The spread of COVID-19 has altered many aspects of life, including people’s work. The UK has been extremely affected by the virus, which has caused the state to have one of the highest mortality rates (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020). As a result, those not considered “critical workers” were mandated to work from home, and many individuals lost their jobs (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020, p. 126). Consequently, approximately 70% of UK citizens reported having anxiety and diminished well-being and worrying about the effects of COVID-19 on their lives (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020, p. 126). The situation became more complicated when people were pushed to choose between maintaining their careers and caring for their relatives (Chung et al., 2021). Nonetheless, as society seems to find ways to overpower the virus, now it is important to assess the occurred changes and their consequences. In particular, it is crucial to determine the impact of current job experiences on households. This paper aims to analyse the significance of flexibility in the post-pandemic era and how flexibility affects job satisfaction among working families in the UK.
Research Method
The study employed the qualitative research method (QRM) to comprehensively assess different aspects of the matter. QRM is beneficial due to allowing researchers to gather multiple forms of data from diverse sources, with the participants being able to share their ideas freely (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Accordingly, the analysis focused on findings from both primary and secondary sources, the former being interviews with working families (WFs) and the latter including academic articles and reports. Such an approach was chosen to assess whether evidence from the two types of data collection would support each other (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Consequently, the participant sample was planned to involve 20 to 30 WFs, but some responses were omitted due to expressing biases. Furthermore, to review existing literature on the topic, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory (HTFT) was leveraged as a theoretical framework that examines the workplace’s motivating and demotivating factors (Chiat and Panatik, 2019). Finally, the QRM was expected to be practical in adequately answering the following research questions:
- What is the business impact of flexible working on employee performance and productivity?
- Does the utilisation of current alternative work arrangements enable the career ambitions of working families whilst caring for their families?
- Are working families being forced to make a decision between career ambitions and caring for their families?
Research Design
The research design for the study followed the principles of the QRM. Qualitative designs, which represent types of inquiry within the qualitative approach, vary, but the present analysis concentrates on phenomenological research (PR) to explore employee motivation and flexibility among WFs (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Such a strategy focuses on assessing the lived experiences of the participants about a concept and typically involves conducting interviews (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Moreover, within the scope of PR, the literature review investigates aspects of the central phenomenon that are later divided into topical areas (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Accordingly, PR design in this paper was used to examine WFs’ motivation and flexibility and categorise each feature with relevant factors of HTFT.
It is worth noting that for this study it is also necessary to use the method of thematic analysis. This feature allows us to consider a theoretical problem from different points of view and to rely on the data obtained with the help of objective method of research. For its implementation in the system of study of the issue related to the topic of this work, it is important to consider the fact that the data that it requires can be obtained immediately before the study of the issue. The main feature that distinguishes this method from others is the comparison of data obtained before the study and after it has been carried out. This allows for a deeper understanding of the analysis, as well as the drawing of meaningful conclusions from the data obtained. Thus, it is possible to say, that thematic analysis allows to expand possibilities of interpretation of results of the given research by carrying out the comparative analysis with the data received before experiments. They can be the main figures, which should be guided in the pre-test season and compare with the current data. In this case, you can notice that the situation has changed for the better, which allows you to conduct an in-depth study of this topic, using other sources of information.
Data Collection
Data collection (DC) for the research consisted of primary and secondary sources, the former being interviews. Initially, 20 to 30 WFs were supposed to be questioned, but some responses were omitted in data analysis because some participants subjectively presented their answers. However, the number of social desirability biases was relatively small due to having implemented an approach that limited prejudiced responses based on findings from another study. Data collectors tried to ensure that the interviews were in private locations and strived to make the participants comfortable by explaining the purpose of the research and building rapport (Bergen and Labonté, 2019). Furthermore, opportunity sampling was employed to capture responses, with WFs being chosen based on availability and convenience (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Data were collected from semi-structured interviews, and such a strategy was chosen due to offering additional depth to the survey forms (Husband, 2020). Finally, the study utilised generally open-ended questions to elicit views and opinions on such matters as performance, flexible working, and satisfaction (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Overall, primary DC delivered comprehensive information by presenting the experiences of some UK individuals and is analysed further in the paper.
Secondary data was collected by examining literature from academic articles and a report. Such types of DC were picked to detect useful facts and details that the interviews may have missed (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Nonetheless, considering that some qualitative documents were likely not to be authentic and accurate, the study had certain criteria for the papers (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). In particular, the sources were selected based on their relevance to the research questions, date of publication (no older than the last five years), and credibility of the journals. The search yielded seven scholarly articles and one report, with some presenting views before the spread of COVID-19 and others being publicised during the pandemic.
The first group of sources was employed to explore the research question regarding the effects of flexible working (FW) on employee performance and productivity. Chung and Van der Horst (2020) discuss FWAs (Flexible Working Arrangements) and their connection to unpaid overtime and performance by utilising a large household panel data in the UK. For instance, Chung and Van der Horst (2020) mention that FW is regarded as a family-friendly practice but is used differently depending on such factors as occupation, parental status, and gender. Chafi, Hultberg and Bozic Yams (2021) examine such FWAs as remote and hybrid work in relation to productivity by collaborating with some Swedish organisations. For example, Chafi, Hultberg and Bozic Yams (2021) suggest that they have received conflicting results but note that those who work from home may have lower performance. The first paper was accepted prior to the pandemic, and the second one was published after the spread of the virus. Despite only one article focusing on the UK, both studies seem credible due to being published in international peer-reviewed journals, and they indicate the need for further research.
The next group of sources was utilised to investigate the second question concerning the connection between alternative work arrangements (AWAs) and WFs. Beigi, Shirmohammadi and Stewart (2018) analyse FWAs and their relation to WFC (Work-Family Conflict) and propose, for instance, that women and those with children benefit from flexible working more than men and non-parents. Galanti et al. (2021) assess work from home (WFH) and WHC regarding such aspects as engagement and suggest, for example, that distracting environments negatively affect motivation but are not predictors of decreased productivity. Furthermore, De Smet et al. (2021) explore how such AWAs as remote working affect parents and state that many employees with children refuse to keep their jobs due to the difficulties of WFH. Notably, the studies by Galanti et al. (2021) and De Smet et al. (2021) help in understanding the topic, but their limitation toward the current research is that they were not conducted in the UK. However, the two articles and the report are published by international journals and a major company, and all their analyses seem supported by evidence from multiple scholarly and government sources.
The third group of documents investigates the final research question about whether WFs have to choose between their career ambitions and families. Chung et al. (2021) examine FWAs influence female and male employees and impact their household duties. Chung et al. (2021) mention that women have to resolve whether they are willing to take on dual responsibilities. Nonetheless, Chung et al. (2021, p. 222) also remark that men have to decide if they are ready to face the “femininity stigma” associated with FWAs. Xue and McMunn (2021, p. 2) discuss how parents overcome childcare and housework demands while maintaining their jobs and how work and family may “spill” over onto the other. For example, Xue and McMunn (2021) propose that fathers and mothers who had adapted their work patterns to care for their families had experienced psychological distress. Consequently, both papers suggest that WFs are forced to choose between their careers and households. The two articles seem credible due to assessing the effects of the pandemic on work-home relationships and being published in credible journals. Overall, the reviewed above sources are relevant for the research’s DC.
Reference List
Beigi, M., Shirmohammadi, M., and Stewart, J. (2018) âFlexible work arrangements and workâfamily conflict: a metasynthesis of qualitative studies among academicsâ, Human Resource Development Review, 17(3), pp. 1-23. Web.
Bergen, N. and LabontĂ©, R. (2020) ââEverything is perfect, and we have no problemsâ: detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative researchâ, Qualitative Health Research, 30(5), pp. 1-10. Web.
Chafi, M. B., Hultberg, A., and Bozic Yams, N. (2021) âPost-pandemic office work: perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environmentâ, Sustainability, 14(1), pp. 1-20. Web.
Chiat, L. C. and Panatik, S. A. (2019) âPerceptions of employee turnover intention by Herzbergâs motivation-hygiene theory: a systematic literature reviewâ, Journal of Research in Psychology, 1(2), pp. 1-8. Web.
Chung, H. and Van der Horst, M. (2020) âFlexible working and unpaid overtime in the UK: the role of gender, parental and occupational statusâ, Social Indicators Research, 151(2), pp. 495-520. Web.
Chung, H. et al. (2021) âCovid-19, flexible working, and implications for gender equality in the United Kingdomâ, Gender and Society, 35(2), pp. 218-232. Web.
Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th edn. Los Angeles: Sage.
Dawson, D. L. and Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2020) âCOVID-19: psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemicâ, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 17, pp. 126-134. Web.
De Smet, A. et al. (2021) Married to the job no more: craving flexibility, parents are quitting to get it. Web.
Galanti, T. et al. (2021) âWork from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: the impact on employeesâ remote work productivity, engagement, and stressâ, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7), pp. e426-e432. Web.
Husband, G. (2020) âEthical data collection and recognizing the impact of semi-structured interviews on research respondentsâ, Education Sciences, 10(8), pp. 1-12. Web.
Xue, B. and McMunn, A. (2021) âGender differences in unpaid care work and psychological distress in the UK Covid-19 lockdownâ, PloS One, 16(3), pp. 1-15. Web.