Fourteen Flexible working practices in charities: supporting or hindering women’s emancipation in the workplace

The case for flexible working is inherently linked to the issue of workers needing to balance their commitments as employees with their roles as carers. The case is often made in gendered terms, that it is good for women. So we ask: why women? Why not men as the primary carers? We therefore begin by examining the stereotyping of women and the extent to which such processes are maintained, rather than challenged by HRM (human resource management) policies and procedures.

In 1994 a study by Williams and Best discovered a high degree of agreement across 30 countries with respect to the characteristics associated with each gender group. Male-associated terms included ‘aggressive’, ‘determined’ and ‘sharp-witted’ whereas female-associated terms included ‘cautious’, ‘emotional’ and ‘warm’. However, according to Schaffer (2004, 322): ‘Personality and cognitive differences are far fewer in number than is commonly believed, and, where they do exist, moderate in extent and are quite probably becoming less evident as society redefines the role of the sexes.’And yet, gender-role stereotypes are repetitively portrayed by the media, as well as by parents and teachers (Wober et al, 1987; Hines et al, 2002; Leaper and Friedman, 2007). Favara (2012, 5) confirms that ‘gender stereotypes affect both girls’ and boys’ educational choices’ even when choosing a subject: ‘girls choose more female than male subjects and the opposite for boys’ (Favara, 2012, 23). From a young age, this study suggests, we are passively receptive to the ‘accepted’ stereotypical roles of women within the home and workplace. Explanations for such behaviour between men and women ‘tend to emphasise biological (or other internal) causes, as opposed to social (and other external) causes (individualism)’ (Ross, 2010, 764). The recourse to biology tends to be used to reinforce widely held stereotypes regarding the inevitability and unchangeability of gender differences, and thus, continues to contribute to the view that women are inherently suited to the role of primary carer, a view that that follows them into the workplace.

Until the 1980s the common pattern of the UK family employment was predominantly one of men (fathers) working long hours and women (mothers) working in low-paid part-time roles in order to keep the house and look after the children (Dex and Scheibl, 2002). However, the socio-economic and political changes of the intervening decades have seen an increase in the number of women entering the workforce working in both full-time and part-time capacity (see Table 14.1). Moreover, a combined increase in the population of lone mother households, with the consequence that ‘women’s wages are more important than ever to the family budget’ (Family Friendly Working Hours Taskforce, 2010, 19). HRM policies, including flexible working arrangements supported by legislation, have not kept abreast of these changing trends and remain biased towards women, in order to accommodate women’s dual role as societal primary carer and employee (Martinuzzi et al, 2011; Grosen et al, 2012).

In this chapter, we present findings that suggest that the flexible working policies utilised by medium-sized service providing charities had the effect of reinforcing stereotypical thinking about gender roles, and thus, can be seen as a mode of restricting rather than supporting women (East, 2013). We use the defninition of a ‘charity’ as in the Charities Act 2011 (s.1) (for England & Wales), namely, an institution which is:

Theoretical models of flexible working such as the ‘family-friendly model’ (Doherty and Manfredi, 2006, 242) and the ‘diversity model’ (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994, 7) respectively look to provide ‘equity’ for women and ‘diversity’ within the workplace. However, Frank and Lowe (2003) found that flexible working arrangements could be detrimental to long-term career goals and, as a result of gender specific prioritising, may affect more women than men. Cullen and Christopher concluded that ‘balancing responsibilities of work and home life is recognised as affecting both men and women; however, maintaining this balance is more problematic for women as women still have the primary child rearing and domestic responsibilities’ (Cullen and Christopher, 2012, 70). Furthermore, neither of the models mentioned above appear to be operational within the medium-sized charitable organisations studied (East, 2013).

The implicit assumption that only women can be primary carers and undertake ‘domestic responsibilities’ draws on arguments surrounding the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate (Galton, 1876) which concerns the extent to which particular aspects of behaviour are a product of acquired (learnt) or inherited (genetic) characteristics. Nurture, on the other hand, refers to the broad suite of environmental influences (experience). This argument comes into play when considering individuals (women) and whether their behaviour can be separated from the social context (Sameroff, 2010, 13).

The Fawcett Society (2013, 13–15) reminds us that women are in the majority (51 per cent) of the population and yet, power is overwhelmingly concentrated in the minority, men. For example, at the time of writing, out of 22 Cabinet members of the UK government only seven are women, and they argue that women are ‘not generally perceived as powerful; this perception filters throughout society, reinforces gendered assumptions and stereotypes of what a leader looks like, and impacts directly on women’s power and agency’ (Fawcett Society, 2013, 15). Although, the working culture for women has come a long way since the UK’s Equal Pay Act 1970, much remains unchanged. Progress towards equality continues to be slow, possibly because women are good at adapting to flexible working and organising their time around work and familial duties. Men are culturally still not expected to step outside their social norms and adapt to life changes (Boundless, 2014).

To be able to appreciate why flexible working is important within the charity sector, we need to understand the distinctive profile of its workforce. The data presented in Table 14.1 provides a snapshot of the voluntary sector workforce by both gender and employment status (note that the NCVO definition of the ‘voluntary sector’ does not coincide exactly with the legal definition of a ‘charity’, but a high proportion of voluntary sector workers are employed in charities). Although the data relates to 2011, the figures do provide appropriate granular detail as compared to the statistical data available on the Charity Commission website, which merely splits the workforce by employees, trustees and volunteers (Charity Commission, 2012).

Interestingly, neither the Charity Commission nor the NCVO provide a further breakdown relating to the split between full-time and part-time employees by gender. Baines (2006, 198) has stated that ‘care work is a central concern of most women’s professions’ and so, ‘caring for and about people is generally inseparable within the tasks and goals of this type of work, and is a major source of meaning and job satisfaction’. This theme of care will be discussed again later within the context of familial teamwork; the primary carer role extends not just to the home but to caring for others within the workplace – team, department, organisation and extending to vulnerable clients within the community.

As the statistics demonstrate, women account for a significant proportion of the workforce, dominating both full and part-time domains. As noted above, the initial drive for promoting flexible working was to support women juggling their dual roles as employee and primary carer. However, as we later show, only a ‘qualifying employee’ within the UK workforce is able to exercise the right to request flexible working arrangements and an employer does not have to grant it (although they do need to give a valid business case for rejection). However, it is unclear whether such provisions help to improve women’s position in the workplace and their career development. Houston and Waumsley (2003, 4) conclude that:

More should be done to establish that flexible working does not necessarily mean poor career prospects. This means making flexible working available at all levels of occupations and challenging the notion that working longer hours means advancement. If this does not happen there is a risk that flexible working will further segregate men and women in the workforce.

Dex and Scheibl (2002) suggest that unless men overcome their fear of loss of opportunities and promotion, and begin to utilise the family-friendly policies themselves, the gender division will continue to increase, with women taking the majority of part-time and flexible work, and thus, remaining disadvantaged in terms of their career development.

Flexible working was initially presented at the same time as employers were moving increasingly towards individualised contracts and a greater deployment of casual and temporary staff. Thus, trade unions saw flexibility as a major threat to their constituencies and to collectivism (Wilton, 2004, 278). Unions had in the past sought to block the introduction of part-time, temporary and other non-standard employment contracts. In doing so, they could be seen to be acting conservatively, supporting skilled male workers as the employment norm and therefore, perpetuating the cultural perception of women as carers (Bradley, 2009, 93).

While we regard flexible working as an issue for both men and women, the up-take and expansion of organisational policies has been slow, with benefits frequently being only offered to, or taken up by women (Houston and Waumsley, 2003, 1; Grosen et al, 2012, 73). The Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2010, 1) has also more recently embraced flexible working, welcoming the government’s proposals for increasing opportunities for both women and men:

Working parents who are trying to combine a job or career with raising a young family will be relieved that ministers are considering allowing those with children over five the chance to take parental leave…Similarly men who are planning to become fathers in the not too distant future will be pleased that they may have to give their employers less notice to take paternity leave and so spend valuable time with their new families.

There are a number of reasons why the up-take of flexible-working policies may not be successful: first, cultural and behavioural attitudes of both employees and employers; second, flexible working policies may be regarded as likely to increase, rather than decrease gender disparities if implemented; third, policies tend to be aimed solely at women and/or carers; and fourth, the economic consequences (Dex, 1999; Houston and Waumsley, 2003, 45). Millar (2009, 18) and Walter (2010) however, believe that the problems go deeper, with roots in generations of conditioning about women’s roles.

As increasing numbers of women enter the labour market, Pocock (2003) argues that with these current patterns of participation in employment and stasis in the domestic relations, roles between men and women, work and care collide. Knowing they have to take on a ‘second shift’ in the home may account for why women, at least, are happier with shorter working hours (Booth and van Ours, 2005). Better work–life balance might be attained less through flexible working for women but by persuading men to shoulder equitable domestic responsibility. However, the signs for women’s equality are not looking good. For example, Australian research revealed that 40 per cent of young males to be ‘open minimisers’, who plan for their future wives to do all the housework and less than two-thirds of young women expect to share this housework equitably (Pocock, 2006, 143).

As highlighted earlier, the increasing participation of women in the charity labour force has resulted in ‘the reality of needing flexibility for childcare or to care for elderly relatives’ (Charity Times, 2007). To accommodate these changes, legislation including Employment Act 2006 and Work and Families Act 2006 addressed the right for employees with eldercare responsibilities and for fathers take paternity leave interchangeably with their partners. (In 2014, the right to request flexible working was then extended to all employees, regardless of whether or not they had caring responsibilities.)

These changes in legislation should have provided a stimulus for organisations to review their flexible working policies. However, our study found this was not the case with the four medium-sized charities that we studied in depth (East, 2013). Primarily, we found that the HR (human resources) function within these charities could not cope with these changes, either because it was under-developed or under-resourced or because there was no dedicated HR function at all, with HR responsibilities being carried out informally (Cunningham, 2010; see also the Family Friendly Working Hours Taskforce, 2010, 15). Thus, as a result, where legislative changes arise, the changes are either not communicated because they are not understood or they are neglected, because their importance is not appreciated and information is lost because it is not disseminated downwards to junior staff.

To explore flexible working issues, a study was undertaken to pursue the following research questions: what is understood by the term flexible working within medium-sized charities; what flexible working practices are currently operational within medium-sized charities and what barriers and enablers affect the uptake of flexible-working practices (including funding and line-management) (East, 2013, 21).

We identified a lack of existing research regarding patterns of flexible working in UK charities. Our study focused on medium-sized charities (with an annual income between £500,000 and £5 million) registered in England and Wales. A multi-method approach was used: an initial postal questionnaire to 520 charities regarding their understanding and practices with flexible working was followed by detailed case studies in four charities involving one-to-one semi-structured interviews with staff from across the organisational hierarchy.

One of the questions in the postal questionnaire gave the respondent an opportunity to indicate a willingness to contribute further. The organisations partaking in the second phase were selected from these – they were all service-providing organisations in the field of care and support. Across the four charities, 30 interviews were conducted with a range of individuals ranging from chief executives to operational staff and volunteers. Attempts were also made to speak to trustees (board members) of the charities, but in each case this proved impossible within the timescale available.

The one-to-one semi-structured interviews included both open and closed questions, though the presentation of these was not fixed, in order to achieve a discussion was which as natural as possible and providing the interviewee with virtual vocal space (East, 2013, 90). All interviews were digitally recorded. They were initially transcribed by hand by the researcher with repeated playing where necessary to glean missing words and to note specific nuances such as body language, pauses and other characteristics personal to the interviewee. These hand-written transcription drafts were then dictated back in into Microsoft Word using speech recognition software. The final versions of the transcriptions were uploaded into NVivo (a qualitative data analysis computer software package which is designed to work with rich text-based data where granular levels of analysis are required).

The comments and experiences of respondents from both phases of the study were analysed in relation to the three aforementioned research questions (East, 2013, 21). The postal questionnaire incorporated 23 questions and the interviews used 12 semi-structured questions. The postal questionnaire explored the profile of each charity through funding, governance, policies and workforce while the interviews examined flexible working policies and options available, barriers and tensions, communications surrounding flexible-working and whether and how decreasing funding affected the offer and uptake of flexible working. Both men and women were interviewed (6:24 ratio).

The prominent finding was that within the context of formal flexible working policies an informal flexible working model had been established by female junior staff members and was utilised solely by them. Men were less inclined to ask for flexible working, saying that they thought it was for women, as primary carers as compared to men and they generally felt uncomfortable approaching the subject. In contrast, women had asked about flexible working options but had been discretely refused or stalled. Reasons given concerned funding and as stated in the postal questionnaires ‘offering part-time working has allowed us to maintain the same number of employees when facing a reduction in funding, without making redundancies’. The senior participants appeared to have a better access to flexible working practices than more junior staff.

It emerged that an informal flexible working model had been established by junior female workers, emerged out of discussions about the rewarding in-house ‘family’ relationships, and intimate ‘team’ bonds enjoyed by these female junior staff members, surpassing the immediate concerns of reduced funding. Their philanthropic beliefs, charitable ethos, commitment to each other as well as to the charity gave them the strength and stability to accept change and enabled them to adapt to survive against external influencing factors. Through this ubiquitous ‘family’ team characteristic, reinforced by volunteer support, and familial oriented language, these distinguishing traits were found to be at the heart of what we term the emergent ‘female junior informal flexible working model’.

This informal model was found to have emerged as a result of three main drivers. First, these staff had experienced inconsistent communication and decision-making regarding HRM policies, including flexible working, from line-managers and employers; in contrast, the chief executive officers (CEOs) believed that flexible working options were regularly communicated. Second, instances were found in all organisations of informal HRM agreements between female junior employees and their line-managers. These agreements were dependent upon the working relationship between the employee and their line-manager or employer, and this echoes similar findings by Corby and White (1999), Cunningham (2001) and Yeandle et al (2003). Third, it was found that team-work based on the familial relationships among the predominantly female workforce, together with the habitual informality of operation and understanding of the flexible working concept, led to the development of these patterns of working.

The crux of the model centres on the strong familial ties between fellow female junior staff members. When interviewed, both female junior managers and front-line staff reiterated that their team worked as a ‘family’ and being a close-knit ‘team’, ‘togetherness’ meant that the women worked closely and intimately together – sharing knowledge and covering for each other when fellow team members had to leave earlier to deal with their own personal home-life issues; for example, attending to a poorly child, taking an elderly parent to a hospital appointment or attending a dental appointment. The utilisation of norms such as ‘family’ and ‘togetherness’ may have more salience within the team as compared to outside the team culture. This strong working bond is demonstrated by comments such as:

[We have a] mixed staff, [of] which some have got young children, some have got older children, so it’s, we, we [are] normally able to sort it out…cover the service.

(Interview with junior female manager–team manager)

Hogg and Vaughan defined group cohesion as ‘the way it ‘hangs together’ as a tightly knit, self-contained entity characterised by uniformity of conduct and mutual support among members’ (1998 cited in Gross, 2010, 489). In our interviews we found that this cohesiveness had been strengthened because of the following factors: 1) the similarity of the team members in terms of junior role status, female, similar age and task, with the majority being care-providers; 2) solidarity, cultivated, and nourished through intimate language usage supporting team culture; 3) size and stability – the teams are relatively small and relationships are established, thus further enhancing cohesive strength; and 4) success – the informal model supports individuals while also meeting the group and organisational needs – team members providing cover, supporting others with heavy workloads and so forth. The following quotes are from two female front-line staff members and a junior manager, respectively:

Because everyone is so, um [pause], approachable and quite understanding and maybe it’s because it’s a charity… it works, it works better, like it’s almost a give and take.

(Interview with female front-line support–employment law advisor)

You see other people, I guess do it, so I think it’s just…over time the more comfortable you get, the more, you know, the more flexible everyone becomes.

(Interview with female front-line support–executive assistant)

For an organisation this size, this small…and it’s more hands-on, it’s more of a, it’s more nurturing as an environment… being so small everyone is aware of everyone’s arrangements to, to, to a degree…it should benefit them.

(Interview with junior female manager–charity manager)

Throughout the study we noticed the repetitive usage of encouraging, heartening and supportive language and we suggest that this further enhanced the attachments and friendships between the female junior staff, promoting and accentuating these unified intimate bonds. Women participants acknowledged that they are still the primary societal care-providers, as illustrated by a female senior manager who said, ‘Unless we stop it, and go more like Sweden, we’re never going to get to that equal, um, balance.’ In addition, comments from the postal questionnaires revealed support for the idea that women are the primary societal care-provider:

We are predominantly a female organisation, a lot of who have primary care for their children. (Questionnaire response charity 319)

We find [the established formal flexible working arrangements] helpful in facilitating different client groups. It also keeps women staff with families. (Questionnaire response charity 317)

Our findings support those of McDonald et al (2005), Eikhof et al (2007), Millar (2009; 2010) and Walter (2010). With the care function being extended from home into the workplace (Baines, 2006) and in particular, to their in-house team, or ‘family’, this care function further accentuates and promotes the feeling that they are valuable contributors in the delivery of core services, thus increasing their personal self-esteem. Furthermore, we identified a commonly held belief in the synergy between their personal values aligning with those of the organisation:

[It’s] because we have to be so flexible within our work anyway. Um, we’re also very caring organisation, so I think the two go hand-in-hand, be[ing] a charity and a caring organisation…our culture. But at the same time, because you give, you get an awful lot back…we’re a family.

(Interview with CEO)

[It’s] relationships and it’s all about the people you work with…with hand on heart that, not one of my staff wouldn’t come in and work two hours for somebody that had to, whose child was ill or had to take the child to hospital, carer for somebody that had fallen…you see, we sound like one big family.

(Interview with senior female manager–day services manager)

I think for me, because obviously, we’re in the carer profession, our profession’s care…we care about our staff in supporting our, erm, values.

(Interview with senior female manager–deputy manager)

Not, not because it’s a charity. But then, it’s yeah, it’s the culture!

(Interview with junior female manager–financial accountant)

Management accepted that employees performed large volumes of unpaid overtime which was ‘officially invisible’ (Baines, 2004a, 282; 2004b, 22; East, 2013, 196). As noted earlier, there was limited support from HRM: for example, several organisations allowed TOIL (time off in lieu) to be accrued when staff had worked additional hours, but once it reached above a certain level, it would be lost. In addition, findings confirmed that the key employees who undertook ‘paid work for an external organisation [in order to keep] the organisation in operation’ were female junior staff members (junior managers and front-line workers). The following quote from one of the female junior managers exemplifies and supports Baines’ findings (East, 2013, 196):

Um, sometimes there’s clients that need seeing, um, like this evening, I’m going to have to work late because somebody needs something doing. I can’t, I can’t actually fit it into my working day, um, and that’s a real pain in the arse, because I want to go home and cook tea, but at the same time, I’ve got to do it…we have organisational needs, our clients need to see us…really within office hours, but…

(Interview with junior female manager–family mediation worker)

One male CEO stated, ‘I would be the first to be told if there were problems’, suggesting that senior management were not openly aware of the unpaid overtime being undertaken in order to accommodate heavy workloads and service-user needs at the expense of personal familial time, while remaining ‘officially invisible’ (Baines, 2004b, 22). This supports the idea that senior management were ‘indulging’ particular work patterns in which cooperation and loyalty were elicited through a regime of leniency and paternalism (Gouldner, 1954; Burawoy, 1982). The informal flexible working patterns entertained by the female junior staff members were comfortable to senior managers who knew that the work was being delivered, as evidenced in both the postal questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The work undertaken outside core hours, because ‘our clients need to see us’ (female junior manager–family mediation worker), was altruistic, emotionally engaging and self-sacrificing.

It could be argued that the junior female staff members were acting professionally and undertaking additional unpaid work through a sense of duty, but the semi-structured interviews provided a granular insight to their rationale and demonstrated the extent to which their commitment was rooted in personal values, bonds with fellow work colleagues and a suite of complex psychological allegiances to both, colleagues, clients and the organisation.

This enhanced the motivation of staff to remain within the charity sector, providing and supporting vulnerable service-users. However, analysing the interviews through Glaserian grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) suggesting that the adopted ‘family’ framework also gave female staff members a degree of work–life balance through flexible working, which in turn meant that they saw the charitable organisation in a positive light, as benefits could be seen for both parties, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Staff are aware we take a positive attitude to flexible working.

(Questionnaire response charity 105)

It enables me to spend more quality time with my son…it means I can do breakfast, lunch and dinner…there’s a lot of qualities; it improves my work–life balance.

(Interview with junior female manager–children centre programme manager)

It gives me a little more freedom…if I think I need to sleep in a little bit more, because I’m tired and I think I would be more productive if I had more sleep…it allows me to be more effective.

(Interview with female front-line staff–business manager)

I can do things that I would normally have to take maybe annual leave for.

(Interview with female front-line staff–support worker)

This positive perception of the organisation further enriched their work ethic and boosted their sense of self-esteem and of doing something worthwhile (Gallie et al, 1998; Zappala, 2000; Schimel, 2004). Atkinson and Hall (2011) have suggested that flexible working makes employees ‘happy’ and that there are attitudinal and behaviour links between this happiness and discretionary behaviour, and our interviews give some support for this proposition.

Another important theme that emerged from the data was the utilisation of volunteers in support of staff’s flexible working. All categories of interviewees recognised the role of volunteers as ‘absolutely wonderful, um, without their commitment, um, life would be extremely difficult’ (female CEO). Another female senior manager commented, that ‘they support [us] immensely and help us do a lot of things’. A female worker, in a front-line role, said, that ‘this place wouldn’t run without volunteers. [We] wouldn’t be here without the volunteers’.

However, interestingly, many CEOs, senior managers and junior managers rejected the ideas that volunteers had an impact on the flexible working of paid staff, took on paid staff responsibilities or would have an impact on funding. A female CEO commented that the input of volunteers ‘helps in the delivery of the work, but not in terms of flexible working’.

By contrast the view of front-line staff regarding the contribution of volunteers was that they ‘predominantly use them for, um, staff that we don’t, we can’t claim time for’. Front-line staff members concluded that ‘for me to do my flexible hours, I would first rely on my volunteers’ and ‘if someone wanted to cut their hours or anything, you could have the volunteers there…to come in and help us out if we needed them to’.

Volunteers were also seen to help with respect to dealing with paid staff responsibilities: ‘they can assist to fill the vacancies that we have within a specific project’ and deal with work ‘that we don’t have time to look through’ (interview with female front-line worker–executive assistant).

Thus, the interview data demonstrated that volunteers acted as enablers from both a funding and an HRM perspective, being a resource to bridge a gap; thereby, allowing charities to claim against contracts and grants for work carried by non-paid employees, and thereby, also saving on costs. In particular, for front-line staff, this additional resource made it possible for them to enjoy flexible working, knowing that because their work was covered they could come in late or leave earlier to deal with familial and personal matters. A volunteer would undertake a ‘bit of reception work, do a bit of typing’ (interview with a female volunteer) to provide the necessary cover. This utilisation of volunteers was unofficial and not formally recognised by junior managers and above. However, managers did recognise that heavy workloads were delivered with a limited amount of paid resource, suggesting that they were aware of these practices and were ‘turning a blind eye’ in order to achieve workloads; such non-disclosure of resources utilised has also been observed by Baines (2004b, 22).

The strength of the familial culture developed within the in-house teams (including the use of volunteers where applicable) has acted as an enabler for female junior staff members to be able to enjoy a degree of flexible working and, concomitantly, a sense of emancipation. So, the informal flexible working model developed by female junior staff has succeeded against the perceived and/or real barriers of line management and allows women to have a degree of control over their work–life balance.

In examining flexible working practices in charities, our study found that the flexible working concept is broad, complex, intricate and multifaceted. But we need to ask how far these practices that accompany it support or hinder women’s emancipation in the workplace.

Emancipation can be described as the liberation from a form of restraint, or from emotional and psychological manacles – whether ‘real’ or perceived (East, 2013). In the workplace there will always be certain limitations and restrictions either through in-house policies and procedures or through legislative policies such as that of non-smoking within the workplace. Furthermore, specific health and safety guidance needs to be followed for one’s personal safety and wellbeing. But whether these are considered as a hindrance or as supportive depends upon one’s own life experiences and perceptions, as well as the practices that support them.

The study found a number of extrinsic and intrinsic influencing factors affecting the successful uptake of flexible working, which had an impact, whether direct or indirect, on the degree of emancipation that women enjoy within the charitable workplace (East, 2013). The results are somewhat mixed depending on whether we are considering formal or informal practices, which in turn are dependent upon a number of factors such as seniority and role status.

The CEOs, whether male or female (1:3 ratio among the interview sample), worked at a different pace compared to staff in the rest of their organisations, and together with the freedom to manage their own time supported by technological functionality, not readily available to all staff, were in a position to work from home or a mobile office. Because CEOs operated within a more flexible framework, they responded positively when discussing their own work–life balance and the benefits it provided for their personal family life. Senior managers, although having a good understanding of what options were available in-house, saw in addition that flexible working practices were for the benefit of all employees, not just for women who were juggling employment and caring responsibilities. These senior managers typically held the view that maintaining a work–life balance was primarily an individual concern; a position echoed by authors such as van Wanrooy et al (2013, 33) who write that ‘balancing work and family responsibilities [is] the responsibility of the individual employees’. The senior managers appeared to conclude that work–life balance was achievable if an individual managed their own time.

In contrast, junior staff saw flexible working more as a working partnership between employee and employer. It could be argued that formal flexible working practices ideally give employees the necessary support and freedom to accommodate personal familial needs. However, the findings demonstrated that even if formal policies were in place, either women were unable to use them because of workloads and deadlines to meet, or, where they had banked time under TOIL, this was capped and lost if not taken within specified time-periods, or lost because workloads never had the opportunity to utilise to their ‘earned’ benefit. Therefore, in practice, this equal partnership did not exist. Female junior staff members continued rarely reaped the rewards promised at staff induction and interviews regarding work–life balance.

Our study found, however, that for junior managers and front-line workers informal (rather than formal) flexible working practices were being practised, created by these women to address their own needs and their commitment to the clients whom they supported. Through this approach they achieved a measure of emancipation, which supported both their personal roles as parents/carers and their commitment to their clients in the charity.

The starting point for our research (East, 2013, 54–65) was the increasing numbers of women employed in the charitable sector who bring with them ‘the reality of needing flexibility for childcare or to care for elderly relatives’ (Charity Times, 2007). As we noted, legislation in the UK has sought to address the needs of all those with caring responsibilities – not just mothers but also fathers and employees with eldercare responsibilities. Further flexibility may emerge as a result of a change in UK employment rights surrounding paternity pay and leave which took effect in November 2014. This change now allows fathers to take one to two weeks paid ordinary paternity leave, and up to 26 weeks additional paternity leave should their partner return to work. This study was concerned with the right to request flexible working arrangements for both men and women, rather than specific issues of maternity and paternity leave, though such changes in legislation can act as a stimulus for organisations to review their policies. However, this finding was not observed in the present study. We speculate that this may be explained by the poorly resourced HR function in these medium-sized charities, which simply cannot cope with these changes.

It was found in both the postal survey and in the case studies that such flexible working policies as existed in these medium-sized charities were rudimentary and biased towards female staff. The policies focused upon women as the primary carers for adults and children and so the theoretical models of flexible working, which have been advanced by other authors, were not wholly supported. The position that ‘the underlying rationale [of such policies] is the desire to create “equity” in the allocation of organisational benefits’ (Doherty and Manfredi, 2006, 242) was not demonstrated in our findings, that policies were biased towards female staff rather than embracing all employees. We note that promoting flexible working to all staff allows a charity a greater pool of employees to utilise and thereby, ‘understanding there are differences between employees and that these differences, if properly managed, are an asset to work being done more efficiently and effectively’ (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994, 7). Diversity incorporates race, disability and other protected characteristics as well as gender, of course, but the study found that an intangible wedge continues to divide men and women. This makes it increasingly difficult, both culturally and socially, for male employees to be accepted as primary carers, while also preventing women from shedding the label of primary carer (Frank and Lowe, 2003).

The female junior informal flexible working model emerged as a result of informal rules being acknowledged and being allowed to continue without HRM policies, including formal flexible working, being regularly promoted or, as one female CEO put it, ‘not [being] kept live enough’. So, informal practices crept in and were established. They were sanctioned by line-managers with their predominantly female junior employees and allowed to operate based on trust where ‘unofficially, um, you know, I’m trusted, so I start later then, you know, I’m trusted I will work my hours’ (interview with female front-line worker). Initially, these informal practices arose depending on the working relationships between employees and line-management, and the importance of this relationship is highlighted in the literature (Corby and White, 1999; Cunningham, 2001; Yeandle et al, 2003). However, depending on the line-managers’ behavioural attitude and consistency in decision-making, flexible-working requests might or might not be granted. Hence, against the background of formal flexible working policies, there are acknowledged informal flexible working agreements; female junior employees have developed an informal model which flexes to accommodate the needs of the female junior staff members professionally and domestically.

Again, this informal model is strengthened through the sense of solidarity reiterated and maintained through the use of familial language. This modus operandi gives the female junior staff a degree of emancipation and control as they trust that if they need to deal with an emergency or need personal time, they would have the support of their in-house ‘family’ to provide the necessary cover. Moreover, front-line staff members have the support of their volunteers who provide yet another tier of requirement if required. This sense of freedom extends further the possibility of emancipation within personal and work arenas.

In summary, female junior staff members have achieved a greater amount of emancipation within the workplace as a result of having the support of each other and, where necessary, volunteers in achieving a flexible working regime. While male junior staff might occasionally be included, the model was clearly female-led and rooted in female employees understanding of their own needs alongside their obligations to charity clients.

Even this limited emancipation is, however, diminished by the fact that female junior staff will strive to ensure that the needs of the service user are met before their own personal needs. Yet psychologically, to some extent emancipation has increased as a consequence of having done something worthwhile (Gallie et al, 1998) and been a valuable contributor to a cause about which that they feel strongly.

The importance of commitment as a resource is acknowledged within the sector: ‘It’s more than just a job…we are fortunate that the people we employ are passionate about helping people in need. They are motivated by our cause, and not just because it is a job’ (Third Sector, 2012, 21). However, our study raises concerns about the extent to which such commitment is relied upon and exploited by senior managers, operating within tight financial constraints. While the informal model developed and maintained by these junior staff provides them with the support they need, by its very nature it is not available to all.

This chapter has demonstrated that the junior female staff, working within the four medium-sized charitable organisations under review, have created an innovative and resourceful informal flexible working model which addresses their personal needs and provides them with a degree of control and freedom, while meeting the needs of the organisation. What makes this model successful is the cohesive, familial, intimate and robust teamwork among the women. Based on our research we conclude that medium-sized charities appear receptive to the ideas of flexible working and yet are not immediately responsive to it and so, the flexible working practices that have emerged are laissez-faire rather than professionally driven. Therefore, informal practices are developed, but they are led by female junior staff members and have the, perhaps unintended, consequence of reinforcing the stereotype of woman as primary carer. The result is that emancipation of women in the charity workplace with regard to flexible working does occur, but the successful implementation of flexible working arrangements and the extent to which they lead to emancipation achieved is driven by them and is thus fragile as a result.