Flexible Working: Have We Forgotten That Businesses Need to Work Too?

With headlines suggesting that employees are gaining greater rights to work from home, it’s understandable that some small business owners are becoming concerned. But what is actually changing under the Employment Rights Act 2025, and does flexible working really mean employers are losing control over how their businesses operate?

There is an increasingly heated debate about flexible working, particularly around working from home. Barely a week goes by without another headline about employees demanding greater flexibility, employers insisting that staff return to the office or the Government introducing further employment rights.

Depending on what you read, you could be forgiven for thinking that employees will soon have an automatic right to work wherever and whenever they choose, leaving employers with very little say in the matter.

But that isn’t the case.

As someone who runs a small business and spends considerable time advising other business owners, I find myself increasingly frustrated by how this subject is presented. We have reached a point where the debate is almost exclusively about what employees want, with considerably less attention given to what businesses actually need.

And that matters, particularly for small businesses.

I’m certainly not against flexible working. Far from it. Flexibility, when managed properly, can be enormously beneficial for employers and employees alike. It can help businesses attract and retain talented people, improve work-life balance and create a more motivated workforce.

However, flexibility has to work both ways.

An arrangement that works beautifully for one employee but creates operational difficulties, adds pressure on colleagues, or undermines the effectiveness of the wider team isn’t necessarily a successful flexible working arrangement.

So, with further changes on the horizon, I want to separate the headlines from the reality and explain what employers actually need to know.

Let’s Start With the Biggest Misconception: Flexible Working Is Not an Automatic Right to Work From Home

One of the things that frustrates me most about the current debate is how frequently flexible working and working from home are treated as though they mean the same thing.

They don’t.

Flexible working can mean changing your working hours, adjusting your start and finish times, working compressed hours, job sharing, working part-time or adopting a hybrid working arrangement.

Working from home is simply one form of flexibility.

An employee who needs to collect their children from school might benefit from starting earlier and finishing earlier. Someone with caring responsibilities might prefer compressed hours. Another employee might find that working from home part of the week helps them work more effectively.

These are all potentially sensible arrangements, but whether they are appropriate depends on the individual, their role and the needs of the business.

Since April 2024, employees have had the statutory right to request flexible working from their first day of employment.

Notice the word request.

It is not, and has never been, an automatic entitlement to have that request approved.

Employers must consider requests properly, consult employees before rejecting them and follow the relevant statutory requirements. However, they can refuse requests where one or more of the eight statutory business reasons applies.

That fundamental principle is not disappearing.

So, what is actually changing under the Employment Rights Act?

Despite some dramatic headlines, the forthcoming changes are far less revolutionary than they might first appear.

The Government intends to introduce the next stage of flexible working reforms in autumn 2027, rather than October 2026.

The existing eight statutory business reasons for refusing a flexible working request will remain.

What is changing is that employers will have to demonstrate that refusing a particular request is reasonable, taking account of the relevant statutory business reasons. They will also have to follow a prescribed consultation process before rejecting a request.

In other words, it will no longer be sufficient to identify an acceptable business reason without properly explaining why it justifies the decision.

For employers who already manage flexible working requests thoughtfully, discuss alternatives with employees and document their decisions; much of this should reflect existing good practice.

For those who don’t, there will be changes to make.

However, the important message is that employers will still be able to refuse flexible working requests where there are legitimate business reasons, and it is reasonable to do so.

The legislation does not create an automatic right to work from home, nor does it mean that an employee’s preferred working arrangement must take precedence over the operational requirements of the business.

And that distinction deserves considerably more attention than it currently receives.

What About the Needs of the Business?

This is where I believe the debate needs greater balance.

When we talk about flexible working, we quite rightly discuss employee wellbeing, work-life balance, caring responsibilities and the benefits of having greater control over our working lives.

But we also need to talk about productivity, customer service, operational efficiency and the impact on colleagues.

For a large organisation with hundreds of employees, accommodating different working arrangements may be relatively straightforward. There may be sufficient resources, management capacity and alternative staffing arrangements to absorb the changes.

For a small business employing five, ten or fifteen people, the position can be very different.

If two employees want to work from home on the same days, who covers the office? If a customer-facing employee requests a working pattern that conflicts with the busiest trading hours, how does the business maintain its service? If one employee’s flexibility means another employee must continually adjust their own working arrangements, is that genuinely fair?

These are not unreasonable questions.

They are the everyday realities of running a business.

Small businesses don’t necessarily have the luxury of spare capacity. Every member of the team plays an important role, and changes to one person’s working arrangements can have consequences for everyone else.

The Government has acknowledged that not every form of flexibility will be appropriate for every role. The forthcoming reforms retain the existing business reasons for refusing requests, including additional costs, difficulties reorganising work, detrimental effects on performance or quality and an inability to meet customer demand.

However, I would welcome greater recognition of the practical challenges smaller employers face when trying to balance competing individual requests with their responsibility to keep the business operating effectively.

Flexibility is important, but so is business sustainability.

After all, without successful businesses, there are no jobs to make flexible.

Have We Forgotten the Importance of Workplace Culture?

There is another aspect of this debate that I believe deserves considerably more attention: workplace culture.

Since the pandemic, working from home has become an established part of working life for many people. For some businesses, it has been extremely successful, and I wouldn’t suggest otherwise.

However, I do question whether we’ve become so focused on where employees would prefer to work that we’re overlooking what can be lost when people no longer spend meaningful time together.

Workplace culture doesn’t develop simply because an employer has written a set of values and included them in the employee handbook.

It develops through everyday interactions.

It’s the conversations between colleagues, the opportunity to ask someone a quick question, the informal exchange of ideas and the relationships that develop when people work alongside one another.

It’s also about learning.

Think about a relatively inexperienced employee who is sitting alongside someone with twenty years of experience. They don’t learn exclusively through formal training sessions or scheduled video calls.

They learn by listening to conversations, observing how difficult situations are handled, asking questions and receiving immediate feedback.

Those opportunities can be harder to replicate when everyone is working remotely.

For small businesses, where knowledge is often concentrated in a relatively small number of experienced employees, that informal learning can be particularly valuable.

I also believe there is something important about feeling part of a team.

When employees spend most of their working week operating independently, there is a risk that people become increasingly focused on their individual responsibilities rather than the wider objectives of the organisation.

Of course, remote teams can develop excellent working relationships, and poor management can undermine workplace culture regardless of where employees work.

My point is that physical interaction can have genuine business value.

We shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge that.

If an employer has identified that greater office attendance is necessary to improve collaboration, develop employees, maintain service standards or strengthen team relationships, those considerations deserve to be taken seriously.

However, employers should be prepared to explain how those concerns apply to the particular role and working arrangement under consideration, rather than assuming that office attendance is automatically preferable.

Flexibility Must Come With Responsibility

Something else I feel strongly about is that flexible working should be built on mutual trust and responsibility.

When an employer agrees to a flexible working arrangement, they are placing trust in their employee to manage their responsibilities and deliver the work expected of them.

In return, employees should recognise that flexibility needs to operate within the requirements of the business.

Working from home should not automatically mean that an employee can change their working hours, become unavailable during the working day or make alternative arrangements without discussing them with their employer.

Equally, employers shouldn’t assume that someone working from home is less productive or less committed.

The expectations should be clear, consistent and appropriate to the role.

For example, if employees are expected to be available during particular hours, attend scheduled meetings, respond to customers or spend certain days working alongside their colleagues, those expectations should be communicated.

I encourage employers to establish clear working arrangements rather than relying on informal understandings that can gradually become a source of frustration.

Flexibility without clear expectations can quickly create confusion and resentment.

And once that happens, the benefits of flexible working can be lost.

Does an Employer Have to Agree to Working From Home?

No. But employers must properly consider requests and have legitimate reasons for refusing them.

This is an important distinction.

An employer can reasonably conclude that certain responsibilities require an employee to attend the workplace.

That might be because the role involves face-to-face customer contact, access to equipment or information that cannot be accessed remotely, or particular operational requirements.

There may also be circumstances where working alongside colleagues is important for training, supervision or maintaining the quality of a service.

However, an employer should be able to explain those requirements and consider whether the employee’s proposed arrangement could work in practice.

For example, if an employee requests to work from home five days a week, it may be worth exploring whether a hybrid arrangement could meet some of their needs without compromising the business.

Similarly, if an employee requests different working hours, consider whether a trial period or an alternative pattern might provide a workable solution.

An employer doesn’t necessarily have to agree to the employee’s preferred arrangement, but they should approach the discussion with an open mind.

Remember, other legal considerations may also apply. A flexible working request connected to a disability, for example, could trigger an employer’s separate duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Each request therefore needs to be considered on its own merits.

Whatever Happened to Having a Meaningful Conversation?

One thing that gets lost in all the headlines about flexible working is the importance of simply sitting down and talking to one another.

Not every workplace issue needs to become a formal process, and not every request for flexibility needs to turn into a disagreement between an employer and an employee.

Sometimes, the most effective starting point is a meaningful conversation.

When an employee asks to work from home, do we actually take the time to understand what they’re trying to achieve? Is it about childcare arrangements, reducing commuting time, managing other personal commitments or simply being able to concentrate without the interruptions of a busy office?

Equally, does the employee understand the operational pressures facing the business, the importance of collaboration or the impact their proposed arrangements might have on their colleagues?

I suspect that if both parties understood each other’s circumstances a little better, many of these discussions would become considerably easier.

For example, an employee might request to work from home three days a week because they’re struggling with the school run. However, following a conversation, it may become apparent that adjusting their start and finish times would achieve exactly what they need without reducing the time they spend working alongside their colleagues.

Alternatively, an employer might initially be reluctant to agree to home working because of concerns about productivity, only to discover that a trial period, clear performance expectations and agreed office days could provide a perfectly workable solution.

Neither party would necessarily have reached those outcomes without having a proper conversation.

Of course, employees aren’t obliged to disclose every detail of their personal circumstances, and employers shouldn’t assume why someone is requesting flexibility. The important thing is to create an environment where employees feel comfortable discussing their needs.

When Does Flexibility Become a Matter of Convenience?

Here’s something we need to talk about more openly. At what point does flexible working become less about finding a mutually beneficial working arrangement and more about individual convenience?

It’s an interesting question, particularly when you consider some of the reasons employees might give for wanting to work from home.

It’s to avoid the morning commute, make it easier to manage household deliveries or have the option of working from home when it snows. Perhaps it’s simply because they prefer working in their own environment.

Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make life a little easier. We all do. And I’m certainly not suggesting these aren’t legitimate reasons to request flexible working.

But should an employer automatically agree to a permanent change in working arrangements simply because it’s more convenient for an employee?

I don’t believe so.

Take the example of adverse weather. If an employee is concerned about travelling to work when it snows, does that necessarily mean they need a permanent working-from-home arrangement? Or could the employer address that concern through an adverse weather policy that allows temporary home working where appropriate?

Similarly, if an employee wants to avoid the morning rush hour, could adjusting their start and finish times achieve the same result without reducing the time they spend working alongside their colleagues?

These are the sorts of conversations employers and employees should be having.

Of course, the reasons behind a request aren’t always straightforward. What might initially appear to be a matter of convenience could involve caring responsibilities, a disability or other personal circumstances that deserve careful consideration. Employers shouldn’t make assumptions or dismiss requests simply because they don’t consider an employee’s reasons sufficiently important.

However, equally, employees need to recognise that their preferred arrangements may not always be compatible with the operational requirements of the business.

And this brings me back to my central point. Flexible working should focus on practical solutions, not simply accommodating individual preferences.

Sometimes that will mean agreeing to home working. Sometimes it might involve adjusting working hours, introducing a hybrid arrangement or agreeing to temporary flexibility when particular circumstances arise.

And sometimes, having genuinely explored the options, an employer may reasonably conclude that the requested arrangement isn’t workable.

The important thing is that we have meaningful conversations rather than treating flexible working as an automatic entitlement or an automatic inconvenience.

After all, flexibility should work both ways.

That’s where good management makes all the difference.

A meaningful conversation isn’t simply a meeting where an employer explains why a request won’t work. It’s an opportunity to listen, ask questions, explore alternatives and genuinely consider whether a mutually acceptable arrangement can be found.

That doesn’t mean every request must be approved. Sometimes, despite everyone’s best efforts, the needs of the employee and the operational requirements of the business cannot be reconciled.

But surely it’s better to reach that conclusion after a constructive discussion rather than immediately retreating into formal procedures and legal arguments?

The forthcoming changes to flexible working legislation will place greater emphasis on consultation and the reasonableness of an employer’s decision. However, meaningful conversations shouldn’t be happening simply because legislation requires them.

They should be part of how we manage people.

After all, flexibility works best when there is mutual understanding, trust and a genuine willingness to find solutions.

My Advice to Employers: Don’t Panic, but Don’t Be Complacent

If you’re a small business owner reading the latest headlines and wondering whether you’re about to lose control over where and how your employees work, my advice is not to panic.

The forthcoming legislation does strengthen employees’ rights, but it does not remove your ability to make reasonable decisions based on genuine business requirements.

You are still entitled to operate your business effectively, maintain appropriate standards and establish working arrangements that support your organisation.

What you will increasingly need to demonstrate is that your decisions are reasonable, properly considered and supported by evidence.

And that brings me to something I regularly discuss with our clients.

Don’t wait until an employee submits a flexible working request before deciding what your business actually needs.

Think about your operating model now.

Consider which roles genuinely require workplace attendance, where flexibility can be accommodated and what arrangements are necessary to maintain customer service, productivity and collaboration.

If you believe certain days should be designated as office days, establish why. If employees need to work together for training, supervision or team development, make sure those requirements are clear.

Review your existing flexible working and hybrid working policies, particularly if arrangements have developed informally over time.

And make sure your managers understand how to approach requests consistently, including when alternative arrangements or trial periods might be appropriate.

One important word of caution: if employees already have contractual rights to work remotely or under particular flexible arrangements, introducing new attendance requirements may involve contractual considerations. Employers should seek advice before making changes.

The aim should be to create a working model that supports both your employees and your business.

Final Thoughts: Flexibility Should Work Both Ways

Flexible working has an important place in modern employment.

I’ve seen the benefits it can bring, and I understand why employees value the opportunity to achieve a better balance between their professional and personal lives.

However, we’ve allowed the debate to become unnecessarily polarised.

It shouldn’t be about employers versus employees, or office working versus working from home.

It should be about finding arrangements that allow people to perform at their best while enabling businesses to operate successfully.

For small businesses, that balance matters most. They are often operating with limited resources, small teams and very little room for disruption.

Their needs matter too.

The Employment Rights Act does not remove an employer’s ability to refuse a flexible working request. What it will require is greater accountability for those decisions.

And provided employers understand their responsibilities, approach requests fairly and can demonstrate the business reasons behind their decisions, there is no reason to assume that the forthcoming changes mean abandoning their preferred operating model.

My message is simple.

Embrace flexibility where it works. Be prepared to explore alternatives where it doesn’t. But don’t be afraid to recognise that collaboration, workplace culture, customer service and the wider needs of your business are important considerations too.

Flexible working should support a successful business, not come at the expense of one.

At HR:4UK, we support employers with flexible working requests, hybrid working policies and the practical challenges of managing changing workplace expectations.

If you’re reviewing your working arrangements or are unsure how to respond to a flexible working request, our team is here to help.