Flexibility seems to be the order of the day.  We are constantly being told as employers that inflexible working hours hold back productivity, and we are urged to agree to any arrangements staff put forward. Employers are promised big rewards in the form of increased loyalty and access to an army of previously excluded potential employees.

The recent election, with promises from all sides to massively expand the number of front-line public servants, from GPs to nurses, from teachers to police, would seem to make the case for an enlightened, flexible approach to staff procurement. The reality, though, suggests we need to look harder at such policies.

Satisfaction with GPs has been in decline for a few years now.  The government is committed to increasing GP numbers by 5,000 full-time equivalents, yet there were fewer GPs at the end of 2017 than there were in 2015. In response to GPs apparently becoming more dissatisfied with their lot, there has been a shift towards allowing them much more flexibility of employment. As a result the General Medical Council recently reported that 45 per cent of GPs now work less than full-time hours and an astonishing 36 per cent of GPs reduced their hours in the last year. 

News: Invest £750m to support SME apprenticeships

Opinion: Why further education needs its own ‘What Works Centre’

Ofsted: Colleges improve, ITPs decline

We need more, not fewer, teachers

One of the key patient dissatisfaction issues was inability to see the same doctor, and studies show that continuity of care is key to keeping people out of hospital and healthy. Fewer GPs doing fewer hours will not help. Of course, if flexibility were not permitted, GPs may opt out of work altogether, but the changes seem to make future recruitment even more of a challenge.

The UK is currently enjoying almost full employment, especially for those educated to a good GCSE standard or higher. It is therefore not easy to conjure up additional professional staff quickly.

When it comes to teacher numbers we know the coming demographic surge requires more, rather than fewer, qualified teachers.

If you allow flexibility many will take up the offer, and not just those who would otherwise leave. There is evidence to suggest that the option makes the staff who take it up happier and, if that is the goal, then fine.

Where the policy goal is to expand staff numbers, though, we need to be certain flexibility cuts both ways. We must be sure it enables those currently excluded by inflexibility to enter the market in sufficient numbers to provide the service our community demands.

Of course in recent years the college sector has used some flexible working to enable staff to be retained while reducing staff costs in line with reduced student numbers and income. That can be a very positive move for everyone. However, as student numbers increase we may well want that flexibility to be reversed and it seems unlikely colleges will have negotiated the unilateral right to cancel the previous agreement. 

If we end up reducing the supply of great staff at a time when demand is rising, our customers will rightly be disgruntled and the very high student satisfaction we enjoy will begin to mirror the decline seen by our GPs. Flexibility has its merits, but inflexibility is not always a bad thing.

Ian Pryce is principal and CEO of the Bedford College Group