«FLEXIBLE WORKING PRACTICES IN PREDICTING WORK BEHAVIOR OF EMPLOYEES” (CASE OF RUSSIAN LOGISTIC COMPANY)
|
Annotation
Introduction 6
CHAPTER 1. MANAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEE WORK BEHAVIOR IN THE
ORGANIZATION THROUGH FLEXIBLE WORKING PRACTICES 10
1.1 Theoretical approaches to employee work behavior 10
1.2 The labor market and its development trends in the modern economy 13
1.3 Analysis of flexible working practices 17
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF FLEXIBLE WORKING
PRACTICES RESEARCH IN THE RUSSIAN LOGISTIC COMPANY 22
2.1 Research methodology 22
2.2 Research strategy 23
2.3 Method of data collection 26
2.4 Data analysis 28
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 30
3.1 Results of semi-structured interviews 30
3.1.1 Current working practices in the company 30
3.1.2 The impact of flexible working practices on the work behavior 31
3.1.3 The control and appraisal of work performance in a flexible workplace 35
3.1.4 Predicting work behavior 36
3.2 Theoretical and managerial implications 39
3.3 Conclusion 43
References 45
Appendices 49
Introduction 6
CHAPTER 1. MANAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEE WORK BEHAVIOR IN THE
ORGANIZATION THROUGH FLEXIBLE WORKING PRACTICES 10
1.1 Theoretical approaches to employee work behavior 10
1.2 The labor market and its development trends in the modern economy 13
1.3 Analysis of flexible working practices 17
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF FLEXIBLE WORKING
PRACTICES RESEARCH IN THE RUSSIAN LOGISTIC COMPANY 22
2.1 Research methodology 22
2.2 Research strategy 23
2.3 Method of data collection 26
2.4 Data analysis 28
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 30
3.1 Results of semi-structured interviews 30
3.1.1 Current working practices in the company 30
3.1.2 The impact of flexible working practices on the work behavior 31
3.1.3 The control and appraisal of work performance in a flexible workplace 35
3.1.4 Predicting work behavior 36
3.2 Theoretical and managerial implications 39
3.3 Conclusion 43
References 45
Appendices 49
The globalization of economic processes, digitalization and technological advances, climate change, environmental changes, and socio-demographic transformations are actively changing the external environment, and as a result have a direct impact on the structure of the economy and labor market, how business is conducted, and how industrial relations and social dialogue are conducted. The growth of the logistics sector, the observed fragmentation of production processes, digital technologies, changes in supply chains, the creation of digital platforms to bring together shippers and carriers, new forms of employment and business models, and changing expectations of employers and employees are prominent examples in this regard. These macroeconomic and social trends have a huge impact on employment and working conditions. An example is the emergence of new or increased use of certain types of existing labor relations-employment status and types of contracts-that affect, for example, workers' rights, employment, or access to social protection. Similarly, work organization and management methods are changing, and these changes affect working hours, work intensity and employment rates, skills requirements, and thus the corresponding wage arrangements or aspects of interaction in the context of social dialogue. The noted changes in economic relations objectively determine the search for new, mobile labor market tools. During the economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, employment management issues become particularly acute and relevant, both from the position of maintaining employment in the economic system as a whole, and from the position of developing practical recommendations for business entities, which face the very real challenges of maintaining the business, personnel, organization of work in the new realities. In this context, the use of flexible forms of employment makes it possible to optimize employment processes in difficult economic and geopolitical conditions.
Flexible employment policies initially emerged in response to competitive pressures that necessitated strict management of workforce costs and new approaches to the deployment of workers (Fleetwood, 2007; Pinfield & Atkinson, 1988). To improve cost effectiveness, jobs expanded, and work hours were adjusted, creating flexibility that was employer-driven (Pinfield & Atkinson, 1988). Polices typically specify the types of FWP (flexible working practices) available to employees and the process for accessing them (Cooper & Baird, 2015; Kelly & Kalev, 2006). Although the existence of such a policy is considered a sign that FWP is available to workers (Cook, 2009), and has been shown to attract prospective employees (Thompson et al., 2015), policy does not guarantee access to FWPs. (McDonald et al., 2007; Ryan & Kossek, 2008).
In recent years many employers in Russia have introduced a range of flexible working practices for employees. The Workplace Employment Relations Surveys 2018 (WERS) found a significant proportion of employers (more than 70%) offered some form of flexible working arrangements to employees and that this had increased markedly since the WERS 2014 survey (Kersley et al. 2019). This trend has been fuelled by growing concern over work-life balance (Bailyn, Rayman, Bengtsen, Carre and Tierney 2001) and the desire to be seen as an “employer of choice” (Rau and Hyland 2002).
The use of flexible working practices is studied by scientists and researchers, both at the level of the country (Hyman, 2009) and at the level of the employer and employee. Groups of researchers study FWP from the employer's point of view. They identify the relationship between turnover, staff attendance (Dalton & Mesch, 2013), plant productivity (Konrad & Mangel, 2009), profits and increased sales (Perry-Simith & Blum, 2015) and the use of flexible employment. Thus, it has been found that the use of flexible forms of employment has an impact both on firm performance and on work discipline of staff, sick leave and staff turnover (Rosch, 2001; Mankelou, 2001; Ricci et al., 2007). There has also been research on the use of flexible forms of employment from an employee perspective (Reilly, 2001). The results of these studies show that the use of FWPs has an impact on staff loyalty and motivation. For example, in Russia, both employer and employee are interested in the use of flexible employment (Romaine, 2010). But this problem is much less studied by specialists in management and human resource management in particular (Kelliher and Anderson, 2008).
A research gap of the situation: the degree of study of the flexible working practices in the countries, the advantages and disadvantages of FWP by the employer and the employee is at a high level, while the degree of research on the flexible working practices in predicting work behavior is at an average level.
Thus, the research questions that are going to be addressed in this work are:
Q1. What flexible working practices do company use to manage employees?
Q2. How do employees respond to flexible working practices?
Q3. Why do flexible working practices lead employees to act in a certain way?
From the information above the main goal can be formed: to investigate how flexible working practices predict work behavior of different employees in the Russian logistic company and develop recommendation on improving the use of these practices.
Research objectives:
1. To analyze theoretical approaches to the work behavior of the employee with flexible working practices as a tool of impact.
2. On the basis of theoretical approaches to determine the conditions under which the selected organization uses different types of flexible working practices, and formulate a theoretical research model....
Flexible employment policies initially emerged in response to competitive pressures that necessitated strict management of workforce costs and new approaches to the deployment of workers (Fleetwood, 2007; Pinfield & Atkinson, 1988). To improve cost effectiveness, jobs expanded, and work hours were adjusted, creating flexibility that was employer-driven (Pinfield & Atkinson, 1988). Polices typically specify the types of FWP (flexible working practices) available to employees and the process for accessing them (Cooper & Baird, 2015; Kelly & Kalev, 2006). Although the existence of such a policy is considered a sign that FWP is available to workers (Cook, 2009), and has been shown to attract prospective employees (Thompson et al., 2015), policy does not guarantee access to FWPs. (McDonald et al., 2007; Ryan & Kossek, 2008).
In recent years many employers in Russia have introduced a range of flexible working practices for employees. The Workplace Employment Relations Surveys 2018 (WERS) found a significant proportion of employers (more than 70%) offered some form of flexible working arrangements to employees and that this had increased markedly since the WERS 2014 survey (Kersley et al. 2019). This trend has been fuelled by growing concern over work-life balance (Bailyn, Rayman, Bengtsen, Carre and Tierney 2001) and the desire to be seen as an “employer of choice” (Rau and Hyland 2002).
The use of flexible working practices is studied by scientists and researchers, both at the level of the country (Hyman, 2009) and at the level of the employer and employee. Groups of researchers study FWP from the employer's point of view. They identify the relationship between turnover, staff attendance (Dalton & Mesch, 2013), plant productivity (Konrad & Mangel, 2009), profits and increased sales (Perry-Simith & Blum, 2015) and the use of flexible employment. Thus, it has been found that the use of flexible forms of employment has an impact both on firm performance and on work discipline of staff, sick leave and staff turnover (Rosch, 2001; Mankelou, 2001; Ricci et al., 2007). There has also been research on the use of flexible forms of employment from an employee perspective (Reilly, 2001). The results of these studies show that the use of FWPs has an impact on staff loyalty and motivation. For example, in Russia, both employer and employee are interested in the use of flexible employment (Romaine, 2010). But this problem is much less studied by specialists in management and human resource management in particular (Kelliher and Anderson, 2008).
A research gap of the situation: the degree of study of the flexible working practices in the countries, the advantages and disadvantages of FWP by the employer and the employee is at a high level, while the degree of research on the flexible working practices in predicting work behavior is at an average level.
Thus, the research questions that are going to be addressed in this work are:
Q1. What flexible working practices do company use to manage employees?
Q2. How do employees respond to flexible working practices?
Q3. Why do flexible working practices lead employees to act in a certain way?
From the information above the main goal can be formed: to investigate how flexible working practices predict work behavior of different employees in the Russian logistic company and develop recommendation on improving the use of these practices.
Research objectives:
1. To analyze theoretical approaches to the work behavior of the employee with flexible working practices as a tool of impact.
2. On the basis of theoretical approaches to determine the conditions under which the selected organization uses different types of flexible working practices, and formulate a theoretical research model....
The study revealed what types of flexible working practices are used in the company working in the logistics sector in the Russian market, under what conditions they are used and how they affect the work behavior of employees. Based on this, recommendations for optimizing flexible practices and effective use for managers of other companies in Russia were proposed.
In this study I attempted to examine the outcomes of flexible working on a number of dimensions of work behavior and as a result present a more holistic perspective on the relationship than those studies which have taken a narrower approach (Cohen and Single, 2017; Cooper and Kurland, 2018; Mann and Holdsworth, 2018). The approach adopted was designed to gain an insight into the actual experiences of flexible workers, in order to understand how flexible working impacts on different aspects of work behavior. Furthermore, given the prevalence of informal flexible working (Healy 2016), the study did not confine itself to flexible workers who had a formalized arrangement. The intention was to allow a more conclusive picture to emerge, than the sometimes conflicting results of previous studies (Igaria and Guimares 1999; Baruch 2000; Mann and Holdsworth 2003; Raghuram and Wiesenfeld 2004).
In summary, the results show that flexible working practices had a strong, positive impact on employees’ work behavior. However, there were some variations according to different dimensions of job quality. There was strong evidence that control and autonomy were enhanced by the opportunity to work flexibly. For remote workers, in particular, autonomy was very real in this case. Along similar lines, flexible working was reported to have a positive effect on work-life balance. Although the interview data demonstrates that flexible working was seen to impact positively on job satisfaction. The results for stress and opportunities for learning and advancement were, however, rather more mixed. While the majority reported that flexible working reduced stress. The interview data shows that the positive effects brought about by flexible working can be ameliorated by the pressures generated by certain types of flexible working, in particular reduced hours. The one dimension of job quality where flexible working was largely seen to have had a detrimental effect was opportunities for learning and advancement. Flexible workers, almost by definition, tend to have lower visibility in an organization and this, together with their perceived disadvantage in their performance review and development process, were seen as impediments.
In comparison to previous work, the results show a generally stronger, more positive relationship between flexible working and job quality. However, these results need to be seen in context and may raise some of the issues discussed earlier in relation to the problems of definition. In this case study flexibly working was characterized by a high degree of informality. Our respondents reported exercising considerable personal discretion over their working patterns on an on-going basis. This ability to exercise choice may help explain the more positive picture presented here than shown in other studies. For example, being able to choose when and how frequently to work remotely represents a rather different set of circumstances from working remotely on a permanent basis, or according to a set arrangement. It is noteworthy that in our study the less positive associations tended to stem from those who worked reduced hours and who consequently had changed contractual arrangements, which limited the degree of discretion they could exercise, at least in relation to the number of hours worked. In this organization, employees who worked remotely were also well-supported in terms of the technology that they were provided with (laptop computers, internet access, mobile phones), which meant that the experience was in many ways not too dissimilar to being at the workplace. Furthermore, it may be the case that employees who work in an information technology environment may be more disposed towards technology-enabled working.
Limitations of the study consist in the fact that this study is conducted exclusively within the territory of the Russian Federation. Moreover, undertaking this research in a large organization where employees have access to flexible working practices provided a unique opportunity to analyze employees work behavior in depth, however it is acknowledged that some of the findings are context-specific and therefore may not be uniformly extrapolated to different organizational settings. Accordingly, additional research in organizations, industries or countries which operate under different organizational norms or regulatory regimes, or in organizations with more directive FWP policies, may discern another patterns of work behavior under this employment. The results presented here are based on one particular study, so the ability to generalize may be limited. This study represents a situation in which the most common form of flexible work schedule was remote work, and where employees had considerable choice. Perhaps studies of organizations where different forms of flexible working are more common or where employees have less freedom of choice will produce different results.
In this study I attempted to examine the outcomes of flexible working on a number of dimensions of work behavior and as a result present a more holistic perspective on the relationship than those studies which have taken a narrower approach (Cohen and Single, 2017; Cooper and Kurland, 2018; Mann and Holdsworth, 2018). The approach adopted was designed to gain an insight into the actual experiences of flexible workers, in order to understand how flexible working impacts on different aspects of work behavior. Furthermore, given the prevalence of informal flexible working (Healy 2016), the study did not confine itself to flexible workers who had a formalized arrangement. The intention was to allow a more conclusive picture to emerge, than the sometimes conflicting results of previous studies (Igaria and Guimares 1999; Baruch 2000; Mann and Holdsworth 2003; Raghuram and Wiesenfeld 2004).
In summary, the results show that flexible working practices had a strong, positive impact on employees’ work behavior. However, there were some variations according to different dimensions of job quality. There was strong evidence that control and autonomy were enhanced by the opportunity to work flexibly. For remote workers, in particular, autonomy was very real in this case. Along similar lines, flexible working was reported to have a positive effect on work-life balance. Although the interview data demonstrates that flexible working was seen to impact positively on job satisfaction. The results for stress and opportunities for learning and advancement were, however, rather more mixed. While the majority reported that flexible working reduced stress. The interview data shows that the positive effects brought about by flexible working can be ameliorated by the pressures generated by certain types of flexible working, in particular reduced hours. The one dimension of job quality where flexible working was largely seen to have had a detrimental effect was opportunities for learning and advancement. Flexible workers, almost by definition, tend to have lower visibility in an organization and this, together with their perceived disadvantage in their performance review and development process, were seen as impediments.
In comparison to previous work, the results show a generally stronger, more positive relationship between flexible working and job quality. However, these results need to be seen in context and may raise some of the issues discussed earlier in relation to the problems of definition. In this case study flexibly working was characterized by a high degree of informality. Our respondents reported exercising considerable personal discretion over their working patterns on an on-going basis. This ability to exercise choice may help explain the more positive picture presented here than shown in other studies. For example, being able to choose when and how frequently to work remotely represents a rather different set of circumstances from working remotely on a permanent basis, or according to a set arrangement. It is noteworthy that in our study the less positive associations tended to stem from those who worked reduced hours and who consequently had changed contractual arrangements, which limited the degree of discretion they could exercise, at least in relation to the number of hours worked. In this organization, employees who worked remotely were also well-supported in terms of the technology that they were provided with (laptop computers, internet access, mobile phones), which meant that the experience was in many ways not too dissimilar to being at the workplace. Furthermore, it may be the case that employees who work in an information technology environment may be more disposed towards technology-enabled working.
Limitations of the study consist in the fact that this study is conducted exclusively within the territory of the Russian Federation. Moreover, undertaking this research in a large organization where employees have access to flexible working practices provided a unique opportunity to analyze employees work behavior in depth, however it is acknowledged that some of the findings are context-specific and therefore may not be uniformly extrapolated to different organizational settings. Accordingly, additional research in organizations, industries or countries which operate under different organizational norms or regulatory regimes, or in organizations with more directive FWP policies, may discern another patterns of work behavior under this employment. The results presented here are based on one particular study, so the ability to generalize may be limited. This study represents a situation in which the most common form of flexible work schedule was remote work, and where employees had considerable choice. Perhaps studies of organizations where different forms of flexible working are more common or where employees have less freedom of choice will produce different results.
