"Throughout the 1990s, British organisations in both the private and public sectors have stressed the need for increased flexibility. The demand for flexibility is partly because of customers' insistence upon improved services at lower prices. But shareholders, anxious to obtain higher dividends, have also contributed to this drive for flexibility. 

And taxpayers, by urging the government to cut the cost of public services, have ensured that all sectors of the British economy are exposed to these pressures. 

Meanwhile, the primary responsibility for achieving flexibility has devolved on to the shoulders of the core workforce through the expansion of workload, the increased variation in their working hours and the erosion of traditional job demarcations". 

This is a summary of the conclusions to a survey carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by Cambridge University. It looks into the relationship between work flexibility and the growth of feelings of insecurity, and the intensification of work. 

In Flexibility (our website, that is) there is a natural emphasis on the potential benefits of the various kinds of work flexibility. But our approach is not uncritical. Essentially, this website's "mission" is to promote understanding of the late 20th century phenomenon of flexibility. This report, and the related publication Whose Flexibility? - brilliant title by the way! - provide valuable evidence on the context in which work flexibility has developed, and about its (perceived) effects.

It's undeniable that change in the workplace is often a traumatic process, even when the status quo is problematic or even unsustainable. It's also clear that change programmes can be introduced for a variety of reasons, and can be managed well, or managed badly. Introducing flexible forms of work is not necessarily a bed of roses, and these two reports focus on the "downside". 

David Ladipo, one of the authors, said that there were many reports focusing on the benefits, and this study was looking at a different aspect. A fair comment, and one to bear in mind when reflecting on the apparent negativity of the report's conclusions. The report does not examine whether the change programmes introduced achieved their objectives (e.g. greater productivity, greater efficiency, becoming more customer-facing, etc) - but it was not intended to. Rather it seeks to establish whether there is a connection between new ways of working on the one hand and work intensification and feelings of job insecurity on the other.

The report examines the the pressures for flexibility. These are seen as coming from:

• customers, who demand ever lower costs and more immediate delivery
• competitors, who are striving to satisfy these same customer demands
• dominant stakeholders, defined as being either private shareholders (in the private sector) wanting higher profits, or government agencies squeezing budgets and demanding better value for money in service delivery (in the public sector)

These forces put pressure on the organisation for more time-efficient delivery of services (just-in-time production), which in turn puts more pressure on its workforce. This pressure is rather inappropriately referred to as a "demand for just-in-time labour", i.e. the various kinds of flexibility:

• numerical flexibility
• temporal flexibility
• functional flexibility
• locational flexibility.

"Just-in-time" is quite misleading as a term to describe many of the forms of flexible working encompassed within these four categories. While zero-hours or possibly annualised hours contracts might fall into this category, jobshare or location-independent work need not. Essentially the point is that there is greater pressure to eliminate inefficient or time-wasting work processes, and ensuring that labour is available for production or service delivery when it is most required.

Terminology apart, there is little to dispute in this analysis. But it has a serious omission. In our own experience, and in that of several of the delegates at the conference, there is considerable pressure from within the workforce for greater flexibility. Other studies have shown that employees often see managers as obstructing flexibility, rather than as imposing it. This is particularly the case with regard to

• flexible location working (teleworking)
• jobshare
• flexitime
• parental leave options.

It is significant that with the huge rise in female employment there has been an increase in the phenomenon of "term-time" working. The temporal pattern for this is not determined for the most part by economic considerations, but by the family circumstances of the employee.

The survey found that employees reported both an extension of working hours and an intensification of their work. Core employees, the report concludes, are shouldering the burden and the pressures of the introduction of new patterns of work and reduction of (full-time permanent) staff. People feel overworked, under constant pressure, and inadequately rewarded for their increased efforts.

The report focuses on the effect of redundancies, which are seen as causing a shift of work to the survivors. Automation, however, and the introduction of new IT-based processes can make many tasks redundant, or less labour-intensive. It is likely that employees who take on the work of others have also (or should have also) had certain labour-intensive and repetitive tasks modified - that's the theory anyway. What many who complain of work intensification may be experiencing is a combination of

• the shock of the new - coming to grips with unfamiliar systems and processes
• their employers failing to prepare them adequately for dealing with new business processes and working with "non-core" workers
• the continuation of inefficient working practices while having to deal with increased workloads 

Related to this has been the growth of "multiskilling", which is generally seen by managers as a positive development. The report generally portrays the experience of multiskilling in a black light, as employees become stressed when required to be multiskilled. This can certainly be the case when one is consistently expected to operate on the margins of one's competence.

But multiskilling can also present new opportunities for career development and progression, and add to one's employability. The erosion of job demarcation is presented as an erosion of status and security for the worker, and as something imposed from above. But frequently, workers in dull or limited jobs actively seek to extend their skills and responsibilities. Like many aspects of employment, whether it works out or depends on how well it has been thought-out, and whether employees have been actively involved in developing new, more flexible, arrangements.

Job insecurity has grown significantly since the mid 1980s, as the following table illustrates:

Percentage change in reported job insecurity 1986 vs 1997

Those feeling an increase in the chill winds of insecurity the most in this decade are professional workers. Perhaps the figures can be interpreted as bearing witness to the changes which were felt primarily on the factory floor in the 1980s catching up with people who may have thought they were immune.

The report however, stresses the multi-dimensional aspect of insecurity. It is not solely fear of redundancy. People are worried also about the loss of valued job features such as their status and loss of opportunities for promotion.

This is a difficult one - how to square the circle of "flatter" organisations with employees aspirations for advancement and status. It would be interesting to ask those who feel an a awareness of lost prospects whether they would approve a return to a more hierarchical workplace.

Job insecurity can be experienced with different degrees of intensity. If one is confident of being able to find other work, being made redundant can be unpleasant but not disastrous. It is down to employability. But if, for whatever reason, one is not confident about the prospects of re-employment, feelings of insecurity can be very intense and damaging to well-being.

Insecurity is also related to the prevailing climate of restructuring, delayering etc. those who run companies want to make them "leaner and fitter", but what is the effect on people who are at the sharp end of this process?

Ironically, the same forces that help to engender insecurity may also provide new job opportunities. For example, the breaking of British Telecom's monopoly has seen the loss of tens of thousands of jobs from the formerly state-owned company. Yet the telecoms sector is vibrant and growing, and more jobs have been created than lost. Competition keeps up the pressure on any one telecoms company to remain lean, but individuals with the right skills have a high level of employability.

To some extent, large companies have traditionally shielded the majority of their workers from the insecurities of the marketplace. Marketing and sales staff, and senior managers have tended to be more keenly aware of the relationship between continued employment and winning customers. The workforce as a whole is more aware of the contingent nature of their employment, and share in the attendant insecurity. And the "job security agreements" which the report recommends would be worth precisely zip if the company is not earning enough money to pay its way.

Even in the public sector, where an organisation's income is by and large a "free resource" - i.e. not earned but acquired  without regard to performance - there is a greater awareness of budgetary constraints. The introduction of internal markets and bidding processes has (arguably) injected some market discipline, and ripples of insecurity through the workforce.

The report rightly points out that feelings of job insecurity can be dependent on factors within the workplace, or factors from outside.

Some people are wedded to their work, but most if they won the lottery wouldn't be seen for dust. Work is for most people a means to an end, not an end in itself. Work provides an income which enables one to do things that are important in life. 

Job insecurity is often the top level manifestation of life insecurity. If flexible working has engendered an increase in job insecurity, perhaps it's because as a society we haven't got the other things right. 

Social security, pension arrangements, mortgage repayments, insurance etc are all geared to a permanent, steady income stream. Fluctuations of income, the mixing of periods of work with periods of not working, can lead to your possessions being repossessed or being called in for questioning by the DSS. 

On the one hand public policy supports flexibility at work. On the other hand, public policy does little to support the individual who works flexibly.

The survey and the report provide interesting insights into the sharp end of new ways of working. Certain assumptions however permeate the report, and were very evident at the conference where the report was presented. 

New ways of working are to a large extent portrayed as something imposed on the workforce, resulting in the erosion of working conditions and the increasing of stress. Some of the language at the conference, both from some delegates and occasionally from the platform, evoked memories of the 1970s - class warriors are alive and well and living in academia!

The report does produce evidence of lack of trust between management and employees. But whether this can be laid at the door of introducing flexible work patterns rather than other factors is not clear.

Management in fact can often be the barrier to the successful introduction of flexible working. People usually become managers by succeeding within the existing system. They often resist calls from above and from below for change. Managers can be particularly threatened by delayering - which can bring redundancy or loss of status - and some forms of flexible working which reduce their ability to control, e.g. outsourcing, or flexible location working, or flexitime. 

The report provides many valuable insights into insecurity in the workforce. Funded by the Rowntree Foundation, it is underpinned by a strong social ethic, a concern for the welfare of working people. It convincingly portrays the circumstances and experience of stress amongst workers who are or feel under threat. 

The conclusions and recommendations, however, appear to be somewhat regressive. These include calls for:

• higher social security spending
• the revival of trade unions to give collective security
• the regulation of capital
• new legislation to regulate the relationship between organisations and their employees.

Short of renationalising the railways it has a distinctively Old Labour feel to it.

These are essentially arguments to turn back the clock and which have little chance of being implemented. From the findings of the research, it would have been quite possible to come up with a different set of conclusions and recommendations. These would be ones which "go with the flow" of the current dynamics of workplace change, and which take greater account of economic change, technological change, and the imperatives of the bottom line.

The report is available from York Publishing Services Ltd, 64 Hallfield Road, Layerthorpe, York, YO31 7QZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)1904 430033
fax: +44 (0)1904 439868
email: orders@yps.ymn.co.uk 

For further details of the Job insecurity and Work Intensification Survey (JIWIS) contact Dr Brendan Burchell, email: BB101@cus.cam.ac.uk or see the website at www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/jiwis