Last reviewed: 22 June 2022
By Diane Lightfoot, CEO, Business Disability Forum
In June 2021, Business in the Community released a new report, the somewhat provocatively titled: “What if your job was good for you?” Its central aim was to seek parity for mental health and safety with physical health and safety with the premise that we don’t expect to be physically injured at work, so why should it be ok to sustain a mental injury? More quietly though, the report also called for us to look at “co-creating” good jobs – jobs where employer and employee worked together to create a job role that met both their needs.
I mentioned this concept at a roundtable later in the year. Those round the table were, I think, slightly taken back by the idea. How would it work? How could you ensure consistency? How could you be sure you still got “the job” done?
I understand this fear. The concept I think is scary for employers as it represents a fundamental shift in the power dynamic of the relationship between employee and employee – but it is a power shift that could be transformational.
Flexible working as a default
In the autumn of 2021, the Government consulted on changes needed to Flexible Working legislation to reflect changes in working practices during the pandemic. It had promised in its National Disability Strategy, published in July 2021, to consult on ‘a right to flexible working by default’, but the proposal was actually for a Day One right to request flexible working – not a default at all.
While this would be a move in the right direction – and at the time of writing, we are waiting for Government’s formal response on this – it still excludes those who may need to know about flexibility at an earlier stage. If you need flexibility to manage a condition, why would you hand in your notice from one job to move to another role where you can only discuss your needs on the first day and may find your request is ultimately denied? It may be a great job and you may well be the best candidate, but if you couldn’t guarantee that you could work the hours you needed to meet your caring responsibilities, would you risk it?
By contrast, flexible working as a default would shift the onus onto employers to demonstrate that working differently was not possible, rather than requiring the employee to show that it is. I believe it could be transformational, just as we have seen with the change to the law to give women returning from maternity leave the right to request part time work and the onus now resting on the employer to prove that it isn’t possible rather than on the employee to show that it is.
What is inclusive working?
Of course, inclusive working is more than just flexible working. Inclusive working focuses much more holistically on ‘how’, when and where people work. Inclusive working is about helping people to be as engaged and productive as possible, by allowing them the flexibility to work in a way which best suits their needs. It’s about enabling each individual to work in the way that suits them best and it is likely to be different for everyone. What is it that each person needs to help them thrive and be productive in their role? It might be being able to flex their working hours as and when needed – for example to manage fatigue, pain, or caring responsibilities. It might be flexibility or choice of location – the office for example, or home, or a shared space or for some being able to work entirely remotely wherever they choose.
I think part of the change we need to make is about going from asking “why?” to “why not?” We’ve learned to trust our people in the pandemic, or at least I hope we have. People have had – and had to have – the freedom to work in a way that suits them and gets the job done. Most have risen to the challenge. So let’s not lose that that creativity and judgement. Of course, we still need a framework. Going back to the start of this blog, I think the point about meeting BOTH needs is crucial. In the same way that an adjustment is only “reasonable” if it both removes barriers and is sustainable for the employer, a co-created job would only be reasonable – and workable – if it meets the employer’s business objectives as well as the employee’s needs.
Focus on outputs and outcomes
So when creating new jobs, perhaps it is helpful to think about outcomes and outputs – what you need doing and what you want to achieve as a result – rather than the how and where. It’s also about being clear on what is core and non-negotiable and where you can offer a bit more flex. See the resource ‘Inclusive job design’ in this Toolkit for more information.
We are at our start of our thinking on this, but in my mind, I have three concentric circles:
- At the centre: Core = non negotiables. Outputs and outcome that must be delivered. Service level agreements or equivalent. Core hours if relevant. Core attendance if relevant. Core competencies.
- Middle circle: Flex = outputs and outcomes that meet overall job purpose, and which go above and beyond core to add value and reward to both organisation and individual. Here there is more room to exercise creativity but that needs to go hand in hand with judgement to ensure the role delivers for employee and employer. Flex and autonomy in how these are carried out and delivered in terms of where, when and how (as appropriate – may not be total flex for all these parameters for all or some parts of roles). This is where the job ‘self-actualisation’ sits – adding value and meaning and purpose.
- On the outside: Out of scope = do not go or seek agreement first before bringing into the flex layer. Needed to set boundaries to avoid over work/over committing, job/mission ‘creep’ and confusion and resentment with blurring of boundaries with other colleagues’ roles.
If this sounds alien, it really isn’t. Many of our Member and Partners are already thinking differently about job creation and job carving (where parts of roles and tasks are combined or “carved” to create an overall role that suits the individual and meets a business need) and this is something we really want to see more of to reach disabled people who face greater barriers to employment.
But for all employees, with the ‘great resignation’ and employees voting with their feet, employers who grasp the nettle and think differently about how, where and why we all work – and create genuinely ‘people-shaped jobs’ rather than trying to find ‘work-shaped people’ – are likely to reap the benefits.
This resource and the information contained therein are subject to copyright and remain the property of the Business Disability Forum. It is for reference only and must not be copied or distributed without prior permission.
If you require this resource in a different format, contact enquiries@businessdisabilityforum.org.uk.