These negative outcomes reflect an underlying paradigm in which the norm or mainstream mode of
work continued to be full-time (only 15 per cent of men worked on a part-time basis as at August
200822) and an unwritten workplace culture that expected employees to work beyond full-time hours
(the Australia Institute estimated that in 2009 full-time employees worked an additional 70 minutes 1. What is the impetus for flexible work practices and work redesign?
Prior to the GED the burning platform for flexible work practices could be conceptualised as
comprising three elements – all of them employee-centred. The first element focussed on attracting
and retaining women as a critical source of labour, the second on the quality of family life arising
from work/family conflict, and the third on the unmet need for flexibility in relation to employee
groups beyond women with children.
Firstly, in relation to the attraction and retention of women it was argued that flexible work practices
enabled women to integrate their work and caring responsibilities, and in particular that part-time
Top of my list is how workplace flexibility went from something that was employee initiated (and begrudgingly accommodated) to something that was employer initiated and perceived as a win-win. And this is related to a second revelation, human talent is precious.work enabled mothers to care for young children and continue paid work. The force of this
argument is reflected in the significant drop in full-time labour force participation rates for women
aged 25-34 years, corresponding to the years of early child-rearing, and an increase in part-time
work18. However as a result of women accessing part-time work in increasing numbers (as at
November 2008, 45 per cent of employed women worked on a part-time basis19), it became clear
that there were hidden disadvantages. These disadvantages included a lack of quality part-time
work20 and limited access to managerial roles on a part-time basis21.