By Becca Wilson
If companies are struggling with recruitment and rapid expansion, it makes sense to consider flexible working as an option.
"This is a great work culture in Europe and other countries..."
"It has less pressure than sitting in an office for 10 hours a day..."
"When we work flexi-hours at home, we feel grateful to our employer... it's a more relaxed atmosphere and increases our productivity and dedication towards the work and company..."
These are just some of the comments that have recently been made on November's editorial comment about flexible working.
But although it is apparent from the reader's responses that flexible working would be welcomed and does exist, albeit minimally in this region, I'm still convinced that not enough companies are using it to their advantage.
For example, take employees who are spending two hours a day travelling across Dubai to get to work and home again.
If they were to spend three days a week at home, they could spend an additional six hours a week working. That's 312 hours a year and if you think the average working week is 40 hours, employers could expect another 7.8 working weeks out of that individual employee every year.
Now if you've got 100 employees doing an extra 7.8 weeks a year, that amounts to a staggering 780 additional working weeks a year.
This is just one example of the advantages of introducing flexible working. Companies could also benefit from reduced office space and in turn decreased capital costs, lower energy costs and more content staff.
In a region where companies are struggling with recruitment and rapid expansion, surely it makes sense to seriously consider flexible working as an option?