We Care (Un)Equally: Can Small Organizations Offer Flexibility?

Ieva: Hello and welcome back to the podcast „We Care (Un)Equally.” This podcast is part of the European Union-funded CAREDIZO project, where we explore unpaid care work, gender equality, and the realities of small organisations. Today, we will focus on the latter—small organisations and how they navigate the challenges of care responsibilities.

To discuss this topic, I am joined by Jurgita Cinskienė, Director of the Kretinga Women’s Information and Training Center. Welcome, Jurgita.

Jurgita: Hello.

Ieva: Jurgita, first of all, thank you for joining us today and for agreeing to share your insights. I’d like to begin with what may seem like a simple question, but is actually quite a complex one. You’ve been leading your organisation for many years. Over the course of your career, have you noticed that work-life balance has become a more important issue for employers and organisations?

Jurgita: Yes, I’ve been leading the organisation for almost two decades now, so it’s certainly been a long journey. During that time, I’ve witnessed many changes.

To begin with, I represent the Kretinga Women’s Information and Training Center. As our name suggests, we work in the field of women’s rights, and the vast majority of our staff are women.

Although, as someone working in women’s rights, it’s not particularly pleasant to admit this, the reality is that caring for children, elderly family members, and relatives with disabilities still falls primarily on women.

Throughout these two decades, our team has always included women who were raising children, caring for elderly parents, or looking after family members with disabilities. As a result, this issue has always been very relevant to us—not only professionally as an organisation working on gender equality, but also personally, as women ourselves. It is an issue that affects both our professional and our private lives.

Ieva: Exactly. It affects the balance between professional and personal life.

When we talk about care, it is often seen as a private matter—something that concerns only the individual or the family. But in your opinion, why should employers and organisations care about helping employees balance work and caring responsibilities?

Jurgita: They absolutely should care. People who care for their loved ones bring much more than their family responsibilities to the workplace. They also bring valuable knowledge, skills, and experience that organisations genuinely need.

When we create conditions that allow employees to combine their caring responsibilities with their professional lives, everyone benefits.

Of course, there are sectors where this is much more difficult. For example, when work must be done during fixed hours, when remote work isn’t possible, or when the nature of the job requires someone to be physically present in a particular workplace.

However, in our field, it is entirely possible. Ever since our organisation was established, we have worked according to this principle. And I can confidently say that it has benefited everyone—both the organisation and our employees.

As I mentioned, these women possess valuable knowledge and expertise that are essential to our work. Without creating suitable working conditions, we would simply lose highly qualified professionals.

Another important point is that not every role requires a full-time employee. Sometimes a part-time position is entirely sufficient. In those cases, flexible working arrangements make it possible to retain an excellent specialist who brings significant added value to the organisation.

So the benefits are numerous—they can be financial, professional, and organisational. In my opinion, these are among the strongest reasons why employers should create opportunities for people to balance their work and personal responsibilities.

Ieva: We all contribute to creating this system together, and employers become an important part of people’s lives. Whether someone can work flexible hours and balance employment with caring responsibilities often depends on their employer. I think we’re all important parts of this wider ecosystem.

You mentioned that this has always been an important issue within your organisation. Could you tell us about some of the practical measures you’ve introduced? You already mentioned flexible working hours. Would you say that’s the main way you support employees in balancing work and care, or are there other approaches as well?

Jurgita: Yes, flexible working hours have certainly been one of our main tools. Over the years we’ve found that it’s one of the most effective ways to attract employees who have caring responsibilities—whether that’s young children, elderly relatives, or family members who require care or long-term support.

It is often the deciding factor that either enables a woman to remain in employment or, conversely, limits her opportunities to work.

Another very important measure is the possibility of working remotely. This is particularly valuable when someone needs to provide short-term care for a family member. For example, they may need to stay at home for a week or two, or perhaps for several half-days because there is nobody else available to provide care.

In situations like these, a person doesn’t necessarily need to spend every minute actively caring for their relative. Often, it’s simply important to be nearby so they can respond quickly if needed. During that time, they can still carry out administrative tasks or other desk-based work very effectively.

So I would say that these two measures—flexible working hours and remote work—are by far the most important.

There’s another aspect as well. Sometimes women are balancing not only family responsibilities and one job, but several jobs at the same time. If one employer has very rigid working hours while we can offer greater flexibility—or if we’re looking for someone to deliver specific training sessions, organise events, or develop communication materials—then this arrangement works extremely well.

People are often happy to take on project-based work because it allows them to combine different responsibilities more easily. In my experience, these kinds of flexible arrangements are exactly what help us attract highly skilled professionals.

Ieva: I really like how you put it—that these kinds of measures help attract outstanding professionals. It seems to me that when organisations offer flexible working conditions, everyone benefits. A good employer finds an excellent specialist, and a talented specialist finds a workplace that respects their needs.

Both at the beginning of our conversation and now, we’ve mostly been talking about women, because we know that the majority of unpaid care work still falls on them. Since your organisation works in the field of gender equality, I’d like to ask: to what extent is the issue of balancing care, work, and personal life also a gender equality issue?

Jurgita: In my opinion, it is unquestionably a gender equality issue. It couldn’t be otherwise. Everything depends on how the principles of gender equality are implemented in practice.

I think most of us could find examples in our own surroundings where certain rights exist on paper. Fathers, for example, have the legal right to take parental leave. Yet in practice, that leave sometimes exists only formally—the father is officially on leave but continues working, while the mother is the one actually caring for the baby.

And that’s just one example. It’s not always because the father doesn’t want to be more involved. Often, the employer’s attitude plays a significant role. Questions arise such as, „How can you possibly be away from work for a month or two?” Yet the same question is much less likely to be asked when it’s the mother leaving the workforce, even though she’s often absent for a much longer period.

That’s why I say this is directly connected to how gender equality is implemented in real life. We have many good legal provisions and opportunities, but that doesn’t automatically mean they function equally in practice. There is still plenty of work to do.

Ieva: Absolutely. I recently found myself in a discussion on social media where someone asked, „Show me what equal opportunities are still missing. All the laws are already in place.”

And it immediately reminded me of what you’ve just said. Gender inequality and sexism often don’t appear in legislation—they show up in everyday situations and in the way we treat people. For example, when a father decides to take parental leave and is asked, „Can’t your wife take care of the baby instead?”

Those are gender stereotypes. But there are also stereotypes surrounding care itself and organisations. We often hear about large companies offering extensive employee benefits, which creates the impression that only large organisations can afford flexibility or family-friendly policies, while smaller organisations simply don’t have the resources.

But you lead a relatively small organisation yourself. Is it really impossible for small organisations to provide flexible working arrangements?

Jurgita: My experience tells me that, very often, it doesn’t require any additional resources at all. As we’ve already discussed, flexibility can actually bring financial benefits to an organisation.

For example, it allows you to hire an excellent specialist at a reasonable cost. If you can’t offer someone a full-time position but insist they work only during fixed hours, their rate may be significantly higher. However, if both sides can be flexible, that same person is often willing to work under much more favourable conditions.

So, in my opinion, a great deal depends on the nature of the work. Quite often, no additional financial resources are needed. What you need is thoughtful planning, clear priorities, and a willingness to ask what really matters more—is it that someone sits in the office from eight in the morning until five in the evening, or that the work is completed to a high standard by the agreed deadline?

There are many jobs where it makes absolutely no difference what time of day the work is done. What matters is that the result is delivered on time.

The same applies to remote work. Whether someone works from the office or from home usually doesn’t require any additional investment. So I don’t believe this is primarily a question of resources. It’s much more about mindset, priorities, and the way work is organised.

Ieva: Yes, it all starts with the willingness to find solutions. Of course, there are jobs where people have to be in a specific place at a specific time. But a large proportion of administrative and office-based work can be organised much more flexibly.

That’s why I find your perspective so encouraging—that providing good working conditions doesn’t necessarily require major financial investments. Sometimes it seems that being a family-friendly employer means building children’s playrooms in the office or investing in expensive initiatives. But in reality, it may be far more valuable to move away from symbolic solutions and simply give employees greater flexibility.

Jurgita: Exactly. If a child gets sick, an office playroom won’t solve the problem. Likewise, if a woman cannot come to work because of other caring responsibilities, a children’s room isn’t the answer.

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes a person simply needs to be physically close to their loved one. That doesn’t mean they’re actively providing care every minute of the day. It simply means they need to be nearby in case they’re needed.

Besides, whether it’s a child or another person receiving care, people usually feel safer and more comfortable in their own familiar environment. In those circumstances, the employee herself can also focus much better on her work than if she were sitting in the office worrying constantly.

And if we were to calculate the costs, I suspect that creating a children’s room would be considerably more expensive than simply allowing someone to work flexibly.

Ieva: So, ultimately, the most important thing is the willingness to look for solutions.

Jurgita: Exactly. Especially because, in many cases, the employee herself can suggest possible solutions. Employers don’t always have to come up with the perfect answer immediately. Often, what matters most is simply sitting down and having a conversation.

As with so many other situations, if both sides genuinely want to find a solution, one can almost always be found. Perhaps someone works part of the week from the office and part from home. There are many possible arrangements, and most importantly, our legislation already allows them. The legal framework is there. What we need is employers who are willing to use those possibilities and approach them with flexibility.

Ieva: Exactly. The legal framework already exists. What’s needed is communication, because every situation is different and sometimes completely unexpected. Someone may have worked from the office every day for years, and then suddenly something changes. In moments like that, perhaps the employer’s most important role is simply to remain open, listen, and understand what the employee needs.

Jurgita: Absolutely. People’s circumstances change. At one stage they may need to provide intensive care—whether for a child or for an adult family member. Later on, the level of care required may decrease. Perhaps another relative will be able to help, or maybe a social care service will become available and take over part of those responsibilities.

That’s why employers shouldn’t be afraid of making flexible arrangements. A decision made today doesn’t have to remain in place forever. Circumstances change, people’s needs change, and workplace arrangements can change as well. In my opinion, we shouldn’t be afraid of that, because flexibility benefits everyone involved.

Ieva: Speaking of benefits, you’ve already mentioned financial advantages and the opportunity to attract highly qualified professionals. Is there anything else you would add? Perhaps flexibility and openness create value in ways that aren’t always immediately visible?

Jurgita: Another extremely important benefit is employee motivation. When people feel supported and understood by their employer, they become much more motivated.

If, later on, the employer needs extra help, has to delegate an unexpected task, or find a quick solution, it’s very likely that the employee who has been given flexibility will also be more willing to step in and help.

The relationship becomes warmer and less formal. When working conditions are extremely rigid, employees are perfectly entitled to say, „That’s not part of my job description. It’s not in my contract. My working hours are over.” And they would be absolutely right.

But when the relationship is built on trust and flexibility, people often respond much more flexibly to the employer’s needs as well—especially when unexpected situations arise and quick decisions are needed.

We’ve experienced exactly that within our own team. An employer’s flexibility has a remarkable effect on employee motivation because people genuinely feel that their employer cares about them. And when employees feel cared for, they naturally want to support the organisation in return. I think that’s another very important benefit for both sides.

Ieva: So, in a way, it’s an investment on the employer’s part?

Jurgita: In a way, yes.

Ieva: An investment in the well-being of the organisation itself?

Jurgita: I think so. It can definitely be called an investment, and in my view, it is one that will pay off quite quickly and in full. It only takes a little courage and flexibility.

Ieva: Flexibility seems to be our golden word today.

But what about men and employers? Do employers have a role in questions of gender equality or inequality? Can an employer take certain steps to help men feel more confident about taking parental leave or assuming other care responsibilities?

Jurgita: Employers absolutely have an important role. As we have already discussed, legislation is important because without it we would have very little basis for action. We all have to follow the law. But a legal provision does not work by itself.

This is where the employer’s role comes in. An employer can apply the law formally, only by the letter, or they can look a little deeper and apply it in a more flexible and creative way.

Employers can also set a good example and share it with others. There are many different formats for this: events, associations, confederations, spaces where professionals from different fields, including managers, meet and share experiences, challenges and everyday practices.

If an employer had the courage not only to apply good practice in their own organisation, but also to speak about it and explain what benefits it brought to their company or organisation, I think the effect could be quite quick. Good examples can encourage other managers to rethink their own practices.

This applies both to flexible working hours and remote work, and to supporting men when they want to use parental leave or other rights provided by the state to care for family members.

The most important thing is that they do not hear remarks such as: “Where is your woman?”, “What about your wife?”, or “Isn’t there a woman in your family who could take care of this?” Sometimes those remarks are even less polite, and the underlying message is very clear: “What kind of man are you if you are doing women’s work?”

So sometimes it would already be enough not to condemn them. Even if an employer does not actively support them, it is very important at least not to apply pressure.

Ieva: And once again we arrive at the same conclusion: gender equality benefits everyone. We are not only talking about improving women’s situation. We are also talking about men who should not be mocked, judged or discouraged from making certain choices simply because they are men.

You also mentioned sharing good practices. I would like to respond to that because we often hear the saying that good deeds should be done quietly. But in this case, I think another saying is more fitting: a good example is contagious.

So it is definitely worth sharing what works. I am very glad that today you were able to share your organisation’s experience. Perhaps other organisations will hear it and think: wait, maybe the benefits of this kind of flexibility are much greater than they first seemed.

Jurgita: You know, as the saying goes, modesty is a virtue when there are no other virtues. If we look for them, we will certainly find some.

But seriously, it is sometimes really worth sharing good examples. Very often we act out of inertia. We have established practices and think: why change them if everything seems to be working?

But sometimes a little creativity is enough, and the benefits are felt not only by the employer, but also by the employee.

I remember the words of one of our colleagues. She is a young mother raising small children. Before joining us, she had worked in several workplaces where the schedule was very strict, with no possibility of remote work and no flexibility.

She told me: “For the first time, I can see an example of how it is actually possible to combine childcare and work.”

She explained that when her child started kindergarten, it certainly did not mean that the mother suddenly became fully available during standard working hours. Illnesses began, along with various worries and unexpected situations. She honestly could not imagine how she would return to work.

And now she has an example showing that it is possible.

She performs her duties very well, is a highly motivated employee and feels supported by the organisation. During all this time, there have been no complaints about the quality of her work. On the contrary, she works very responsibly and does not count the minutes until the end of the working day.

She simply feels calmer because she knows that, if needed, she will be able to take care of her child or another loved one.

It seems to me that this kind of flexibility helps solve not only issues between an employee and an employer. In a way, it could also be one of the keys to addressing demographic challenges.

Some young women do not want to leave the labour market for a long time because their professional careers matter to them. If they had more flexible working opportunities, it would be much easier to combine these things.

The same applies to men. If they could confidently take on care responsibilities without fearing criticism or ridicule from their employer, the situation would also change.

In the long run, this could help reduce the gender pay gap, lower women’s risk of poverty and improve many other indicators.

So we are not only talking about benefits for the employer or the employee. We are talking about changes that could, in the long term, benefit society as a whole.

It only takes a little courage and flexibility.

Ieva: You connected all these aspects beautifully. We can see that there are also personal success stories, where flexible working conditions fundamentally change a person’s everyday life.

But helping one person can also lead to a much broader change. If flexibility became the norm wherever it is possible, we would probably see positive effects that we cannot even fully predict today. Almost like a domino effect.

Jurgita: Absolutely. Social services are very important and very necessary, but they do not solve every situation.

Sometimes what a person needs most is to have a loved one nearby.

For example, you cannot simply hand a three-month-old baby over to a nanny just so the mother can return to work. But we can look for other solutions: how the mother could remain, at least partly, in the labour market.

In the long run, this would bring many benefits: less distance from professional activity, greater independence, a lower risk of losing professional skills and many other positive consequences.

We just need to look a little more broadly at causes and consequences.

Of course, this model does not suit every profession. But wherever flexibility is possible, it is definitely worth applying. I am convinced that the results would not take long to appear.

Ieva: If the manager of another small organisation came to you today and asked for advice, what would you recommend first?

Jurgita: First of all, I would advise them not to rush to reject a good specialist simply because that person’s life situation is not entirely standard.

If you meet someone whose competencies you need, it is worth taking the time to understand their situation and look for a solution together.

Often, an open conversation is enough: what would work for the employee and what would work for the employer.

I am convinced that in many cases it is possible to find a solution that suits both sides.

So I would advise people not to look at situations stereotypically or simply out of habit. If an organisation truly needs a person’s knowledge and experience, then it is worth looking for ways to bring that person into the team and create conditions for them to become part of it.

Ieva: I really hope that your wishes and examples will reach those who most need to hear them today.

I hope more and more employers will look at care-related questions with open hearts and open minds.

Thank you very much for this conversation, for your time, your insights and for being such a good example yourselves.

And this time, I would like to encourage our listeners to follow not only the Women’s Issues Information Center, but also the Kretinga Women’s Information and Training Center. Visit their website, follow them on social media and learn more about the work this organisation is doing.

Thank you very much, Jurgita.

Jurgita: Thank you, and I wish you success.

Ieva: Goodbye!

Jurgita: Goodbye!