UDK: 005.966.4:[35+346.26]
1.02 Pregledni znanstveni članek
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji1
Tatjana Kozjek
Fakulteta za upravo, Univerza v Ljubljani
tatjana.kozjek@fu.uni-lj.si
izvleček
Razprave o prožnosti organizacij na področju dela so bolj pogoste v zadnjih letih, predvsem kot posledica gospodarske recesije. Strukturne spremembe in globalizacija vplivajo tako na organizacije kot na zaposlene. Organizacije morajo ostati prožne, da se lahko odzivajo na nepričakovane spremembe povpraševanja in se prilagajajo novim tehnologijam ter drugim vplivom. Za povečanje prožnosti zato različno ukrepajo na področju obsega in časovne razporeditve dela, notranje mobilnosti zaposlenih ali na področju plač in stroškov dela. Prispevek prikazuje rezultate raziskave, v okviru katere se je ugotavljalo, ali obstajajo razlike glede prožnosti organizacij na področju dela med zaposlenimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji. Analiza rezultatov je pokazala, da zasebne organizacije pogosteje omogočajo notranjo numerično, funkcionalno ter prostorsko prožnost. Med organizacijami javnega sektorja pa so najbolj prožne javne agencije oziroma zavodi.
Ključne besede: numerična prožnost, funkcionalna prožnost, plačna prožnost, mobilnost, prožne oblike pogodb o zaposlitvah, javni sektor, zasebni sektor
JEL: J00, J24, J30, J60
1 Uvod
Organizacije, ki se želijo pravočasno odzivati na nepričakovane spremembe povpraševanja, se prilagajati novim tehnologijam in drugim vplivom, morajo ostati prožne. za povečanje prožnosti zato različno ukrepajo na področju obsega in časovne razporeditve dela, notranje mobilnosti zaposlenih ali na področju plač in stroškov dela. v okviru raziskave, ki je prikazana v nadaljevanju prispevka, smo želeli ugotoviti, kolikšna je prožnost dela v organizacijah javnega in zasebnega sektorja v Sloveniji. Raziskava je bila izvedena s ciljem, da se analizira in primerja razlike v prožnosti dela v organizacijah javnega in zasebnega sektorja v Sloveniji. v okviru raziskave smo preverjali hipotezi:
H1: »Med zaposlenimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju se pojavljajo statistično pomembne razlike v ocenjenih povprečjih vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.«
1 Rezultati so povzeti po doktorski disertaciji Kozjek (2013).
Kozjek, T. (2014). Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji. 47 Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, XII (1), 47—61.
Tatjana Kozjek
H2: »Zaposleni v javnih agencijah ter javnih zavodih v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v drugih organizacijah javnega sektorja statistično pomembno višje ocenjujejo vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.«
Raziskavo smo izvedli z metodo CAWI (angl. computer assisted web interview). Povezavo do spletnega anketnega vprašalnika smo poslali po elektronski pošti na uradne elektronske naslove organizacij s prošnjo, da povezavo posredujejo svojim zaposlenim. Rezultati raziskave so namenjeni pripravljavcem sprememb na področju slovenske delovnopravne zakonodaje in menedžerjem organizacij, kot vidik dobrega organiziranja delovnega procesa, ki ne nazadnje vpliva tudi na učinkovitost ter uspešnost organizacij.
V prvem delu prispevka so prikazane različne vrste prožnosti na področju dela, ki so obravnavane v literaturi in smo jih proučevali v raziskavi. V drugem delu pa so prikazani rezultati analize in primerjave razlik v prožnosti dela v organizacijah javnega in zasebnega sektorja v Sloveniji.
2 Vrste prožnosti na področju dela
Za lažje razumevanje spremenljivk, proučevanih v okviru raziskave, so v tem poglavju obrazložene posamezne vrste prožnosti, ki so opredeljene v literaturi. Goodwin (2002, str. 109) numerično prožnost opredeljuje kot sposobnost organizacij in delodajalcev, da prilagajajo število zaposlenih spreminjajočim se potrebam v organizaciji. Altuzarra in Serrano (2010, str. 328) jo opredelita kot statistično prožnost, povezujeta pa jo z delom za določen čas. Tros in Wilthagen (2004, str. 171), ILO (2004, str. 14) ter Wachsen in Blind (2011, str. 11) jo delijo podrobneje, in sicer na zunanjo in notranjo numerično prožnost. Zunanja prožnost pomeni sposobnost organizacije, da z uporabo različnih oblik zaposlitev, z zmanjšanjem ali povečanjem števila zaposlenih prilagodi poslovanje organizacije spremembam na trgu dela. Notranja prožnost pa označuje sposobnost organizacije, da prilagaja delo poslovnim potrebam v okviru števila in strukture zaposlenih, predvsem s spremembo delovnega časa in števila delovnih ur.
Poleg časovnega vidika obravnave dela in prilagajanja števila zaposlenih pa je pomemben tudi organizacijski vidik, ki je obravnavan v funkcionalni prožnosti. Ta se po mnenju Trosa in Wilthagna (2004, str. 171) ter ILO (2004, str. 14) povezuje s prilagajanjem dela poslovnim potrebam z organizacijo dela in opredelitvijo nalog ter z razporejanjem zaposlenih na različna delovna mesta. Goodwin (2002, str. 110) ter Wachsen in Blind (2011, str. 11) pa jo razumejo kot sposobnost zaposlenih, da opravljajo več funkcij in nalog hkrati, oziroma da poleg svoje zaposlitve opravljajo še druga dela. Altuzarra in Serrano (2010, str. 328) jo opredelita kot dinamično prožnost. Eichorst in drugi (2010, str. 4) ločijo zunanjo in notranjo funkcionalno prožnost. Za zunanjo prožnost so pomembni prilagodljivi, usposobljeni, izobraženi in kompetentni posamezniki, ki so se sposobni prilagajati strukturnim spremembam. Notranja prožnost pa pomeni sposobnost organizacij, da reagirajo na spremembe v povpraševanju
48 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
s prožno organizacijo delovnega procesa. To zahteva usposobljene, izobražene in kompetentne zaposlene, ki so sposobni opravljati različne naloge.
Ekonomski vidik se proučuje v okviru prožnosti plač in stroškov dela oziroma prilagajanja plač delovni uspešnosti, rezultatom ter poslovni uspešnosti (Tros in Wilthagen, 2004, str. 171; ILO, 2004, str. 14; Wachsen in Blind, 2011, str. 11). Eichorst in drugi (2010, str. 4) jo povezujejo s prilagajanjem realnih plač makroekonomskim razmeram. Vermeylen in Hurley (2007, str. 69) opredelita še eksternalizacijskoprožnost, ki pomeni možnost zaposlovanja brez pogodbe o zaposlitvi, in sicer prek agencij za posredovanje dela.
Pri opredelitvi pojma prožnost dela s stališča organizacijske znanosti izhajamo z opredelitve pojma delo. Če se prožnost dela razume ozko, se pojmuje prožnost ljudi, delovnih priprav, predmetov dela in delovnih nalog. To pomeni, da delavec delovne naloge opravlja, kjer želi, kadar želi in kolikor dolgo želi (z upoštevanjem roka za izvedbo naloge) v okviru zmožnosti, ki jih ima, na razpolago pa ima vse potrebne delovne priprave in predmete dela. Če prožnost dela z organizacijskega vidika razumemo širše, se upošteva, da zaposleni za delo pri delodajalcu potrebujejo pogodbo o zaposlitvi, in se vidikom prožnosti dela v ožjem smislu doda še vidik prožnih oblik zaposlovanja, med katere se po ILO (2004a, str. 4), Černigoj Sadar ter drugi (2007, str. 137), Pitt Catcouphesova in drugi (2009, str. 4), Richmanova in drugi (2010, str. 4) uvrščajo delo za določen čas, krajši delovni čas, delo na daljavo, delitev delovnega mesta, strnjen delovni teden, prožni delovni čas in druge. Širše pojmovanje prožnosti dela torej vključuje tudi proučevanje delovnega časa in pogojev dela.
3 Metodologija
3.1	Raziskovalni hipotezi
V okviru raziskave, ki je prikazana v prispevku, smo preverjali naslednji raziskovalni hipotezi:
H1: »Med zaposlenimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju se pojavljajo statistično pomembne razlike v ocenjenih povprečjih vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.«
H2: »Zaposleni v javnih agencijah ter javnih zavodih v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v drugih organizacijah javnega sektorja statistično pomembno višje ocenjujejo vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.«
3.2	Raziskovalni instrumentarij
Za preverjanje postavljenih hipotez je bil oblikovan anketni vprašalnik. Razdeljen je bil na dva sklopa vprašanj: prvi sklop je bil namenjen zbiranju demografskih podatkov sodelujočih in drugi podatkov o prožnosti organizacij.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 49
Tatjana Kozjek
Sodelujoči v raziskavi so spremenljivke prožnosti ocenjevali številčno z ocenami od 1 do 7, pri čemer je ocena 1 predstavljala najnižjo, 7 pa najvišjo oceno. Lestvica ocen je bila v odvisnosti od zastavljenega vprašanja naslednja:
•	1 - je zelo neprožna,
•	2 - je neprožna,
•	3 - je deloma neprožna,
•	4 - niti je, niti ni prožna,
•	5 - je deloma prožna,
•	6 - je prožna,
•	7 - je zelo prožna.
Vprašanja o prožnosti organizacij so vključevala vidike zunanje in notranje numerične prožnosti, funkcionalne prožnosti, prožnosti plač in stroškov dela, prostorske prožnosti (mobilnosti) ter prožnosti pogodb o zaposlitvah.
V	povezavi z zunanjimi in notranjimi vidiki numerične prožnosti se je ocenjevala sposobnost organizacije, da prilagodi:
•	raven oziroma število zaposlenih spreminjajočim se potrebam v organizaciji (F1),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam z uporabo različnih oblik zaposlitev (F2),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam z uporabo nadur (F3),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam z uporabo avtorskih oziroma podjemnih pogodb (F4),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam z najemanjem študentov (F5),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam z zmanjševanjem števila zaposlenih (F6),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam s povečanjem števila zaposlenih (F7),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam s spremembo obsega oziroma števila delovnih ur (F8),
•	delo organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam s časovno razporeditvijo dela oziroma s spremembo delovnega časa (F9).
V	povezavi s funkcionalno prožnostjo se je ocenjevala sposobnost organizacije, da prilagodi vsebino dela posameznika organizacijskim oziroma poslovnim potrebam:
•	glede opredelitve delovnih nalog in sicer s spremembo sistemizacije (F10),
50 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
•	glede opredelitve delovnih nalog in sicer z organizacijskimi navodili (F11),
•	z razporejanjem zaposlenih na različna delovna mesta brez spreminjanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi (F12),
•	z razporejanjem zaposlenih na različna delovna mesta z odpovedjo stare in s ponudbo nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi (F13).
V	povezavi s plačno prožnostjo se je ocenjevala sposobnost organizacije, da prilagaja plače:
•	delovni uspešnosti posameznega zaposlenega (F14),
•	rezultatom ter poslovni uspešnosti (F15).
V	okviru prostorske prožnosti oziroma tako imenovane geografske prožnosti se je ocenjevala sposobnost organizacije, da zaposlene premešča na druga delovna mesta na drugo lokacijo (F16).
V	okviru prožnih oblik pogodb o zaposlitvah se je ocenjevala sposobnost organizacije, da ustvarja prožne oblike pogodb o zaposlitvah, ki ustrezajo potrebam organizacije s/z:
•	delom na daljavo oziroma od doma, torej znotraj države (F17),
•	delom na daljavo iz tujine (F18),
•	delom za določen čas (F19),
•	prožnimi urami dela (F20),
•	polovičnim oziroma krajšim delovnim časom (F21),
•	delitvijo delovnega mesta (F22),
•	zgoščenim delovnim tednom, kot je na primer delo 4 dni več ur, namesto 5 dni (F23),
•	najemanjem agencijskih delavcev (F24),
•	najemanjem priložnostnih delavcev (F25),
•	najemanjem študentov (F26).
Raziskavo smo izvedli od 26. septembra 2011 do 26. oktobra 2011 v Sloveniji. Podatki so se zbirali s pomočjo metode CAWI (angl. Computer assisted web interview). Povezavo do spletnega anketnega vprašalnika organizacij v javnem sektorju smo posredovali na elektronske poštne naslove oziroma v glavne pisarne Vlade Republike Slovenije, ministrstev, direktoratov, organov v sestavi ministrstev, vladnih služb, upravnih enot, občin, (javnih) agencij, Državne volilne in revizijske komisije, varuha človekovih pravic, informacijskega pooblaščenca, Banke Slovenije, računskega in ustavnega sodišča, notarske in odvetniške zbornice, vrhovnega državnega tožilstva, vrhovnega sodišča, državnega zbora in državnega sveta. Glede na dobro odzivnost zaposlenih v javnem sektorju smo povezavo na spletni anketni vprašalnik posredovali le enkrat in sicer 26. septembra 2011.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 51
Tatjana Kozjek
Povezavo do spletnega anketnega vprašalnika organizacijv zasebnem sektorju pa smo posredovali na 6000 uradnih elektronskih poštnih naslovov, pri čemer so bile organizacije v vzorec izbrane naključno, elektronski poštni naslovi pa pridobljeni v Poslovnem registru Republike Slovenije. Povezavo smo posredovali dvakrat, in sicer prvič 26. septembra 2011 na 3000 uradnih elektronskih poštnih naslovov in drugič 13. oktobra 2011 ponovno na 3000 že poslanih elektronskih poštnih naslovov ter dodatnih 3000 elektronskih poštnih naslovov.
3.3 Vzorec sodelujočih v raziskavi
Anketni vprašalnik je izpolnilo skupno 1009 zaposlenih v organizacijah zasebnega in javnega sektorja. Od tega je bilo 25,5 % zaposlenih v organizacijah zasebnega sektorja in 74,5 % v organizacijah javnega sektorja (3,8 % v vladnih službah, 12,9 % v ministrstvih, 0,7 % v direktoratih, 2,0 % v davčni upravi, 4,0 % v centrih za socialno delo, 4,6 % v inšpektoratih, 17,8 % v upravnih enotah, 14,2 % v občinah, 5,1 % v javnih zavodih oziroma javnih agencijah).
Opozoriti je treba na dejstvo, da je bila povezava do spletnega vprašalnika poslana po elektronski pošti na uradne elektronske naslove organizacij s prošnjo, da povezavo posredujejo zaposlenim; to pomeni, da v organizaciji anketnega vprašalnika ni izpolnil nihče, da so ga izpolnili le zaposleni na področju upravnih dejavnosti ali pa ga je izpolnilo več zaposlenih z različnih področij dela. Nizka odzivnost posameznikov, ki so anketo izpolnili, je posledica tudi dejstva, da je bila raziskava spletna. Med razlogi za nesodelovanje v raziskavi pa so posamezniki navedli, da:
•	je bilo v času izvedbe raziskave še veliko drugih raziskav, v katerih so sodelovali,
•	so se vodilni odločili, da zaposlenim ni dovoljeno sodelovati v raziskavah,
•	nimajo časa.
Zaključki so torej omejeni le na del populacije, ki je bila zajeta v vzorec. 4 Rezultati raziskave
4.1 primerjava med zaposlenimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju
Test zanesljivosti, Cronbach's Alpha (0,916), je pri šestindvajsetih spremenljivkah prožnosti pokazal, da so podatki primerni za analizo. Z namenom, da bi preverili hipotezo H1: »Med zaposlenimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju se pojavljajo statistično pomembne razlike v ocenjenih povprečjih vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.«, je bila izvedena primerjava povprečnih ocen in statistična pomembnost razlik posameznih spremenljivk prožnosti v javnem in zasebnem sektorju. Rezultati so prikazani v Tabeli 1.
52 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
Sodelujoči v raziskavi, zaposleni v organizacijah javnega sektorja, so s povprečno oceno 3,73 (kot drugo najbolje ocenjeno spremenljivko prožnosti) ocenili sposobnost organizacije, da prilagodi vsebino dela posameznika organizacijskim potrebam glede opredelitve delovnih nalog (s spremembo sistemizacije), kar je precej presenetljivo glede na zakonsko precej zahteven in dolgotrajen postopek spremembe sistemizacije. Predvidevamo, da so nekateri spregledali opombo »s spremembo sistemizacije«. Po Zakonu o javnih uslužbencih (ZJU-UPB3, 40., 41. člen) mora namreč za sistemizacijo v organih državne uprave in upravah samoupravnih lokalnih skupnosti skupna izhodišča določiti vlada, v okviru teh izhodišč pa jih določijo predstojniki v organih v sestavi ministrstev oziroma na predlog predstojnikov pristojni ministri. Zanimiv je tudi podatek, da so udeleženci, zaposleni v organizacijah zasebnega sektorja, to spremenljivko prožnosti organizacije ocenili z oceno 2,99. Verjetno je s tem povezano tudi dejstvo, da v večini organizacij zasebnega sektorja nimajo oblikovanih sistemizacij tako, kot jih imajo organizacije javnega sektorja.
Glede na obstoječo delovnopravno zakonodajo je še boljpresenetljiva povprečna ocena 3,67, s katero so zaposleni v organizacijah javnega sektorja (kot tretje najvišje ocenjeno spremenljivko) ocenili spremenljivko sposobnost organizacije, da prilagaja raven (število) zaposlenih spreminjajočim se potrebam v organizaciji. Zakon o javnih uslužbencih (ZJU-UPB3, 42., 43. in 44. člen) namreč določa, da morajo organi sklepati delovna razmerja in ravnati s kadri v skladu s kadrovskimi načrti, v katerih se prikažejo stanje in načrtovane spremembe glede strukture in števila zaposlenih za obdobje dveh let. Predlog kadrovskega načrta mora pripraviti predstojnik v skladu s predvidenimi nalogami, programom dela in proračunskimi možnostmi.
Spremenljivko sposobnost organizacije, da prilagodi delo z zmanjševanjem števila zaposlenih, so zaposleni v organizacijah javnega sektorja ocenili s povprečno oceno 3,10, kar je glede na obstoječo delovnopravno zakonodajo dokaj visoko ocenjena spremenljivka. Delovnopravna zakonodaja je bila v času izvedbe raziskave v Sloveniji glede prenehanja delovnega razmerja javnega uslužbenca precej toga, zato je visoka ocena najverjetneje posledica splošnega dogajanja na trgu dela v obdobju gospodarske recesije.
Z oceno višjo od 3 so v javnem sektorju ocenili sposobnost organizacije, da ustvarja prožne oblike pogodb o zaposlitvah z najemanjem študentov (s povprečno oceno 3,04). Zaposleni v organizacijah zasebnega sektorja so to spremenljivko ocenili s povprečno oceno 3,81, kar jasno kaže na to, da se organizacije zavedajo problema toge delovnopravne zakonodaje, zato raje zaposlujejo študente, ki na trgu dela niso posebej zavarovani pred izgubo zaposlitve.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 53
Tatjana Kozjek
Tabela 1: Razlike v povprečnih ocenah in statistična pomembnost razlik spremenljivk prožnosti sodelujočih, zaposlenih v organizacijah javnega (JS) in zasebnega (zS) sektorja
Spremenljivka prožnosti	Povprečna ocena			Standardni odklon	F	p
	JS	ZS	Razlika (JS-ZS)			
F1	3,67	2,88	0,79	1,621	3,09	0,079
F2	3,31	3,79	0,31	1,755	13,91	0,000
F3	3,43	4,72	- 1,29	1,912	92,74	0,000
F4	2,86	2,78	0,08	1,829	0,39	0,533
F5	3,17	3,81	- 0,64	1,896	21,25	0,000
F6	3,10	2,69	0,41	1,834	9,13	0,003
F7	2,72	3,06	- 0,34	1,693	7,48	0,006
F8	3,07	4,60	- 1,53	1,928	124,80	0,000
F9	3,40	5,30	- 1,90	1,990	194,80	0,000
F10	3,73	2,99	0,74	1,822	29,89	0,000
F11	4,14	4,91	- 0,77	1,647	39,81	0,000
F12	3,53	4,06	- 0,53	1,825	14,90	0,000
F13	2,71	2,45	0,26	1,694	4,22	0,400
F14	2,16	2,68	- 0,52	1,651	17,79	0,000
F15	2,09	2,96	- 0,87	1,639	51,09	0,000
F16	2,87	4,21	- 1,34	1,865	98,77	0,000
F17	1,97	2,79	- 0,82	1,751	37,79	0,000
F18	1,73	2,07	- 0,34	1,498	8,14	0,004
F19	3,15	4,57	- 1,60	1,872	106,08	0,000
F20	2,92	5,01	- 2,09	1,984	236,07	0,000
F21	2,83	3,80	- 0,97	1,837	48,87	0,000
F22	2,53	3,10	- 0,57	1,744	18,21	0,000
F23	1,87	2,88	- 1,01	1,673	64,82	0,000
F24	1,68	1,92	- 0,24	1,362	4,81	0,029
F25	1,74	1,88	- 0,14	1,374	1,68	0,195
F26	3,04	3,75	- 0,71	1,873	25,03	0,000
Vir: lastni
Analiza statistično pomembnih razlik med ocenjenimi povprečji spremenljivk prožnosti v javnem in zasebnem sektorju je pokazala, da se v zasebnem sektorju pogosteje uporablja večina proučevanih oblik prožnega zaposlovanja. Največji statistično pomembni razliki se pojavljata pri oceni spremenljivke sposobnosti organizacije, da ustvarja prožne oblike pogodb o zaposlitvah s prožnimi urami dela (razlika med organizacijami javnega in zasebnega
54 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
sektorja je kar - 2,09; F = 236,7; a < 0,001) in pri spremenljivki sposobnost organizacije, da prilagodi delo s časovno razporeditvijo oziroma delovni čas (razlika med ocenami v organizacijah javnega sektorja in zasebnega sektorja je - 1,9; F = 194,8; a < 0,001). Presenetljivo je dejstvo, da je analiza statistično pomembnih razlik pokazala, da organizacije v javnem sektorju pogosteje kot v zasebnem prilagodijo delo z zmanjševanjem števila zaposlenih. Spremenljivka je bila namreč ocenjena s povprečno oceno 2,69 v zasebnem oziroma 3,10 v javnem sektorju (F = 9,1; a < 0,005). Rezultat je zagotovo posledica trenutnega dogajanja na trgu dela in večjega števila brezposelnih. Zaposleni v javnem sektorju prav tako občutijo pritisk glede svoje zaposlitve.
Rezultati kažejo, da imajo zaposleni v zasebnem sektorju v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v javnem sektorju boljše možnosti prožnega zaposlovanja. Največkrat so jim omogočene časovna prilagoditev dela, prožne ure dela in prilagajanje obsega delovnih ur. Dobro ocenjujejo tudi možnosti glede razporejanja na različna delovna mesta brez spreminjanja pogodb o zaposlitvi. V zasebnem sektorju imajo torej zaposleni v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v javnem sektorju boljše možnosti glede notranje numerične in funkcionalne prožnosti ter mobilnosti.
Zaposleni v javnem sektorju v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v zasebnem sektorju slabše ocenjujejo svoje možnosti glede prožnega zaposlovanja, kar kaže na to, da bodo potrebne spremembe delovnopravne zakonodaje tako, da bodo usmerjene v boljše možnosti glede prožnega zaposlovanja tudi za zaposlene v javnem sektorju. Tako zaposleni v javnem kot v zasebnem sektorju se strinjajo, da organizacije ne najemajo zaposlenih pogosto prek agencij za posredovanje dela. Zakaj je tako, bi težko zapisali, najverjetneje pa je to posledica nezaupanja oziroma slabih izkušenj, ki so jih imeli posamezniki. Zaposleni v javnem sektorju pa slabo ocenjujejo tudi možnosti za delo na daljavo.
Udeleženci v raziskavi, zaposleni tako v organizacijah javnega kot zasebnega sektorja, so torej najbolj podobno ocenili zunanjo numerično prožnost ter prožnost pogodb o zaposlitvah. Največje razlike v povprečnih ocenah med sodelujočimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju so se pojavile pri notranji numerični prožnosti, funkcionalni prožnosti in geografski prožnosti.
Na podlagi analize rezultatov je hipoteza H1: »Med zaposlenimi v javnem in zasebnem sektorju se pojavljajo statistično pomembne razlike v ocenjenih povprečjih vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.« potrjena. Sodelujoči, zaposleni v zasebnem sektorju, spremenljivke, povezane s prožnostjo organizacij, v večini bolje ocenjujejo kot sodelujoči, zaposleni v organizacijah javnega sektorja. Največje razlike se pojavljajo pri notranji numerični prožnosti, funkcionalni prožnosti in geografski prožnosti.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 55
Tatjana Kozjek
4.2 Primerjava med zaposlenimi v javnih agencijah ter zavodih in zaposlenimi v drugih organizacijah javnega sektorja
Z namenom, da bi preverili hipotezo H2: »Zaposleni v javnih agencijah ter javnih zavodih v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v drugih organizacijah javnega sektorja statistično pomembno višje ocenjujejo vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.«, so v nadaljevanju prikazane primerjave povprečnih ocen in analiza statistično pomembnih razlik med ocenjenimi povprečji spremenljivk prožnosti posameznih organizacij v javnem sektorju.
Oblikovanih je bilo šest skupin organizacij, in sicer ministrstva in vladne službe, davčna uprava ter inšpektorati in direktorati, centri za socialno delo, upravne enote, občine, javne agencije in javni zavodi. Rezultati so prikazani v Tabeli 2.
Analiza je pokazala več statistično pomembnih razlik, in sicer so sodelujoči, zaposleni v javnih agencijah oziroma zavodih statistično pomembno višje ocenili večino spremenljivk prožnosti, kar kaže, da je prožnost večkrat omogočena prav tam, kar je sicer razumljivo, saj so te organizacije v primerjavi z drugimi v javnem sektorju samostojnejše. Zaposleni v javnem sektorju kritično ocenjujejo situacijo na področju prožnosti dela. Rezultati kažejo, da javne agencije oziroma zavodi v primerjavi z drugimi organizacijami v javnem sektorju pogosteje omogočajo prožno zaposlovanje.
Sodelujoči ocenjujejo, da občine v primerjavi z drugimi organizacijami v javnem sektorju največkrat omogočajo prilagajanje:
•	ravni (število) zaposlenih spreminjajočim se potrebam v organizaciji (F = 6,39; a < 0,001),
•	dela z uporabo nadur (F = 4,27; a < 0,001),
•	dela z najemanjem agencijskih delavcev (F = 3,70; a < 0,005),
•	dela z najemanjem priložnostnih delavcev (F = 5,14; a < 0,001).
Najemanje agencijskih in priložnostnih delavcev je najverjetneje povezano z izvajanjem različnih projektov in z javno-zasebnim partnerstvom.
Raziskava je pokazala, da upravne enote na področju prožnega zaposlovanja najpogosteje prilagajajo:
•	delo z zmanjšanjem števila zaposlenih (F = 14,50; a < 0,001),
•	vsebino dela posameznika organizacijskim potrebam glede opredelitve delovnih nalog (s spremembo sistemizacije) (F=4,39; a < 0,001),
•	vsebino dela posameznika organizacijskim potrebam glede opredelitve delovnih nalog (z organizacijskimi navodili) (F = 4,77; a < 0,001),
•	vsebino dela posameznika organizacijskim potrebam z razporejanjem zaposlenih na različna delovna mesta brez spreminjanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi (F = 3,42; a < 0,005).
56 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
Tabela 2: Povprečne ocene in statistična pomembnost razlik spremenljivk prožnosti za posamezne organizacije javnega sektorja
Spremenljivka prožnosti	MIN VS	DU IN DIR	CSD	UE	OB	JA JZ	F	p
F1	3,21	3,42	2,89	3,97	4,12	3,84	6,39	0,000
F2	3,04	2,68	3,21	3,15	3,81	4,04	6,41	0,000
F3	3,13	3,12	3,22	3,27	3,99	3,84	4,27	0,000
F4	2,73	2,16	1,97	2,38	3,33	3,65	12,77	0,000
F5	3,31	3,32	1,94	2,40	3,69	4,16	13,28	0,000
F6	2,64	3,38	1,65	3,99	2,74	3,10	14,49	0,000
F7	2,75	2,18	2,08	2,30	3,15	3,43	7,46	0,000
F8	2,72	2,72	2,94	2,91	3,23	3,74	4,71	0,000
F9	3,09	2,85	3,09	3,21	3,77	4,24	5,57	0,000
F10	3,42	3,52	3,24	4,19	3,88	4,02	4,39	0,000
F11	3,68	4,13	4,15	4,61	4,22	4,43	4,77	0,000
F12	3,07	3,52	3,76	3,93	3,49	3,87	3,42	0,002
F13	2,26	2,64	2,36	2,79	2,93	3,39	4,27	0,000
F14	1,95	2,10	1,91	1,93	2,45	2,70	3,26	0,004
F15	1,89	1,92	1,94	1,92	2,47	2,24	2,84	0,010
F16	2,87	3,62	2,31	2,89	2,50	2,93	3,61	0,002
F17	2,07	1,66	1,39	1,50	2,03	2,23	9,40	0,000
F18	1,84	1,52	1,30	1,35	1,76	1,88	6,41	0,000
F19	3,22	2,38	3,10	2,77	3,35	3,36	5,85	0,000
F20	2,76	2,45	3,00	2,64	3,25	3,70	4,03	0,001
F21	2,81	2,45	3,37	2,42	2,79	3,14	4,93	0,000
F22	2,19	2,24	2,90	2,72	2,45	2,63	3,02	0,007
F23	1,75	1,54	1,97	1,81	1,90	2,00	2,04	0,058
F24	1,63	1,55	1,20	1,44	2,01	1,95	3,70	0,001
F25	1,64	1,58	1,40	1,39	2,11	2,07	5,14	0,000
F26	3,23	3,11	2,20	2,00	3,50	4,26	16,51	0,000
Legenda: ZS - organizacija zasebnega sektorja; MIN, VS - ministrstvo, vladna služba;
DU, IN, DIR - davčna uprava, inšpektorat, direktorat; CSD - center za socialno delo; UE - upravna enota; OB - občina; JA, JZ - javna agencija, javni zavod.
Vir: lastni
Zanimivo je dejstvo, da sodelujoči za upravne enote višje ocenjujejo prožnost glede opredelitve njihovih nalog s spremembo sistemizacije. V tem primeru predvidevamo, da so nekateri sodelujoči spregledali besedilo »s spremembo sistemizacije«, saj je spreminjanje sistemizacije glede na slovensko pravno ureditev dolgotrajen proces.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 57
Tatjana Kozjek
Hipoteza H2: »Zaposleni v javnih agencijah ter javnih zavodih v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v drugih organizacijah javnega sektorja statistično pomembno višje ocenjujejo vrednosti spremenljivk prožnosti.« je potrjena. Analiza je pokazala, da so v javnih agencijah in zavodih najpogosteje omogočene funkcionalna, geografska in numerična (tako notranja kot zunanja) prožnost.
5 Razprava in zaključek
Razprave o prožnosti organizacij so bolj pogoste v zadnjih letih, predvsem kot posledica gospodarske recesije. Strukturne spremembe in globalizacija so sicer koristne za rast gospodarstva in zaposlenosti, vendar vplivajo tako na organizacije kot na zaposlene.
Rezultati raziskave glede prožnosti organizacijna področju dela kažejo, da imajo zaposleni v zasebnem sektorju v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v javnem sektorju boljše možnosti prožnega zaposlovanja. Največkrat so jim omogočene: časovna prilagoditev dela, prožne ure dela in prilagajanje obsega delovnih ur. Dobro ocenjujejo tudi možnosti glede razporejanja na različna delovna mesta brez spreminjanja pogodb o zaposlitvi. V zasebnem sektorju imajo torejzaposleni v primerjavi z zaposlenimi v javnem sektorju boljše možnosti glede notranje numerične in funkcionalne prožnosti ter mobilnosti. Zaposleni v javnem sektorju pa slabo ocenjujejo možnosti za delo na daljavo. To kaže na dejstvo, da bodo potrebne spremembe delovnopravne zakonodaje tako, da bodo usmerjene v boljše možnosti glede prožnega zaposlovanja tudi za zaposlene v javnem sektorju. Oboji se strinjajo, da organizacije ne najemajo zaposlenih pogosto prek agencij za posredovanje dela, najverjetneje je to posledica nezaupanja oziroma slabih izkušenj, ki so jih imeli posamezniki, zato je bi bilo treba poostriti nadzor nad delovanjem teh agencij.
Na splošno zaposleni v javnem sektorju slabo ocenjujejo situacijo na področju prožnosti dela. Primerjava med posameznimi organizacijami javnega sektorja je sicer pokazala, da je prožno zaposlovanje najpogosteje omogočeno zaposlenim v javnih agencijah oziroma zavodih. Primerjava rezultatov z ugotovitvami tujih raziskav in s trendi na področju zaposlovanja v času gospodarske recesije (npr. Regus Global Report, 2011; Raisanen in drugi, 2012), Evropska Komisija, 2012) pa kaže, da se zaposleni v Sloveniji ne odločajo pogosto za delo s krajšim delovnim časom. Občine v primerjavi z drugimi organizacijami javnega sektorja pogosteje najemajo agencijske in priložnostne delavce, kar je najverjetneje povezano z izvajanjem projektov in z javno-zasebnim partnerstvom. Upravne enote pa pogosteje prilagajajo delo potrebam z razporejanjem zaposlenih na druga delovna mesta, z zmanjšanjem števila zaposlenih ali s spremembo opredelitve delovnih nalog.
Rezultati raziskave so namenjeni tako pripravljavcem sprememb na področju slovenske delovnopravne zakonodaje kot menedžerjem organizacij. Fleksibilnost na področju dela namreč pozitivno vpliva na motiviranost zaposlenih, večjo osredotočenost zaposlenih na delo, dobro počutje
58 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
in zadovoljstvo pri delu, manjšo odsotnost z dela, večjo produktivnost zaposlenih, lažje usklajevanje poklicnega in družinskega (zasebnega) življenja, boljšo kakovost storitev oziroma izdelkov, večjo pripadnost organizaciji; navedeno pa vpliva tudi na boljšo učinkovitost organizacij, kar dokazujejo tudi druge raziskave (npr. Kossek in Michel, 2010; Regus Global Report, 2011). Tako država kot organizacije se torejmorajo zavedati pozitivnih vplivov fleksibilnosti dela. Za izboljšanje možnosti glede prožnega zaposlovanja pa je treba spremembe na področju delovnopravne zakonodaje izvesti predvsem za zaposlene v javnem sektorju.
Dr. Tatjana Kozjek je višja predavateljica na Fakulteti za upravo. Magistrirala je na Fakulteti za organizacijske vede Univerze v Mariboru, na Fakulteti za upravo Univerze v Ljubljani pa uspešno zaključila znanstveni doktorski študij. V okviru pedagoškega dela sodeluje pri pripravi in izvedbi predavanj in vaj. V okviru raziskovalnega dela pa na različnih notranjih in zunanjih projektih. Je članica Slovenske kadrovske zveze. Kot avtorica oziroma soavtorica ima objavljenih več strokovnih in znanstvenih del. Področji njenega raziskovanja sta fleksibilnost organizacij in varnost posameznikov na področju dela.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 59
Tatjana Kozjek
Literatura in viri
Altuzarra, A. & Serrano, F. (2010). Firms' Innovation Activity and Numerical Flexibility. ILRReview, 63 (2), 327-339.
Černigoj Sadar, N., Kanjuo Mrčela, A., Stropnik, N., & Žaucer Šefman, B. (2007). Delo in družina - s partnerstvom do družini prijaznega delovnega okolja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
Eichorst, W., Feil, M., & Marx, P. (2010). Crisis, What Crisis? Patterns of Adaptation in European Labour Markets. IZA Discussion paper (5045). Retrieved November 29, 2012, from http://ftp.iza.org/dp5045.pdf
Evropska komisija (2012). Draft join employment report to the Communication from the Commission. Annual growth survey 2013. C0M(2012) 750 final. Pridobljeno 29. 11. 2012 iz http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_ emplr_en.pdf
Goodwin, A. (2002). EMU Market Dynamics: Labour Market Flexibility in Europe. Great Britain: CBI Organisation.
ILO (2004). Economic security for a better world, Programme on Socio-economic Security. Genova: ILO.
Kossek, E. E. & Michel, J. S. (2010). Flexible work schedules. In S. Zedeck, (Ur.), APA Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Kozjek, T. (2013). Fleksibilnost dela v upravnih dejavnostih. Doktorska disertacija, Ljubljana: Fakulteta za upravo, Univerza v Ljubljani.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Matz-Costa, C., & Bessen, E. (2009). Workplace flexibility: Findings from the Age & Generation Study. Issue Brief, 19. The Sloan Center on aging and work by Boston College. Pridobljeno 29. 11. 2012 iz http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/agingandwork/pdf/ publications/IB19_WorkFlex.pdf
Räisänen, H., Alatalo, J., Krüger Henriksen, K., Israelsson, T., & Klinger, S. (2012). Labour Market Reforms and Performance in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Finland. Helsinki: Edita Publishing Oy.
Regus Global Report (2011). Flexible working goes global. A global Research Report amongst businesses assessing take upa and attitudes towards flexible working. Pridobljeno 29. 11. 2012 iz http://www.regus.com/images/ Regus%20Whitepaper%20Flexible%20Working%20150311_tcm8-39644.pdf
Richman, A., Burrus, D., Buxbaum, L., Shannon, L., & Yai, Y. (2010). Innovative Workplace Flexibility Options for Hourly Workers. Corporate Voices for Working Families. Pridobljeno 29. 11. 2012 iz http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/ system/files/CVWFflexreport-FINAL.pdf
Tros, F. & Wilthagen, T. (2004). The Concept of "Flexicurity": a new approach to regulating employment and labour markets in Flexicurity. Conceptual Issues and Political Implementation in Europe. European Review of labour research, 10 (2), 166-186.
Vermeylen, G. & Hurley, J. (2007). Varieties of flexicurity: reflections on key
elements of flexibility and security. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working conditions, Dublin.
Wachsen, E. & Blind, K. (2011). More flexibility for more innovation? Working Paper, 115. University of Amsterdam. Pridobljeno 29. 11. 2012 iz http://www. uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/publications/WP115-Wachsen,Blind.pdf
60 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji
Wilthagen, T., Tros, F., & Van Lieshort, H. (2004). Towards "Flexicurity?" Balancing Flexibility and Security in EU Member States. European Journal of Social Security, 6 (2), 113-136.
Zakon o javnih uslužbencih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZJU-UPB3). Uradni list RS, št. 63/2007.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 61
62 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
UDK: 005.966.4:[35+346.26]
1.02 Review article
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia1
Tatjana Kozjek
Faculty of administration, University in Ljubljana tatjana.kozjek@fu.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT
Discussions about flexibility of organizations in the field of work are more frequent in the recent years, mostly as a result of the economic recession. Structural changes and globalization have had a severe effect on both, organizations and employees. Therefore, organizations must remain flexible to respond to unexpected changes to the area of demand, as well as adjust to new technologies and other influences. Organizations implement various measures to increase their flexibility of work and timing of work and internal mobility of employees or in the field of wages and labor costs. The article presents results of the research which examined whether there are differences in the flexibility of organizations in the field of work between employees in the public and private sectors in Slovenia. The results showed that private organizations enabled internal, numerical, functional and locational flexibility more often than public organizations. The most flexible among public organizations are public agencies and institutions.
Keywords: numerical flexibility, functional flexibility, flexibility of wages, mobility, flexible forms of employment contract, public sector, private sector
JEL: J00, J24, J30, J60
1 Introduction
Organizations must remain flexible, if they want to act timely to unexpected changes and/or adapt to new technologies and other influences. Organizations perform various acts to increase flexibility, mostly in the field of time scope and timetable of work, internal mobility of employees and regarding wages and labor cost. The research wanted to present the flexibility of work in the public and private sectors in Slovenia with the aim to analyze and to compare differences of the flexibility in the public and private sector. Two hypotheses were tested:
H1: Employees in the public sector evaluate values of the variables of flexibility different than employees in the private sectors.
1 Results are summarized by the doctoral dissertation: Kozjek, T. (2013).
Kozjek, T. (2014). Prožnost dela v javnem in zasebnem sektorju v Sloveniji. 63 Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, XII (1), 63—77.
Tatjana Kozjek
H2: Employees in the public agencies and institutions evaluate values of the variables of flexibility statistically significant higher than employees in other organizations of public sector.
The research was made by CAWI method (computer assisted web interview). A link to an online questionnaire was sent to official electronic mail adresses in public organizations so they could forward our link to their employees. The results are intended for those who prepare materials regarding changes in the Slovenian labor legislation and for managers of organizations as an aspect of a well-organized working process, which also effects on the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.
The first part of the article presents various types of flexibility of work, based on literature and research. The second part presents results of the analysis and comparison of the differences between flexibility of work in the public and private sector in Slovenia.
2 Types of Flexibility in the Field of Work
For better understanding of the variables, studied in the research, each type of flexibility mentioned in this section and also in the literature, is explained. Goodwin (2002, p.109) defines numerical flexibility as capability of organizations and employers to adjust the number of employees to their needs. Altuzarra and Serrano (2010, p. 328) define numerical flexibility as the statistical flexibility and relate it with other job contracts. Tros and Wilthagen (2004, p. 171), ILO (2004, p. 14) and Wachsen and Blind (2011, p. 11) describe numerical flexibility as external and internal numerical flexibility. External flexibility is defined as ability of the organization to adjust number of employees to the business activities by using different types of employment, whether they reduce or increase the number of employees. Internal flexibility indicates the ability of the organization to adjust their work to their business needs by changing their work time.
In addition to the timing aspect and the adjustment of the number of employees, another important organizational aspect is the subject of the functional flexibility. According to Tros's and Wilthagn's (2004, p. 171), and ILO's (2004, p. 14) opinion, functional flexibility relates to organizational adjustment of their work to their business needs by defining tasks and relocating employees to different job positions. Goodwin (2002, p. 110) and Wachsen and Blind (2011, p. 11) interpret functional flexibility as multi-functionality or capability to do other work besides their own. Altuzarra and Serrano (2010, p. 328), define that type of flexibility as dynamic flexibility. Eichhorst and others (2010, p. 4), distinguish external and internal functional flexibility. The external type of flexibility includes qualified, trained, educated and competent individuals, who are able to adapt to structural changes. Internal flexibility defines the ability of organizations to respond to changes
64 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
on demand with a flexible organized working process, requiring skilled, well trained and competent employees, who are able to perform multiple tasks.
The economic aspect is analyzed in the context of wage flexibility and features the variable part of wage regarding job performance and overall business performance (Tros & Wilthagen, 2004, p. 171; ILO, 2004, p. 14; Wachsen & Blind, 2011, p. 11). Eichhorst and others (2010, pg 4) associate that type of flexibility with adjustment of actual wages to macroeconomic circumstances. Vermeylen and Hurley (2007, p. 69) defined externalization of flexibility, which means that possibility of employment and unemployment contract (employment through employment agencies).
To define the meaning of the flexibility to work, we have to first define the definition of work and narrow the meaning of the definition considering the flexibility of the employees, work preparations, work items and tasks. That means that employee must finish certain working tasks by the deadline, but he/she can work wherever and whenever he/she wants. The employee also has available options for work preparations and other work accessories that are needed. If we consider flexibility of work from the organizational point of view, the wider aspect of definition means that employee is employed by the employment contract. Understanding of flexible forms of employment from the narrow point of view, is introduced by following sources: ILO (2004a, p. 4), Cernigoj Sadar and others (2007, p. 137), Pit Catouphesova and others (2009, p. 4), Richman and others (2010, p. 4) classify job contracts, part time jobs, teleworking, job sharing, condensed work week, flexible working hours, as another aspect of flexible forms of employment. Therefore wider aspect also includes consideration of working time and working condition.
3 Methodology
3.1	Research Hypothesis
In the context of the research two hypotheses were tested:
H1: Employees in the public sector evaluate values of the variables of the flexibility different than employees in the private sectors.
H2: Employees in the public agencies and institutions evaluate values of the variables of the flexibility statistically significant higher than employees in other organizations of public sector.
3.2	Research Instrumentation
In order to verify hypotheses, a questionnaire, composed of two parts, was created:
The first part was made to gather demographic data of the employees, who participated in the research. The second part was made to gather information
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 65
Tatjana Kozjek
about flexibility of organizations. Employees who participated in the research had to evaluate variables of flexibility numerically to scale from the lowest (1) to the highest (7) mark. The scale was made as follows:
•	1- very inflexible
•	2 - inflexible
•	3 - partly inflexible
•	4 - neither is, nor is flexible
•	5 - partly flexible
•	6 - flexible
•	7 - very flexible
Questions about the flexibility of organizations included the issues of external and internal numerical flexibility, functional flexibility, flexibility of wages, and wage cost, locational flexibility (mobility) and flexibility of employment contracts.
Considering external and internal aspects of numerical flexibility, the capability of organization was evaluated for its ability to adjust:
•	The level and /or number of employees to the need of organization (F1),
•	The work of organizational and/or business needs by using different forms of employment (F2),
•	The work of organizational and/or business needs through overtime work (F3),
•	The work of organizational and/or business needs by using copyrights or similar job contracts -service contract (F4),
•	The work of organizational and/or business needs by hiring students (F5),
•	The work of organizational and/or business by reducing the number of employees (F6),
•	The work of organizational and/or business by increasing the number of employees (F7),
•	The work of organizational and/or business by changing the volume of working hours (F8),
•	The work of organizational and/or business by timing of work or by changing working time (F9).
Considering functional flexibility, the capability of organization to adjust the content of work of an individual to organizational and /or business needs was evaluated:
•	In the context of the definition of working assignments by changing systematization (F10),
66 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
•	In the context of the definition of working assignments by organizational instructions (F11),
•	By relocating employees to different job positions without changing employment contract (F12),
•	By relocating employees to different job positions with termination of an old and offer of a new employment contract (F13),
Relating to wage flexibility the ability of the organizations to adjust wages was evaluated:
•	By job performance of an individual employee (F14),
•	By business results and business effectiveness (F15).
In association with locational flexibility (or so called geographical flexibility) the ability of the organization to transfer employees to other job positions or to other locations was evaluated (F16).
In the context of flexible forms of employment contracts, the organization was evaluated on its ability to create flexible employment contracts that would meet the needs of the organization with:
•	Teleworking from home, within domestic country (F17),
•	Teleworking from abroad (F18),
•	Contract jobs (F19),
•	Flexible working hours (F20),
•	Half or part-time working (F21),
•	Job-sharing (F22),
•	Concentrated work week days, for example: 4 days longer working time, the 5th day is off (F23),
•	Hiring employees from employment agency (F24),
•	Hiring occasional employees (F25),
•	Hiring students (F26),
The research was made in Slovenia from September 26, 2011, to October 26, 2011. Data was gathered using the Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) method. The link to the online questionnaire of the public sector organizations was emailed to the Slovenian Government, ministries, directorates, ministries authorities, government departments, administrative units, municipalities, (public) agencies, the National Electoral and Audit Committee, the Ombudsman, Information Commissioner, the Bank of Slovenia, the Constitutional Court of Auditors, the Bar Association of Notaries, the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, Supreme Court, National Assembly and National Council. The response was good; therefore, the link to the online questionnaire was sent only once.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 67
Tatjana Kozjek
The link to the online questionnaire for organizations in the private sector was sent by e-mail to 6,000 official email addresses. Organizations were randomly selected; email addresses were obtained in the Slovenian Business Register. The link was sent twice: the first time on September 26, 2011, to 3,000 official email addresses and for the second time on October 13, 2011 to 6,000 email addresses.
3.3 Sample of the Participating Employees in the Research
The questionnaire was fulfilled by 1,009 employees in organizations in the private and the public sectors. The participants are broken down as follows: 25. 5 % were employed in the private sector and 74.5 % in the public sector. 3.8 % in government services, 12.9 % in the ministries, 0.7 % in the directorates,
2.0	% in the tax administration, 4.0 % in the social work centers, 4.6 % in the inspectorates, 17.8 % in the administrative units, 14.2 % in the municipalities and 5.1 % in the public institutions and the public agencies.
A link to the online questionnaire was sent by electronic mail to official addresses with a request to forward the link to employees. That means that only employees in the field of administration and employees from other different fields of work participated and filled out the questionnaire. Lower responsiveness of individuals within organizations was due to the fact that the research was implemented online. Among other reasons for non-participation, the individuals stated following:
•	They were occupied with other online research.
•	The management decided that employees were not allowed to participate in the research.
•	Lack of time.
The conclusions are therefore limited only to the part of population which has been included in the sample.
4 Results of the Research
4.1	The Comparison between public and private Sector Employees
Reliability Test, Cronbach's Alpha (0.916), showed that data of twenty-six variables are suitable for analysis. In order to verify the hypothesis H1: "Employees in the public sector evaluate values of the variables of the flexibility different than employees in the private sectors.", the comparison has been made between average estimates and statistically significant differences of each variable of flexibility in the public and the private sector. The results are shown in the Table 1.
68 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
Employees in the public sector who participated in the research evaluated the capability of the organization to adjust work content of individuals, with average estimates of 3.73 (as the second best evaluated variable of flexibility), by changing systematization for the needs of organization. This is quite surprising, considering the legally complex and time-consuming process of changing systematization. According to the Civil Servant Act (ZJU-UPB3, Article 40., 41.), the Government must establish a common solution to systemize the bodies of the state and local administration. Employees who are employed in the organizations of the private sectors evaluated variables of flexibility with estimates of 2.99, mostly because the systematization is performed differently in the private sector than in the public sector.
Even more surprising is the average estimate of 3.67 which was evaluated by employees in the organization of the public sector (as the third highest evaluated variable). Employees evaluated variable of the flexibility of organization to adjust the number of employees, according to the changing needs of the organization. Authorities have to act according to the Civil Servant Act (ZJU-UPB3, Articles 42., 43., and 44.), which defines that labor relations and personnel plans must be prepared in accordance to the structure and number of employees for the two-year action program. A proposal of the personnel plans must be also prepared by the Principal for the public administration bodies. The proposal of the personnel plans must be harmonized with the plan of assignments, work programmers and proposed budget.
Employees in organizations of the public sectors evaluated the capability of the organizations to adjust work by reducing the number of the employees, with an average estimate of 3.10, which is, according to the current labor legislation, a highly estimated variable. Labor legislation at that time in Slovenia was quite rigid regarding termination of the job contract in the public sector. Therefore the estimate correlates to the general development in the labor market, during economic crisis.
Employees in the public sector evaluate with the estimate of 3 and higher (3.04) the capability of the organization to increase hiring students. Employees in the private sector evaluated the same variable with average estimate 3.81, which also indicates rigidity of labor legislation. Organizations are aware of the main problem of rigid Slovenian labor legislation and therefore they rather employ students, who are not well secured on the labor market regarding job loss.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 69
Tatjana Kozjek
Table 1: Differences in average estimates and statistically relevant differences of variables of flexibility of employees in the public (puS) and private sectors (prS), who participated in the research.
Variable of Flexibility	Average Estimates			Standard Deviation	F	p
	PuS	PrS	Differences (PuS-PrS)			
F1	3,67	2,88	0,79	1,621	3,09	0,079
F2	3,31	3,79	0,31	1,755	13,91	0,000
F3	3,43	4,72	- 1,29	1,912	92,74	0,000
F4	2,86	2,78	0,08	1,829	0,39	0,533
F5	3,17	3,81	- 0,64	1,896	21,25	0,000
F6	3,10	2,69	0,41	1,834	9,13	0,003
F7	2,72	3,06	- 0,34	1,693	7,48	0,006
F8	3,07	4,60	- 1,53	1,928	124,80	0,000
F9	3,40	5,30	- 1,90	1,990	194,80	0,000
F10	3,73	2,99	0,74	1,822	29,89	0,000
F11	4,14	4,91	- 0,77	1,647	39,81	0,000
F12	3,53	4,06	- 0,53	1,825	14,90	0,000
F13	2,71	2,45	0,26	1,694	4,22	0,400
F14	2,16	2,68	- 0,52	1,651	17,79	0,000
F15	2,09	2,96	- 0,87	1,639	51,09	0,000
F16	2,87	4,21	- 1,34	1,865	98,77	0,000
F17	1,97	2,79	- 0,82	1,751	37,79	0,000
F18	1,73	2,07	- 0,34	1,498	8,14	0,004
F19	3,15	4,57	- 1,60	1,872	106,08	0,000
F20	2,92	5,01	- 2,09	1,984	236,07	0,000
F21	2,83	3,80	- 0,97	1,837	48,87	0,000
F22	2,53	3,10	- 0,57	1,744	18,21	0,000
F23	1,87	2,88	- 1,01	1,673	64,82	0,000
F24	1,68	1,92	- 0,24	1,362	4,81	0,029
F25	1,74	1,88	- 0,14	1,374	1,68	0,195
F26	3,04	3,75	- 0,71	1,873	25,03	0,000
Source: Own
The analysis of the statistically relevant differences between estimated averages of the variables of flexibility in the public and private sectors showed, that organizations of the private sectors use most of the types of employment flexibility more often than organizations of the public sectors. The biggest statistically relevant differences occur in the evaluations of the capability of organization to achieve flexible types of employment contracts with flexible
70 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
working hours (difference among organizations between public and private sector is - 2.09; F = 236.7; a < 0.001), and capability of organizations to adjust work with timing (the difference between estimates in organizations of the public and the private sector is - 1.9; F = 194.8; a < 0.001). Analysis of the statisitically relevant diferences showed that organizations in the public sectors adjust work by reducing the number of employees more often than organizations in the private sector. Variable was evaluated with average estimate of 2.69 in the private and 3.10 in the public sector (F = 9.1; a < 0.005). The result is the consequence of the current state on the labor market and higher unemployment. Employees in the public sector are often under the presurre, regarding the safety of their employment.
The results also show that employment flexibility is better in the private sector than in the public sector, especially in the following types of employment flexibility: enabling of time adjustment to work, flexible working hours and volume adjustment of the working hours. The possibilities to reallocate to different job positions without changing employment contracts are evaluated by employees in the private sector better than employees in the public sector. The comparison between employees in the public and private sector shows that employees in the private sector have better opportunities regarding internal, numerical and functional flexibility and mobility than employees in the public sector. Employees in the public sector evaluated their possibilities regarding employment flexibility lower than employees in the private sector. Therefore significant changes of labor legislation are necessary to in order to achieve better employment flexibility for employees in public sector.
Both employees in the public and private sectors agree that organizations do not hire candidates from the employment agencies very often. The main reason may be possible bad experiences that some individuals might have had. Employees in the public sectors evaluated the possibility to teleworking with lower marks. Those employees in private and public sectors who participated in the research, evaluated external numerical flexibility and flexibility of the employment contracts very similarly. The major differences in the average estimates among those employees in the public and private sectors are shown in internal numerical flexibility, functional flexibility and geographical flexibility. The hypothesis H1: "Employees in the public sector evaluate values of the variables of the flexibility different than employees in the private sectors." is confirmed, based on the analysis of the results. Employees in the private sector evaluated variables related to flexibility of organization higher than employees in the public sector. The major differences occurred in the internal numerical flexibility.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 71
Tatjana Kozjek
4.2 The Comparison between Employees in Public Agencies and Public Institutions and Employees in other Organizations of the Public Sector
In order to verify the hypothesis H2: "Employees in the public agencies and institutions evaluate values of the variables of the flexibility statistically significant higher than employees in other organizations of public sector." comparison of average estimates and analysis of the statistically relevant differences between estimated averages of the variables of flexibility of individual organizations in the public sector is presented. There were created six groups of organizations:
•	Ministries,
•	Governmental services,
•	Tax Administration,
•	Inspectorates,
•	Directorates,
•	Social Security Services,
•	Administration Units,
•	Municipalities,
•	Public agencies and
•	Public Institutions.
The results are shown in the Table 2.
The analysis showed many statistically relevant differences such as: employees in the public agencies or institutions evaluated statistically relevant variables of flexibility higher. That was expected as public agencies act more independent in comparison to other organizations of the public sector. Although employees responded very critically about flexibility in the field of work, the results show that public agencies or public institutions in comparison to other organizations in the public sector enable flexible employment more often.
Employees who participated in the research evaluated that municipalities, in comparison to other organizations, more often adjust to:
•	The level (number) of employees by changing the needs of organization (F = 6,39; a < 0,001),
•	Work by using overtime hours (F = 4,27; a < 0,001),
•	Work by hiring workers through employment agencies (F = 3,70; a < 0,005),
•	Work by hiring occasional workers (F = 5,14; a < 0,001).
72 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
Hiring workers through employment agencies and hiring occasional workers is most likely related with implementation of various project within the public - private partnerships.
Table 2: Average estimates and statistically relevant difference of the variables of flexibility For individual organizations of the public sector
Variable of Flexibility	MIN VS	TAX IN DIR	SSS	AU	MU	PA PI	F	p
F1	3,21	3,42	2,89	3,97	4,12	3,84	6,39	0,000
F2	3,04	2,68	3,21	3,15	3,81	4,04	6,41	0,000
F3	3,13	3,12	3,22	3,27	3,99	3,84	4,27	0,000
F4	2,73	2,16	1,97	2,38	3,33	3,65	12,77	0,000
F5	3,31	3,32	1,94	2,40	3,69	4,16	13,28	0,000
F6	2,64	3,38	1,65	3,99	2,74	3,10	14,49	0,000
F7	2,75	2,18	2,08	2,30	3,15	3,43	7,46	0,000
F8	2,72	2,72	2,94	2,91	3,23	3,74	4,71	0,000
F9	3,09	2,85	3,09	3,21	3,77	4,24	5,57	0,000
F10	3,42	3,52	3,24	4,19	3,88	4,02	4,39	0,000
F11	3,68	4,13	4,15	4,61	4,22	4,43	4,77	0,000
F12	3,07	3,52	3,76	3,93	3,49	3,87	3,42	0,002
F13	2,26	2,64	2,36	2,79	2,93	3,39	4,27	0,000
F14	1,95	2,10	1,91	1,93	2,45	2,70	3,26	0,004
F15	1,89	1,92	1,94	1,92	2,47	2,24	2,84	0,010
F16	2,87	3,62	2,31	2,89	2,50	2,93	3,61	0,002
F17	2,07	1,66	1,39	1,50	2,03	2,23	9,40	0,000
F18	1,84	1,52	1,30	1,35	1,76	1,88	6,41	0,000
F19	3,22	2,38	3,10	2,77	3,35	3,36	5,85	0,000
F20	2,76	2,45	3,00	2,64	3,25	3,70	4,03	0,001
F21	2,81	2,45	3,37	2,42	2,79	3,14	4,93	0,000
F22	2,19	2,24	2,90	2,72	2,45	2,63	3,02	0,007
F23	1,75	1,54	1,97	1,81	1,90	2,00	2,04	0,058
F24	1,63	1,55	1,20	1,44	2,01	1,95	3,70	0,001
F25	1,64	1,58	1,40	1,39	2,11	2,07	5,14	0,000
F26	3,23	3,11	2,20	2,00	3,50	4,26	16,51	0,000
Legend: PrS - Organization of the private sector; MIN, GOV - Ministries, Government, Public services; TAX, IN, DIR - Tax Administration, inspectorate, directorate; SSS - Social Security Services; AU - administration Unit; MU - Municipality; PA, PI - Public Agency, Public Institution
Source: Own
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 73
Tatjana Kozjek
The research showed that Administration Units in the field of flexible employment, the most commonly adjust to the following:
•	Work by reducing number of employees (F = 14,50; a < 0,001),
•	Content of the work of an individual to adjust to the needs in the context of definition of working assignments by changing of the systematization (F = 4,39; a < 0,001),
•	Content of the work of an individual to adjusting to the needs in the context of definition of working assignments by organizational instructions (F=4,77; a < 0,001),
•	Content of the work of an individual to adjust to the needs by reallocating of the employees to other job positions without changing the employment contract (F = 3,42; a < 0,005).
An interesting fact is that employees in the Administration Unit that participated in the research evaluated flexibility regarding definitions of their working assignments by changing the systematization higher. In that case it can be assumed that some individuals who participated must have overseen the definition of "changing of the systematization" because the subject of changing the systematization in accordance to Slovenian legal legislation is a time-consuming process.
Hypothesis H2: "Employees in the public agencies and institutions evaluate values of the variables of the flexibility statistically significant higher than employees in other organizations of public sector." is confirmed. Analysis showed that functional, geographical and numerical (internal and external) flexibility of the public agencies and the public institutions is the most commonly enabled.
5 Discussion and Conclusion
Results of the research regarding the flexibility of work show that employees in the private sector experience better flexibility than employees in the public sector. Employees in the private sector experience: time adjustment to work, flexibility regarding working hours and flexibility regarding extension of working hours. They evaluate the possibility of reallocating to different job positions, without changing their employment contract better than employees in the public sector. Therefore, employees in the private sector have better possibilities to experience numerical and functional flexibility and mobility. Employees in the public sector evaluate the possibilities to teleworking worse than employees in the private sector. Therefore the changes regarding increasing flexibility need to be performed by changing the policy of Labor legislation. Employees in the private and public sectors both agree that organizations do not hire employees through employment agencies very often. The reason might be lack of trust or previous bad experience that some individuals had in the past. We can avoid those problems by supervising these employment agencies.
74 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
Employees in the public sector in general evaluated the situation in the field of work flexibility low. Comparison between individual and organizations in the public sectors showed that employees experienced higher employment flexibility in public agencies and institutions. Comparison among the results and findings of the international research and their trends in the field of employment during the time of economic recession (Regus Global Report, 2011; Raisanen et al., 2012; European Commission, 2012) show that employees who are employed in Slovenian organizations do not choose for part-time jobs. Municipalities hire employees through employment agencies and they also hire occasional employees more often than other organizations of the public sectors, mostly because they perform various projects associated with public- private partnerships. Administration Units more often perform adjustments regarding reallocations of the employees to different job positions and reduce the number of employees by changing definition of working assignments.
Results of the research are intended for those who prepare materials and documentation regarding changes in Slovenian legal labor legislation and for managers of organizations. Flexibility of work has positive effects and motivates employees to increase their focus on work; increase satisfaction in the workplace; stimulate employees to increase productivity; has a positive effect regarding coordination between professional and personal life; increases quality of services and/or product; and stimulates loyalty to the organizations. Other research has proven that those effects have a better impact on the efficiency of the organization (Kossek & Michael, 2010; Regus Global Report, 2011). The state and organizations both have to be aware of the positive effects on the flexibility of work. Changes of the legal labor legislation have to be implemented regarding improvements of flexibility of work mostly for the employees in the public sector.
Tatjana Kozjek, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. She received her master's degree at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor and her doctorate at the Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana. She teaches Theory of Organization, Dealing with People in Public Administration, Organizational Behavior, Basics of Organization, Administrative Operation and Personnel Service. Her research interests are in flexibility and security of work. She is member of the Slovenian Human Resource Association and various project groups.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 75
Tatjana Kozjek
References
Altuzarra, A. & Serrano, F. (2010). Firms' Innovation Activity and Numerical Flexibility. ILRReview, 63 (2), 327-339.
Černigoj Sadar, N., Kanjuo Mrčela, A., Stropnik, N., & Žaucer Šefman, B. (2007). Delo in družina - s partnerstvom do družini prijaznega delovnega okolja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
Eichorst, W., Feil, M., & Marx, P. (2010). Crisis, What Crisis? Patterns of Adaptation in European Labour Markets. IZA Discussion paper (5045). Retrieved November 29, 2012, from http://ftp.iza.org/dp5045.pdf
Evropska komisija (2012). Draft join employment report to the Communication from the Commission. Annual growth survey 2013. C0M(2012) 750 final. Retrived November 29, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ ags2013_emplr_en.pdf
Goodwin, A. (2002). EMU Market Dynamics: Labour Market Flexibility in Europe. Great Britain: CBI Organisation.
ILO (2004). Economic security for a better world, Programme on Socio-economic Security. Genova: ILO.
Kossek, E. E. & Michel, J. S. (2010). Flexible work schedules. In S. Zedeck, (Ed.), APA Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Kozjek, T. (2013). Fleksibilnost dela v upravnih dejavnostih [Flexibility of work in administrative activities]. Doctoral dissertation, Ljubljana: Fakulteta za upravo, Univerza v Ljubljani.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Matz-Costa, C., & Bessen, E. (2009). Workplace flexibility: Findings from the Age & Generation Study. Issue Brief, 19. The Sloan Center on aging and work by Boston College. Retrived November 29, 2012, from http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/agingandwork/pdf/ publications/IB19_WorkFlex.pdf
Räisänen, H., Alatalo, J., Krüger Henriksen, K., Israelsson, T., & Klinger, S. (2012). Labour Market Reforms and Performance in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Finland. Helsinki: Edita Publishing Oy.
Regus Global Report (2011). Flexible working goes global. A global Research Report amongst businesses assessing take upa and attitudes towards flexible working. Retrived November 29, 2012, from http://www.regus.com/images/ Regus%20Whitepaper%20Flexible%20Working%20150311_tcm8-39644.pdf
Richman, A., Burrus, D., Buxbaum, L., Shannon, L., & Yai, Y. (2010). Innovative Workplace Flexibility Options for Hourly Workers. Corporate Voices for Working Families. Retrived November 29, 2012, from http://www.cvworkingfamilies. org/system/files/CVWFflexreport-FINAL.pdf
Tros, F. & Wilthagen, T. (2004). The Concept of "Flexicurity": a new approach to regulating employment and labour markets in Flexicurity. Conceptual Issues and Political Implementation in Europe. European Review of labour research, 10 (2), 166-186.
Vermeylen, G. & Hurley, J. (2007). Varieties of flexicurity: reflections on key
elements of flexibility and security. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working conditions, Dublin.
Wachsen, E. & Blind, K. (2011). More flexibility for more innovation? Working Paper, 115. University of Amsterdam. Retrived November 29, 2012, from http://www.uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/publications/WP115-Wachsen,Blind. pdf
76 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 2014
Flexibility of Work in the Public and Private Sector in Slovenia
Wilthagen, T., Tros, F., & Van Lieshort, H. (2004). Towards "Flexicurity?" Balancing Flexibility and Security in EU Member States. European Journal of Social Security, 6 (2), 113-136.
Zakon o javnih uslužbencih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZJU-UPB3) [Civil Servants Act (consolidated text) (Civil Servants Act-UPB3)]. Uradni list RS, št. 63/2007.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 1, 2014 77