Flexible Work Arrangements as a Desired Future or a Vague Prospect: Dilemmas of Working Russian University Students
- Authors: Poplavskaya A.A.1
-
Affiliations:
- HSE University
- Issue: Vol 31, No 2 (2025)
- Pages: 79-95
- Section: SOCIOLOGY OF LABOR
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/1562-2495/article/view/305626
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2025.31.2.4
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OUCMJP
- ID: 305626
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Flexible employment arrangements seem to be an attractive proposition in the modern labor market. Young people are often seen as focused on a flexible schedule, remote work and platform employment. At the same time, sociologists warn about the downsides of flexibility associated with the risks of precarity, deprofessionalization and decreased work efficiency.This study analyzes the preferences of young people regarding the organization of their future work. Based on the materials of 38 interviews with working undergraduate students in different fields of study and from different regions, narratives of understanding the problems of choosing a form of employment are highlighted, associated not only with the analysis of contextual opportunities in the labor market, but also with the correlation of work with one’s own life and professional trajectories. We identified dilemmas centered on the problems of productivity, convenience, and the rationality of flexible work arrangements. The “professionalization dilemma” draws attention to the contrast between the convenience of remote work and the relatively higher subjective assessment of work efficiency and professionalization opportunities in the office during early stages of the career-planning process. The “dilemma of maturation” introduces the life trajectory of an employee into the discourse. Respondents, in addition to the established efficiency of working from home, begin to rethink the concept of “comfort”, which in the long run implies separating the realms of work and personal life and is tightly connected to acquiring new social roles (marriage, parenthood). The dilemma of “free employment” demonstrates that students receiving tertiary education at Russian universities who identify themselves with specific specialties perceive freelancing as a temporary and frivolous activity that does not provide the potential for professional development, and, as such, is not included in the pool of long-term career strategies. The article is useful for understanding youth`s discourses around preferred work arrangements, as well as the inconsistency of their statements regarding work flexibility, which taken as a whole questions the general prioritization of new types of employment and can be interpreted as the priority of variable work arrangements for various professional groups, and at different stages of the modern youth’s maturation.
About the authors
Anita A. Poplavskaya
HSE University
Email: apoplavskaya@hse.ru
Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Researcher, Laboratory for Studies in Economic Sociology Moscow, Russia
References
- Бенанав А. Автоматизация и будущее труда // Экономическая социология. 2022. Т. 23. № 3. С. 92–108. doi: 10.17323/1726-3247-2022-3-92-108 EDN: PCUPSS
- Бобков В.Н. Гибкая занятость путь к хаосу или новая модель устойчивости рынков труда? // Уровень жизни населения регионов России. 2018. Т. 3. № 209. С. 7–17. doi: 10.19181/1999-9836-2018-10022 EDN: YMRENF
- Гимпельсон В., Капелюшников Р. (ред.). Нестандартная занятость. М.: Изд. дом ГУ ВШЭ, 2006. — 16 c.
- Гимпельсон В.Е., Капелюшников Р.И., Лукьянова А.Л. Спрос на труд и квалификацию в промышленности: между дефицитом и избытком // Экономический журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2007. Т. 11. № 22. C. 163–199. EDN: IAEVNX
- Гребер Д. Бредовая работа: трактат о распространении бессмысленного труда / Пер. с англ. А. Арамяна, К. Митрошенкова. М.: Ad Marginem Press. 2021. — 368 c.
- Ильин В.И. Профессия как индивидуальная жизненная колея: концептуализация категории // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2015. Т. 13. № 4. C. 515–528. EDN: VSDBHT
- Мансуров В.А., Юрченко О.В. Социология профессий. История, методология и практика исследований // Социологические исследования. 2009. Т. 8. C. 36–46. EDN: KTUKMN
- Монусова Г.А. Работа дома и вне: условия труда и внерабочее время // Вопросы экономики. 2021.Т. 12. C. 118–13doi: 10.32609/0042-8736-2021-12-118-138 EDN: QMRACU
- Мортиков В.В. Управление персоналом в условиях дефицита кадров // Вопросы управления. 2022. Т. 1. № 74. C. 73–86. doi: 10.22394/2304-3369-2022-1-73-86 EDN: RWUORM
- Платформенная занятость в России: масштабы, мотивы и барьеры участия: аналитический доклад / О.В. Синявская, С.С. Бирюкова, Е.С. Горват, Д.Е. Карева, Д.А. Стужук, К.О. Чертенков; Нац. исслед. ун-т «Высшая школа экономики». М.: НИУ ВШЭ. doi: 10.17323/978-5-7598-2494-7 EDN: FILRJK
- Поколение Z и рынок труда в России. М.; СПб.: Hays plc., 2019 [электронный ресурс]. Дата обращения: 26.12.2024. URL: https://hrm.idexgroup.ru/upload/hrm/Hays_Исследование_ПоколениеZ.pdf
- Поплавская А.А. Будущая работа глазами студентов российских вузов: дифференциация образа работы в межрегиональной перспективе // Мир России. Социология. Этнология. 2023. Т. 32. № 1. C. 61–86. doi: 10.17323/1811-038X-2023-32-1-61-86 EDN: QAGWCK
- Поплавская А.А. Фриланс — свобода «от» или «для»? Рецензия на книгу: Стребков Д.О., Шевчук А.В. «Что мы знаем о фрилансерах? Социология свободной занятости». М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2022 // Социологический журнал. 2023. Том 29. № 2. C. 170–182. doi: 10.19181/socjour.2023.29.2.8 EDN: JWUQRM
- Радаев В.В. Миллениалы: Как меняется российское общество. М.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики, 2019. — 224 с. doi: 10.17323/978-5-7598-1985-1 EDN: STOTFS
- Решетников О.В. Поколение Z и недалекое будущее рынка труда // Школьные технологии. 2014. Т. 1. С. 58–71. EDN: RXXHSB
- Стребков Д.О., Шевчук А.В. Что мы знаем о фрилансерах? Социология свободной занятости / Нац. ис-след. ун-т «Высшая школа экономики». М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2022. — 527 с. doi: 10.17323/978-5-7598-2722-1 EDN: GYGZLX
- Стэндинг Г. Прекариат: новый опасный класс / [Пер. с англ. Н. Усовой]. М.: Ad Marginem, 2014. — 326 с.
- Якимова З.В., Масилова М.Г. Поколение Z как потенциальный сегмент рынка труда // Азимут научных исследований: педагогика и психология. 2017. Т. 6. № 4. С. 341–345. EDN: ICXJOB
- Ярская В.Н., Ярская-Смирнова Е.Р. «Не мужское это дело...». Гендерный анализ занятости в социальной сфере // Социологические исследования. 2002. № 6. С. 74–82.
- Allen T., Johnson R., Kiburz K., Shockley K. Work-Family Conflict and Flexible Work Arrangements: Decon-structing Flexibility. Personnel Psychology. 2013. Vol. 66. P. 345–376. doi: 10.1111/PEPS.12012
- Atkinson C., Hall L. The role of gender in varying forms of flexible working. Gender, Work & Organization. 2009. Vol. 16. No. 6. P. 650–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00456.x
- Chen K., Rossi P., Chevalier J., Oehlsen E. The Value of Flexible Work: Evidence from Uber Drivers. Journal of Political Economy. 2019. Vol. 127. No. 6. P. 2735–2794. doi: 10.1086/702171
- Chung H. Gender, flexibility stigma and the perceived negative consequences of flexible working in the UK. Social indicators research. 2020. Vol. 151. No. 2. P. 521–545. doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-2036-7
- Chung, H., Van der Lippe, T. Flexible working, work-life balance, and gender equality: Introduction. Social indicators research. 2020. Vol. 151. No. 2. P. 365–381. doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x
- Frey C.B. The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019. 480 p.
- Kalleberg A.L. Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s–2000s. N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, American Sociological Association Rose Series in Sociol-ogy, 2011. 292 p.
- Kelly E., Moen P. Overload: How Good Jobs Went Bad and What We Can Do about It. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2020. 336 p.
- Lair D. J., Sullivan K., Cheney G. Marketization and the recasting of the professional self: The rhetoric and ethics of personal branding. Management communication quarterly. 2005. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 307–343. doi: 10.1177/0893318904270744
- Lott Y. Does flexibility help employees switch off from work? Flexible working-time arrangements and cognitive work-to-home spillover for women and men in Germany. Social Indicators Research. 2020. Vol. 151. No. 2. P. 471–494. doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-2031-z
- Menezes L., Kelliher C. Flexible Working, Individual Performance, and Employee Attitudes: Comparing Formal and Informal Arrangements. Human Resource Management. 2017. Vol. 56. P. 1051–1070. doi: 10.1002/HRM.21822
- Munsch C. Flexible Work, Flexible Penalties: The Effect of Gender, Childcare, and Type of Request on the Flexibility Bias. Social Forces. 2016. Vol. 94. No. 4. P. 1567–1591. doi: 10.1093/SF/SOV122
- Shifrin N., Michel J. Flexible work arrangements and employee health: A metaanalytic review. Work and Stress. 2021. Vol. 36. P. 60–85. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2021.1936287
- Snyder B. H. The disrupted workplace: Time and the moral order of flexible capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 264 p.
- Spreitzer G. M., Cameron L., Garrett L. Alternative work arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2017. Vol. 4. No 1. P. 473–499. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113332
- Tsen M., Gu M., Tan C., Goh S. Effect of Flexible Work Arrangements on Turnover Intention: Does Job Independence Matter? International Journal of Sociology. 2021. Vol. 51. P. 451–472. doi: 10.1080/00207659.2021.1925409
- Wheatley D. Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work, Employment & Society. 2017. Vol. 31. P. 567–585. doi: 10.1177/0950017016631447
- Wysocka M. Advantages and Disadvantages of Flexible Forms of Employment in the Opinion of Employees. Olsztyn Economic Journal. 2019. Vol. 14. P. 369–381. doi: 10.31648/oej.4932
Supplementary files


