Critically evaluate whether flexible working arrangements are beneficial for employers and employees?

Flexible utilization options provides an alternative approache to getting usage done through non traditional work hours, tune structures ,and locations. The availability of negotiable work options grants an opportunity for individuals to mould their c arers in order to optimise their work and personal commitments. As for organisation it promises an increase in productivity,boost employer of choice,reduce fix cost. However flexibility is also reputed as costly for employers and favours unequal treatment in terms of pay and benefits for employees.This essay aims to examine the nature of flexibility and further highlight the contrary types of flexibility throught the flexible firm modeling(Atkinson) . In the 1990s up til present day flexible work practices has become a central point for Uk judicature policies with Fagan et al (2006) believing globalisation competition,productivity,active ageing the long hours culture were particularly the source for the rise of flexible working practices.It is important to none that this belief clay the same today, except that advancement in technology is an additional influencing factor. Atkinsons model of the flexible firm is an arrangement in which mangament offers employees different forms of flexibility practices videlicet functional,numerial and financial flexibility in order to optimize the use of human resources and quality of work. It is mainly focused on dividing the workforce into meaning and peripheral groups. The core group entails full meter,well paid,secure professional jobs,functional flexible and difficult to replace.Whereas the peripheral group consist of employees who are numerically flexible(Legge) because their skills are abundant in the labour market place hence relatively despensible thence low job security,consequently may lead to low productivity due to low morale or they are solitary(prenominal) needed to complete particular task e. g lawyers. From the employees view,it is better to be par t of the core than the periphery since the former provides job security,increase career opportunities and better work conditions.Alteration in job design grants the core workers the benefit of soft HR practices implemented to achieve high performance, high commitment and high motivation and thus loyalty to the organisation despite managements persuasion to work across demarcation line as it reduces cost for them. But on the other hand it enhances the its not my job syndromein employees(Mcdonals,2010). If employees dont practice their new skill regularly they loose it. Therefore the cost of training and retraining does not act the purpose significantly.However in the Uk there is a liking for numerical and temporal flexibility at the expense of functional flexibility(Macdonald,2010). This can be witnessed in an change magnitude use of part timers,short term contract,cleaning agencies. This facilitates the firms ability to adjust the level of labour inputs to meet flunctuations in ou tput(Jenkins,2004). However campos and Cunhas highlights the downside of outsourcing as there is a deviation of chequer over proprietary information and less job security. Nontheless numerical flexibility through part timers helps to reduce costs for employers, for example, workers can be employed when they are needed.It is not necessary to pay for workers who are not productive. This helps attract inward investment. Unlike temporal flexibility it relates to variation in the number of working hours. Flexi time gives employees control over their work schedule thus not only benefiting the employee in terms of achieving a work life balance,job satisfaction but the employer in like manner as it reduces absentism(Lee,1991) therefore higher productivity. Furtheremore teleworking allows employees individual choice in the location of work and covers the possibility to work from home and cutting down job related expenses e. g food,clothes,communiting expense.However Brannen (2005) argues that what appears on the surface to represent a ceding of control by management to empower employees actually results in a loss of control,because flexible work arrangements unsettles what is a reasonable amount of time to spend at work. This is because individuals find it hard to disengage from work. Hence critics of the flexible firm model by Legge. She believed there is a hidden agenda in the flexible firm model,which craftiliy promotes flexibility is good,but the real question is for whom? Futhermore there tends to be a mould of professional isolation(Macdonald,2010).To conclude one can note that flexibility promises to provide organisations with a competitive edge by cutting down cost for employers,boost employer choice,increase in productivity and assure employees job satisfaction,motivations,work life balance. However,there still appears to be many unresolved issues relating to the flexibility debate. This is highlighted by legges critism of mixed empirical support for the f lexible firm model and the advantages of the flexibility is not equally shared. Notedly due to unequal treatment in terms of pay and increased job insecurity for workers.