect to participation pressure on management to raise product- Key Centre in Transport Management, C37, The by men and women. Is the way work is ivity, increase flexibility, and quality of University of Sydney, designed today conducive to workers taking outputs (Porter 1990). Distributed work is one Sydney, NSW 2006, up the option to engage in FWS? Second, this way of addressing these initiatives providing Australia.

management is prepared to align work 1984), have argued that a segregation rule design with FWS (Brewer 1993, 1994, 1995; persists in delimiting a gendered division of Brewer and Hensher 1996; Harrison 1994). labour, and this may impact on those workers Third, new telecommunications and in- who have access to FWS and those who do formation technology have radically changed not. There is a strong notion in the literature an organization’s capacity to distribute work that only certain tiers of the workforce such processes, and hence, improved opportunities as managers and professionals are eligible for FWS programmes. For example, problems, for FWS (Christensen 1988). In Australia, for viewed as formidable in the past that have example, approximately 52% of managers plagued the successful implementation of and administrators and 31% of professionals telecommuting, such as access to information use some form of flexible start and finish and maintaining the customer-interface, have times compared to 28% of clerical staff and been somewhat mastered today. With the 14% of sales personnel (ABS 1993). If the increasing dispersal of business activities, assumption that managers and professionals FWS, and particularly telecommuting, are are ‘best’ suited to FWS, this may limit more relevant today than ever before (Gray women’s access, given their representation in et al. 1993) although some concern remains in these groups, particularly managerial. terms of cost of access, security of informa- Handy and Mokhtarian (1996a) discuss the tion and occupational health and safety issues emergence of a two-tiered workforce structure for employees working remotely. More im- comprising professional workers and support portantly as information technology makes staff, and its relevance for FWS. They contend work and customer activities increasingly that a two-tiered workforce has implications location-independent, distributed work will for FWS in that each group may experience prove a greater incentive for employers in alternative work scheduling differently. creating flexible forms of work scheduling. The two tiers relate to the degree of control or autonomy associated with each group of workers, with professional workers having Analysis of work design more control than support workers do. This Work design is defined as the interrelation- division correlates with the structure of the ship of workers, tasks, practices and routines, internal labour market in which assumptions in short, the division of labour. It is important are made about the competencies of occu- to note that human resource (HR) policy pational groups based on their internal governs work design in a corporate setting. labour market value. To claim that different The nature of the division of labour in its occupational groups have different cap- simplest form is an assignment of particular abilities or capacity for controlling their work tasks to distinctive occupational groups is arbitrary. Within a distributed work con- who interrelate in certain ways. There are text, and providing appropriate organizational two issues worth exploring in relation to restructuring has occurred, there is no work design and FWS: first, what structures plausible reason as to why one group of the division of labour; and second, how is the workers positioned ‘lower’ in the managerial division of labour in work organizations hierarchy should be tied to the workplace today conducive to the implementation of compared to any other. However, the ration- FWS? Relying on past practices of work ale of distributed work is often accompanied design may no longer be appropriate in the by a decentralized organization structure current context of distributed work if workers based on trust between management and are not taking up the option to engage in workers (Pratt 1997). Yet segregation may be FWS. The increasing participation of women based on trust of particular groups rather in the workforce (53.8% in Australia) suggests than in relation to individuals. that women, where they are the primary care The assumption of a two-tiered workforce, givers in the home, may be more likely to upon which managers make decisions about engage in FWS than men (ABS 1998). In short, monitoring employees’ performance and the question is to what extent work design productivity output, is more to do with the imposes a barrier on FWS in relation to gender. power of groups defending their occupational boundaries than the way work is actually performed. This in itself is a form of segregation, which separates ‘lower paid’ Factors structuring the division workers (women) from ‘higher paid’ workers of labour (men). This assumption about occupational groups provides insight into this particular First, a number of authors, e.g. Cavendish barrier on FWS. In other words, a decision (1982), Game and Pringle (1983), O’Donnell being made about eligibility for participating

Volume 7 Number 1 January 2000 © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 WORK DESIGN FOR FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULING 35

Table 1: The significance of place, distance and time to worker and work organization

Worker Work organization

Place personal visibility/ or physical division of labour, functional boundaries presence in workplace and resource allocation Distance proximity of interpersonal contact hierarchical control and direct supervision Time amount of time invested at work is work standardization, amount of time indicative of loyalty devoted to reaching deadlines is associated with quantity of output and productivity

in an FWS programme on the basis of an presumption of place conceals an important occupational label or hierarchical position dimension of being human, that is, people’s seems to be a fundamental barrier to address capacity to both shape and reshape their con- in this debate. texts, contracting or expanding the bound- Second, gendered thinking may be con- aries of work performance. This capacity to structed and maintained by the assumptions interact with one’s context is crucial in a of gendered place, distance and time which distributed work context where work is no preserve the conventional allocation of work longer simply packaged as an individual job, between men and women, managers and non- represented by a job description and duty managers. Gendered place, distance, and statement. Thinking of work as a process, and time are reflected in the way work is designed not as a job, potentially erodes conventional as shown in Table 1. notions of the division of labour, which in Table 1 reflects the conventional view of practice (albeit unofficially) is increasingly management where place is viewed in terms blurred between occupational groupings and of the perceived need for physical presence of at a time when team working is considered a workers, division of labour and the allocation corporate requisite for doing work. of work to different parts of the workplace The rationale for introducing telecom- and the ownership of work space such as a munications and information technology work station or office. Second, distance is enables people to ‘distribute’ themselves viewed in terms of physical proximity in (McLuhan 1964) and not be tied to place. For workplace relationships, such as face-to-face FWS to operate well, workplace will need to interactions among co-workers and as power be viewed as ‘articulated moments in net- distance, as well as the perceived need for works of social relations and understandings’ control between supervisor and subordinate rather than as fixed location (Massey 1993, as well as work output. Finally, time is viewed p. 66). Further, communications technology in terms of quantity time such as the stand- potentially erodes territorial boundaries in ardizing work tasks as well as the amount of the physical, although not in the political time spent at the workplace. Inferences about sense. The issue of boundary is important in productivity and commitment are made terms of the distribution of personal capacity based on time quantity rather than time quality. which will lead to workers questioning where they ‘draw the line’ with regard to their Place personal investment in the organization in terms of time, workload and commitment. Work tasks have been designed contingent on Moreover, the preoccupation with ‘place’ as a workers being physically present in par- dimension of work design has led to the ticular places at specific times. One of the key failure to exploit virtual reality and consider barriers in rethinking work design is the out-of-workplace and out-of-work time. The culture of ‘presenteeism’ (Welch 1998), an in- idea of the detachment of the ‘person’ from visible power structure. Within conventional the workplace and the integration of person models of work design, workers are seen as within communication networks challenges being in a given context, that is a ‘position in conventional models of work design and time and place which is exactly definable’ managerial hierarchy. (Lenntorp 1976, p. 12) creating boundaries Preoccupation with ‘place’ has important that become fixed and official. Often, this skill implications. As place of work becomes process leads to a separation of jobs allocated less ‘visible’ through telecommuting, the to women (e.g. receptionists, secretaries and skills of maintaining the work context may customer service officers) and men (e.g. become more visible through co-ordination, managers, directors and supervisors). The co-operation and communication. Allowing

for individual differences, these skills have quantitatively in terms of observance of been typically associated with women workers. punctuality, deadlines and is associated with level of work output. The investment of time Distance is also inferred as emotional investment in the enterprise and is equated with a worker’s Just as distributing work has ‘distance’ con- commitment or loyalty to the organization. A notations so does people’s capacity to dis- significant oversight in work design is the tribute ‘themselves’ impinge on this notion. psychological and cultural connotations of the In the case of telecommuting, workers are quality of time and its relationship to notions able to distribute themselves, by maintaining of career, work evaluation and comparability, real-time contact with co-workers and which also have specific implications for the business associates through an infrastructure way women and men approach work. of communication and information techno- The quality of time may mitigate against logies, making connections potentially FWS. For example, in Australia, the shift in immediate. Under this scenario, the nature of travel mode from public to private transport distance is changing both in terms of place and to the car and drive alone has continued (i.e. located anywhere) and time (i.e. in- for the commute trip, as has the substitution creased response rate) (Moss 1987, p. 536). As in destinations from central city to suburban time and place have become ‘undistanciated’, centres. Interestingly, the major move to drive this has implications for work redesign. alone has been by women workers (Gipps Under conventional models of work design, et al. 1996). One explanation for this is the social interaction and co-operation, regarded extent to which women, in particular, may as essential elements in most jobs, depend on have to engage in multi-tripping characterized ‘proximity’. More significantly, modifying by setting down and collecting family mem- proximity leads to changes in the power and bers, shopping, and attending to household authority relationships particularly between business during their commute trip. In other supervisors and workers. Power is thus in- words, FWS may not overcome the need to creasingly based on accessibility to informa- engage in tasks associated with multi-tripping tion not proximity. Consequently, supervisors and hence be a barrier on women taking up lose their surveillance role of subordinates the option to engage in it. with a rise in personal autonomy for workers, which has implications for clerical and service operators who may work remotely. Empirical focus Thinking of distance in terms of power distance, FWS, particularly telecommuting, Perceived barriers to FWS and its becomes anti-hierarchical in that it recon- relationship to place, distance and time figures work through the communication– information infrastructure to be more Place, distance and time act as barriers in terms ‘horizontal’ in nature and less vertical. Under of job suitability, perceptions of productivity these conditions, the managerial hierarchy (and measurement), corporate policy and the potentially conflates as does the distinction structuring of two-tiered, internal labour between the two tiers of the internal labour markets. The potential for work redesign to market whereby assumptions are made about support FWS lies within examining and the competencies of occupational groups modifying managerial assumptions about based on their internal labour market value place, time and distance. To support this view and who are subsequently marginalized a literature review was conducted to identify within the organization due to this. definitions and perceived barriers to adopt- Power based on accessibility may have ing telecommuting. gender-specific connotations. Women and men may express a different preference for Definitions controlling events. For example, a preference for control could be linked to a greater ap- The distinguishing feature between telecom- preciation to telecommute so as to exercise muting and a compressed work week (CWW) greater influence over hours of the day is in the case of the former, telecommunications between work and home. This type of is used as a surrogate for transportation for influence also has implications for ‘time’. either all of the commute trip or part thereof (Memmott 1963; Nilles 1975; Mokhtarian 1990; Bush 1990). Subsequently, telecommu- Time nications is perceived as a tool for reducing Time is a critical issue in FWS and associated work trips and vehicle kilometres travelled work design. Time is usually conceived (Bernardino and Ben-Akiva 1996). In the case

Volume 7 Number 1 January 2000 © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 WORK DESIGN FOR FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULING 37

of CWW, an employee works a four-day week The literature survey revealed that generally or a nine-day fortnight reducing the commute employers are more reluctant to adopt tele- trip by either one day per week or fortnight. commuting than workers are, due to poten- Both telecommuting and CWW result in saved tial threats to the power structure within the travel time, which is a bonus for workers. A organization. second distinction between telecommuting The barriers in Table 2 are used to ascertain and the CWW is that in the case of the latter, the perceived barriers in the current study. If there is a day off-duty when there is no the potential role of FWS in work organ- official expectation that work will be per- izations is to be better understood, barriers, formed at home, making it a more attractive and hence facilitators, need to be invest- option for workers to engage in educational, igated. Second, whether these barriers are leisure or family-related activities. CWW may more likely to prevent men or women taking have greater appeal for women to have up the option to engage in FWS must also be additional time for family-related activities. investigated. To address these questions data Telecommuting and the CWW can be either were analysed from the Greenhouse Gas official when an organization has a policy as Emissions (GGE) study of urban travel behav- part of the HR policy, which applies to all, or iour, exploring the use of FWS as a sub- part of the workforce; or unofficial, when stitution for travel. This is a unique Australian there is an arrangement between individual study conducted in six capital cities on the workers and their supervisors. The presence mainland (excluding Darwin and Tasmania) or absence of a FWS policy may lead to equity in 1994 by the Institute of Transport Studies issues in terms of it favouring particular (Hensher et al. 1994). The study provides a workers or occupational categories over valuable data set for addressing the issues in others, e.g. managers (higher ratio of men to the FWS debate. The sample was a stratified women) compared to non-managers. random of over 1400 households (see Table 3). The current analysis is based on informa- Perceived barriers tion gained from the Commuter Questionnaire comprising five sections. Section 1 contained A survey of the telecommuting literature general opinion questions relating to environ- revealed over 20 articles focusing on factors mental issues, possible policy actions and life- contributing to the decision to offer and ac- style changes. Section 2 contained questions cept telecommuting by both employers and about the respondent’s work situation. employees; see, for example, Bernardino and Section 3 included details of the respondent’s Ben-Akiva (1996); Mahmassani et al. (1993); trip to work. Section 4 focused on telecom- Mannering and Mokhtarian (1995); Mokhtarian muting, CWW and flexitime, which provides et al. (1995); Mensah (1995). Almost without workers with a degree of flexibility in work, exception, the barriers to telecommuting are start and finish times. Section 5 asks about underpinned by assumptions of place, time parking availability and personal income. and distance. Specific interpretation of place, The current study is based on data from time and distance are summarized in Table 2 Sections 2 and 4 of the questionnaire, from as substantive barriers on telecommuting. 1249 respondents (response rate of 89%). The

Table 2: Perceived barriers to telecommuting categorized as place, distance and time

Place • job suitability: separation of work tasks from workplace • concern over data and information security • frequent input and ready access to information presently available in the office. • access to telecommunications from home e-mail, voicemail, fax, Internet, etc. and subsequent cost • physical visibility of workers in the workplace and its relationship to performance recognition

Distance • contact with co-workers, customers, managers • ability to supervise employees • division of work between home and workplace

Time • amount of time devoted to work tasks and its relationship to work output and productivity • productivity growth is more significant than potential cost savings

Table 3: Sample profile

Australian city Men Women Total frequency Total %

Canberra 65 65 130 10.4 Sydney 148 111 259 20.7 Melbourne 144 103 247 19.8 Brisbane 151 96 247 19.8 Adelaide 95 81 176 14.1 Perth 115 75 190 15.2 Total 718 531 1249 100.0

Table 4: Demographic characteristics: men and women

Characteristic Men Women

Age (years) Mean 39.4 37.6 SD 11.6 10.5 Personal income Mean $A30—40,000 $A12—30,000 Employment status Full-time 49% 26% Part-time 2% 12% Occupational category Managerial 67% 33% Professional 53% 47% Para-professional 42% 58% Trade 91% 9% Clerical 24% 76% Sales 46% 54% Plant operators 89% 11% Labourers 69% 31%

questionnaires were delivered and collected since some respondents ticked more than one from each household by interviewers. FWS strategy when asked about company Respondents were over 18 years of age and policy. directly involved in the household’s decision- Men are more likely to work in a company making about where to live and the pur- that supports some form of FWS compared to chasing of motor vehicles. The demographic women. Except in the case of telecommuting, profile of the sample is provided in Table 4. the majority of respondents take advantage of Personal income for the group ranged from their company’s policy for FWS. $A3,000 to over $A70,000 with equal distribu- Some 24.8% of respondents’ organizations tion for women and men up to the $A40,000 support flexitime compared to 14.5% (CWW) bracket. From $A40,000 and over, men out- and 6.6% (telecommuting). This trend em- number women by more than 3:1. Some 88% phasizes the conservatism among employers of the sample was in paid employment out- about maintaining standard hours with either side the home. an extended period for early and late starts and finishes; or working a condensed week or Findings fortnight rather than considering alternative work scheduling, e.g. telecommuting. A further Some 12% of the sample currently engages in 7.4% of the sample are seriously considering some form of FWS (including flexitime). telecommuting but the majority (87%) is not, Table 5 shows respondents who currently as shown in Table 6. engage in FWS with the support of company Table 6 does not depict a significant differ- policy. Table 5 is interpreted by the FWS type, ence in telecommuting experiences between

Volume 7 Number 1 January 2000 © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 WORK DESIGN FOR FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULING 39

Table 5: FWS by gender

Gender Work CWW Work flexitime Telecommute

Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total

Men 80 40 120 148 31 179 23 30 53 Women 24 37 61 107 24 131 12 17 29 Total 104 77 181 255 55 310 35 47 82

Table 6: Experience with telecommuting from home

Men % Women % Total frequency Total %

Have telecommuted 37 5.1 32 6.0 69 5.5 Seriously considering 60 8.4 33 6.2 93 7.4 Not considering 621 86.5 466 87.5 1087 87 Total 718 100.0 531 100.0 1249 100.0

women and men although differences are dimensions in Table 8 — extra hours, policy, observed across occupational categories (see workload, and job responsibilities — are the Table 11). main items of attention for CWW.

Work design barriers to Reasons for not engaging in FWS telecommuting and CWW Out of the 261 reasons provided by respondents for not engaging in telecommuting, To ascertain perceived barriers to telecom- Table 9 shows that job suitability is the most muting and CWW, place, distance and time likely perceived barrier on telecommuting were translated into a set of work design (73.2%) followed by facilities access (16.5%). dimensions for both telecommuting and the Of those respondents reporting that job is CWW as shown in Tables 7 and 8. The six unsuitable, 79% are full-time workers and work dimensions in Table 7 — contact, control, 43% are managers or professionals. Despite productivity, facilities access, job suitability and these findings, managers and professionals company policy — are the main items of are most likely to engage in telecommuting, a attention for telecommuting. The four work form of FWS. Table 7: Work design dimensions, description and question items for telecommuting

Work design dimensions Description Question items

People contact (CONTACT) contact with people I prefer the social and (internal and external) professional interaction necessary to perform work of the office Supervisory Control (CONTROL) supervisor’s power over supervisor makes it difficult work process(es) Motivation — Productivity (PROD) feeling motivated to work I cannot get motivated away from the office away from the office Facilities access (FAC) access to facilities necessary I do not have the facilities to perform work at home to perform work at home Job suitability (SUIT) perceived prospects of the work I do is not suited promotion threatened by to telecommuting telecommuting Company policy (POLICY) the company does not have there is no company policy a policy to support telecommuting

Table 8: Work design dimensions, description and question items for CWW

Work design dimensions Description Question items

Extra hours (EXTRA) working extra hours to I don’t want to work compensate for 1 day off extra hours a week or fortnight Company policy (POLICY) the company policy is not the company policy does relevant to employee not apply to me Workload (WLOAD) workload cannot be workload requires full week compressed into shorter coverage time frame i.e. 5 days into 4 days Job responsibilities (RESP) job responsibilities cannot job responsibilities require be compressed into shorter a full week’s coverage. time frame, i.e. 5 days into 4 days

Table 9: Reasons for not engaging in telecommuting

Work design dimensions Men % Women % Total %

People contact (CONTACT) 5 3.0 9 9.5 14 5.3 Supervisory control (CONTROL) 3 1.8 0 0 3 1.1 Motivation — Productivity (PROD) 2 1.2 1 1.0 3 1.1 Facilities access (FAC) 26 15.7 17 17.9 43 16.5 Job suitability (SUIT) 126 75.9 65 68.4 191 73.2 Company policy (POLICY) 4 2.4 3 3.2 7 2.7 Total 166 100.0 95 100.0 261 100.0

Table 10: Reasons for not engaging in CWW

Work design dimensions Men % Women % Total %

Extra hours (EXTRA) 13 12.3 12 21.0 25 15.3 Company policy (POLICY) 73 68.9 36 63.2 109 66.9 Workload (WLOAD) 18 16.9 5 8.8 23 14.1 Job responsibilities (RESP) 2 1.9 4 7.0 6 3.7 Total 106 100.0 57 100.0 163 100.0

The reasons for not engaging in telecom- many respondents did not take advantage of muting, cited by men and women, are not sig- FWS when company policy allowed for this nificantly different. However, relative values (see Table 5). for women, corresponding to the barriers of Differences in participation between men company policy and people contact, are higher and women in relation to CWW practices are than the relative values for men. Almost 10% presented in Table 10. In relative values, more of women indicated that the reason for not women than men reveal that extra hours and engaging in telecommuting is attributable to job responsibilities are the reasons for not people contact. This is three times the respect- engaging in CWW. Interestingly, the relative ive value for men. value for men citing the reason Workload (an From the 163 reasons provided by inability to condense workload into a four- respondents for not engaging in the CWW, day or nine-day fortnight) was almost twice Table 10 shows that company policy is the that for women. most likely barrier perceived by both men Table 11 shows that managers have the and women. While company policy is the highest percentage of women engaged in reason cited for not engaging in the CWW, telecommuting, however, referring to Table 4,

Table 11: Engaging in telecommuting and CWW in relation to a gendered labour market

Position/Gender Men (%) Women (%)

Telecommuting CWW Telecommuting CWW

Managers/Administrators 14.3 17.4 26.1 7.7 Professionals 16.1 30.6 19.2 18.5 Para-professionals 11.1 50.0 0 25.0 Tradepersons 4.8 44.0 0 0 Clerks 0 21.4 3.2 17.1 Sales 42.9 38.5 0 40.0 Plant operators 0 71.4 0 100.0 Labourers 4.8 30.8 0 0 Other 33.3 0 0 20.0

women only account for 33% of managerial greater push towards flexible business and positions. Women hold the majority of para- the strategies used to achieve this. Instead of professional, sales and clerk positions but restructuring work to address greater flexi- Table 11 indicates that almost all of the bility most employers have resorted to down- women in these positions do not engage sizing, e.g. delayering middle management in telecommuting. The participation rate and workforce redundancy as well as out- for men in these respective positions is sourcing. It follows that both women and greater. More women engage in CWW, how- men are likely to experience anxiety about ever, the overall percentages are still lower this trend leading them to accept not only not than for men in the respective categories to consider participating in FWS but also shown. taking on more onerous work schedules. Significantly, long hours expected and required particularly in management and the Discussion professions (e.g. legal) are incompatible with domestic responsibilities, still largely the This study investigated whether there are domain of women. Men are less likely to differences between the way women and men engage in FWS to safeguard their positions of perceive barriers when considering FWS perceived power in the managerial hierarchy, options. According to this study, there is no leaving women in the less powered positions significant evidence that women and men of service, sales and clerical administration, perceive the barriers differently when con- consolidating the gendered location of work. sidering taking up the option to engage in Entry for women into the labour market FWS options, although differences are under this type of ‘flexible’ conditions or observed across the occupational categories promotion into the managerial hierarchy between women and men. appears more rather than less restrictive. Culture theory is a useful way of understanding barriers to FWS. Work design, Job suitability as a place barrier essentially an artefact of enterprise culture, is constructed by the social rules of place, dis- The dominant feature of telecommuting is tance and time. Time, place and distance people working from home providing their shape what is important, how things operate job allows for this (Salomon 1994). Job and how things get done within a specific suitability is the most likely perceived barrier organizational context: organizational culture. to FWS, particularly telecommuting, by man- In this study, when place, distance and time agers and professionals. Women, however, are translated into work practice choices, they are under-represented in these occupational are perceived by both men and women as categories, therefore they are not provided barriers to FWS. These perceptions are in with an equal opportunity to engage in FWS terms of job suitability and access to facilities (Handy and Mokhtarian 1996b). There is a to work from home in the case of telecom- persistent view that telecommuting is feasible muting, and in the case of CWW, company for specific occupational groups of workers policy. And yet these barriers are essentially only, which lends support to a tiered internal artefacts of a gendered labour market. One labour market where some workers are explanation is the contradiction between the provided with access to benefits and others

are not. An often quoted example is ‘informa- Telecommuting leads to the substitution of tion workers’ (US Department of Trans- managerial prerogative by an ‘information portation 1993). Mokhtarian and Salomon preserve’ and may also be a reason for man- (1996) in modelling the choice of telecom- agement resistance to work redesign. muting amongst a sample of predominantly Using job suitability as a reason for information workers in San Diego, reported promoting FWS or not, therefore, is not only that job unsuitability allowed for 44% of the an artificial constraint but also a real barrier constraint on telecommuting. The reason for to work redesign and hence, FWS. The con- this persistent view is that despite a dis- ventional notion of ‘job’ is the single most tributed work context, work activities are still significant barrier to FWS coupled with the linked predominantly to workplace perform- culture of ‘presenteeism’, which is usually ance (or rather have not been redesigned linked to career opportunities, e.g. promotion, within a distributed work context) due to or even just ‘keeping the job’. Understanding issues of supervisory control, task output and these issues in work design will prove a productivity, information access and security, significant way forward in reducing them as and interrelationships amongst co-workers barriers to FWS. and customers. Moreover, this study demonstrates that Company policy as a distance barrier FWS, particularly CWW, is also feasible for specific occupational groups of workers only. The study findings show that company policy This reinforces the two-tiered internal labour is a more of a barrier for women when market where some workers (predominantly considering the option to engage in FWS. men) are provided with access to a shorter However, the decision to engage in FWS is a work week and others (predominantly women) complex one for both women and men. Even are not. At a time when employers want to when a company policy allowed for FWS, exploit flexibility in their businesses and FWS women and men were less likely to participate. would be a useful tool in achieving this, work Both women and men argued, although they practices are persistently shaped by unreas- expressed it differently — women in terms of onable demands on the visibility of workers, time and responsibility and men in terms time spent at work and proximal work re- of workload — that FWS led to a higher lations. It is assumed that worker commit- intensity of work. ment, energy and enthusiasm for work The existence of a company policy, which cannot be demonstrated unless people are provides for ‘legitimate’ access to FWS, physically present in the workplace. Under masks the real barriers, which occur within this cultural regime, if women do take up the the employment relationship itself (Welch option to engage in FWS, consideration needs 1998). The unwillingness of many employers to be taken to avoid the negative consequences to allow workers to take up the option of exploitation, isolation and lack of visibility. (Handy and Mokhtarian 1996b; Sullivan et al. The adoption of FWS may exacerbate the 1993) manifests itself in different ways. For marginalization of women into lower hier- example, while a company policy may pro- archical positions within the organization. vide for FWS, the option to take it up by As the majority of businesses today are women in particular may be constrained by based on information, consequently most the unbalanced power in negotiations within workers are involved in information tasks the supervisor–worker relationship, particu- and relationships. Facilities access, perceived larly if the supervisor is male. In other cases, as a barrier to FWS, is related to job suitability. FWS works well without any policy or official Most women, in this study, are located in decision-making to support it because people para-professional, clerical or sales work perceive that it is expeditious to do so for a where they are required to work directly with variety of reasons. Some surveys report that clients and/or use information technology, up to 21% of a person’s work is already being e.g. personal computers, sales monitoring performed at home (Gregg 1998). equipment. Recent technological developments parallel those that have been occurring Productivity as a time barrier for over 20 years (Nilles 1975) suggesting that technology alone was not the only barrier on Productivity growth is central to the em- FWS. For example, problems that hamper ployer’s decision whether or not to introduce telecommuting concern issues about the FWS (Bernardino and Ben-Akiva 1996). In measurement and monitoring of costs and part the problem lies in management focusing productivity together with management’s on certain dimensions of work, e.g. costs, fear of loss of control over employees and are profits, technological change in isolation to the as evident now as they were 20 years ago. exclusion of other, possibly more important

ones such as finding new ways of measuring fundamentally challenges the gendered productivity, effectiveness or quality. How- labour market. ever, there is still much ambiguity surround- It is concluded that place, distance and time ing productivity measurement. Associated are key social rules in determining work with this is the ability of management to design. Place, distance and time form a set of restructure workplaces horizontally, pro- assumptions that shape work and work re- moting teamwork and accountability neces- lations and give it permanence. Consequently, sary for distributed work processes to be work design is a robust system of social effective. Access to training and appropriate constraint on FWS. The existing definitions of telecommunications are essential (Schweizer place, distance and time, therefore: 1993) and may be denied to specific workers. • are situated deep within organizational and work practices, making them less Conclusion readily observable; • reside within existing power bases (e.g. management and unions) in the work- This study found that employers are still place; and conservative about maintaining standard • are linked to the workers’ desire, located work hours and appear reluctant to consider in the managerial hierarchy, to protect FWS as an option. To gain greater equity and their interests and job security. opportunity for both women and men to participate in FWS requires an appropriate There are still many unanswered questions workplace policy. If the existing power about FWS options and related barriers to structures are to be challenged effectively, access and implementation. Job suitability FWS policy needs to be supported by corpor- defined by the internal and external labour ate business strategy, unions and legislation. market is an important influence in terms of There is no doubt that FWS requires support whether or not women will have legitimate from flexible work design, that is not con- access to FWS and whether or not they will be strained by place, distance and time. further marginalized by taking up the option. This study found that the changing However, there is little doubt that recent tech- dynamics of business and distributed work nological developments allow individuals are not reflected in work redesign. Work is and work groups to perform in several still largely conducted in the workplace, different settings. It is argued that the barriers during standard work time in the proximity imposed are arbitrary and contribute to the of co-workers and managers who are linked under-utilization of FWS options. to each other by way of a managerial hierarchy. If FWS provides workers with greater autonomy over their work, supervisors may Acknowledgements fear loss of control and this may affect particular categories of workers (e.g. clerical Thanks are owed to Rahaf Almghawech for or service) performed primarily by women. her research assistance and to Professor Further, the way work is designed reinforces David Hensher for comments on an earlier the rules of place, distance and time contra- draft of this article. dicting distributed work processes, which essentially break down the barriers of place, distance and time. References Understanding this fact not only provides ABS (1993) Working Arrangements Australia. valuable insights into work redesign but also August 1993. Catalogue No. 6342.0, Canberra: assists in identifying not only the barriers but Australian Government Printing Office. also the facilitators in implementing FWS in ABS (1998) Labour Force Australia. May 1998. workplaces. The essence of the problem now Catalogue No. 6202.0, Canberra: Australian is that past assumptions of work organization Government Printing Office. focused on the form of work such as task Bernardino, A. and Ben-Akiva, M. (1996) Demand standardization, observance of punctuality, for telecommuting — modeling the adoption and supervisory control and ignored the process, 7th WCTR Proceedings, 1, 241–53. substance of work such as the psychological Brewer, A.M. (1993) Managing for Employee Com- quality of place, distance and time. FWS mitment. Melbourne: Longman Brewer, A.M. (1994) The Responsive Employee: The places a greater emphasis on the substance of Road Towards Organizational Citizenship. Sydney: work whereby place and distance are not as Allen and Unwin easily defined as they are in the conventional Brewer, A.M. (1995) Change Management: Strategies model of work design, and time becomes for Australian Organizations. Sydney: Allen and virtual reality. Under these conditions, FWS Unwin.

Brewer, A.M. and Hensher, D.A. (1996) Organ- the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change. London: izational structure, work organization and Routledge, 59–69. flexible work arrangements and their impact on McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media: The travel behaviour: identifying key linkages and Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill. establishing a research agenda. Paper presented Memmott, F.W. (1963) The substitutability of at conference, New International Perspectives communications for transportation. Traffic on Telework: From Telecommuting to the Virtual Engineering, 33, 20–5. Organization. London, Brunel University, 31 Mensah, J. (1995) Journey to work and job search July–2 August. characteristics of the urban poor: a gender ana- Bush, W.R. (1990) Telecommuting: the case of lysis of a survey data from Edmonton, Alberta. research software development. Technological Transportation, 22, 1–19. Forecasting And Social Change, 37,3, 235–50. Mokhtarian, P.L. (1990) A typology of relation- Cavendish, R. (1982) Women on the Line. London: ships between telecommunications and trans- Routledge and Kegan Paul. portation. Transportation Research A, 24 (A),3, Christensen, K.E. (ed.) (1988) The Era Of Home- 231–42. Based Work: Directions For The Future. Boulder, Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L. and Salomon, I. CO: Westview Press. (1995) Methodological issues in the estimation Game, A. and Pringle, R. (1983) Gender at Work. of the travel, energy and air quality impacts Sydney: Allen and Unwin. of telecommuting. Transportation Research A, Gipps, P.G. et al. (1996) The Journey to Work: Employ- 29 (A),4, 283–302. ment and the Changing Structure of Australian Mokhtarian, P.L. and Salomon, I. (1996) Modeling Cities. Melbourne: Australian Housing and the choice of telecommuting 2: a case of the Urban Research Institute, Research Mono- preferred impossible alternative. Environment graph, No. 3. and Planning A, 28, 1859–876. Gray, M., Hodson, N. and Gordon, G. (1993) Moss, M. L. (1987) Telecommunications, world Teleworking Explained. New York, John Wiley. cities and urban policy. Urban Studies, 24, Gregg, L. (1998) Humanity in the workplace: when 534–46. work/family becomes an HR issue. Credit Nilles, J.M. (1975) Telecommunications and Union Executive, 38, 5, 32–8. organizational decentralisation. IEE Trans- Handy, S.L. and Mokhtarian, P.L. (1996a) actions of Communications, com. 23,10, 1142–7. Forecasting telecommuting: an exploration O’Donnell, C. (1984) The Basis of the Bargain. of methodologies and research needs. Trans- Sydney: Allen and Unwin. portation, 23, 163–90. Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Handy, S.L. and Mokhtarian, P.L. (1996b) The Nations. New York: The Free Press. future of telecommuting. Futures, 28,3, 227–40. Pratt, J.H. (1997) Why aren’t more people tele- Harrison, B. (1994) The dark side of flexible pro- commuting? Explanations from four studies. duction. National Productivity Review, 13,479, 501. Transportation Research Record, 1607, 196–204. Hensher, D., Battelino, H., Milthorpe, F. and Salomon, I. (1994) How much telecommuting Raimond, T. (1994) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and should we count on? A forecast for Tel-Aviv the Demand for Urban Passenger Transport: Data in 2020. Transportation Research Record, 1463, Requirements, Documentation and Preparation. 26–34. Report 4. Canberra: BTCE and Institute of Salomon, I. and Schofer J. (1988) Forecasting Transport Studies, September. telecommunications — travel interactions: the Lenntorp, B. (1976) A time-geographic simulation transportation manager’s perspective. Trans- model of individual activity programmes. In portation Research A, 22A(3), 219–29. Carlstein, T. et al. (eds) Human Activity and Time Schweizer, S. (1993) Increasing profitability through Geography. London: Edward Arnold, 162–80. distributed network teaming. Telecommunications, Mahmassani, H.S. and Chen, P.S.T. (1992) Com- 27, 52–7. parative assessment of origin-based and en Sullivan, M., Mahmassani, H.S. and Yen, J.R. (1993) route real-time information under alternative Choice model of employee participation in user behaviour rules. Transportation Research telecommuting under a cost-neutral scenario. Record, 1306, 69–81. Transportation Research Record, 1413, 42–8. Mahmassani, H., Yen, J., Herman, R. and Sullivan, M. US Department of Transportation (1993) Transporta- (1993) Employee attitudes and stated prefer- tion Implications of Telecommuting. Washington, ences toward telecommuting: an exploratory DC: US Dept of Transportation, April. analysis. Transportation Research Record, 1413, Venkatesh, A. and Vitalari, N.P. (1992) An emerging 31–42. distributed work arrangement: an investigation Mannering, J.S. and Mokhtarian, P.L. (1995) of computer-based supplemental work at home. Modeling the choice of telecommuting fre- Management-Science, December, 38,12, 1687–706. quency in California: an exploratory analysis. Warf, B. (1989) Telecommunications and the global- Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 49, isation of financial services. The Professional 49–73. Geographer, 41,3, 257–71. Massey, D. (1993) Power-geometry and a progres- Welch, J. (1998) Eli Lilly finds flexibility is hard to sive sense of place. In Bird, J. et al. (eds) Mapping instil. People Management, 4,10, 13–15.