Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has escalated interest in and demand for flexible forms of work beyond which many would have predicted before 2020. Remote and hybrid work are now core features of the labor market, and concepts such as the four-day workweek are receiving mainstream interest. The potential significant challenges and disadvantages inherent in flexible working, especially in relation to those who undertake them, are therefore vital to understand. Heejung Chung’s book The Flexibility Paradox: Why Flexible Working Leads to (Self-)Exploitation could not be more important and timely.
The author provides a comprehensive history of the research on flexible working, sharing insight into her own multiple studies, as well as those of other academics, that investigate the impact, outcomes, risks, and benefits of flexible working arrangements. This research includes an analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on attitudes toward flexible working, as well as its impact on those who worked flexibly during this time.
The book presents the reader with the flexibility paradox—the idea that the freedom promised by flexible working arrangements can in fact lead to a range of problematic consequences. Her central argument is that while in some circumstances flexible working is expected to (and indeed may) result in multiple benefits including improvements in work–life balance, in practice it often leads to self-exploitation, work intensification, and simply more work. Increased autonomy and discretion around working arrangements often result in employees working longer and harder. This detailed critical analysis moves beyond many of the typical and somewhat clichéd discussions about flexible work that have become familiar since the global pandemic enforced new ways of working.
Through her in-depth analysis of the outcomes of flexible work, including work–life conflict, career implications, and well-being, Chung highlights that our perceptions of flexible working are overly simplistic. In addition, flexible work has a stigmatized nature, and those who undertake it may be perceived negatively by colleagues and managers. The book specifically challenges the idea that flexible working can lead to improved employee well-being or an opportunity to improve work–life balance. The paradox of flexible working, which often results in overwork, blurred boundaries, work–life conflicts, and encroachment on the private sphere, manifests itself in ways that differ between women and men. Often, women bear the brunt of this paradox as their use of flexible working can result in the expansion of domestic and family responsibilities. This outcome leads to another key theme of the book: the gendered nature of flexible work and its potential to reinforce existing gender roles (largely mother as carer, father as breadwinner) rather than disrupt them, and to enable easier exploitation. Furthermore, women (especially mothers) are subjected to societal views and stereotypes, their choices constrained by gender norms, with a greater likelihood of flexible work being stigmatized.
Throughout the book Chung sets the flexibility paradox in context, raising important questions about our relationship with work and the social norms that surround it, specifically the extent to which our societies are increasingly work-centered, with organizational cultures that encourage long hours and reward presenteeism and devotion to work. From the pervasive culture of “busyness” to the increased use of digital technologies and even the perceived obligation to work harder to reciprocate for the opportunity to work flexibly, Chung explores why flexible working can result in problematic outcomes, and why the flexibility paradox exists.
A key theme within the book is that of flexible work acting as an amplifier of existing problems within work and gender culture. Where such problems exist, such as our idolization of the “ideal worker” (one with few outside commitments who prioritizes work over everything else), flexible working enhances these issues “to the max” (p. 1). Despite its current popularity, flexible work is then not a potential solution to some of our long-standing work-related challenges; instead, it risks exacerbating them further. This idea is a cautionary note for proponents of flexible working arrangements, highlighting the importance of context, implementation, and approach.
Chung has successfully written a book that is grounded in both research and theory, and it provides practical ideas for real-life application. This book should provide valuable food for thought about the ways in which organizations have implemented flexible and hybrid working post-pandemic. Chung cautions that “blind introduction” (p. 18) of such working practices without accompanying broader changes within the labor market, gender cultures, and our attitudes to work may result in unintended and detrimental consequences. The author concludes by considering several future scenarios of flexible working, posing questions for future research. Perhaps more essential, she also provides detailed recommendations for governments, organizations, managers, and individuals regarding the many challenges presented by flexible working. Chung makes it clear that despite the book setting out the very significant negative consequences that can result from flexible working, such arrangements do have the potential to enable better work, improved work–life balance, and increased employee well-being. To achieve this, she argues, will require deep disruption to our current ways of thinking about work, gender roles, and our institutional contexts in which flexible work takes place. The Flexibility Paradox is an engaging and important read for anyone interested in flexible working and the future of work, including business leaders, human resource professionals, and academics.