When the flexible working reforms take effect in autumn 2027, updating a policy may be the easy part. The harder task will be making sure managers can assess requests fairly, explore alternatives and explain their decisions.
Employees already have a day-one right to request flexible working. Employers must handle requests reasonably, consult before refusing and rely on one or more statutory business grounds. Under the new measures, a refusal will also need to be reasonable on the grounds cited, following a more structured process.
Further ACAS guidance is expected, so employers do not yet have the complete picture. But HR leaders can ask a useful question now: if the executive team wanted evidence tomorrow that requests were handled fairly and consistently, could HR provide it?
Where flexible working works, and where it begins to unravel
A flexible working policy sets out the organisation’s position, but managers bring that policy to life. Their conversations, judgements, and records determine what employees experience in practice.
Let’s imagine three scenarios.
Scenario #1: a genuine conversation finds a workable alternative
An employee asks to compress their full-time hours into four days, from Monday to Thursday, so they can manage caring responsibilities.
Their manager has concerns. Friday is one of the team’s busiest days and approving the request as submitted could leave a gap in customer cover.
Rather than treating that as the end of the discussion, the manager meets with the employee and explains the issue. Together, they look at customer demand, existing working patterns and the responsibilities that need to be covered across the week.
The employee suggests taking Wednesday as their non-working day instead. They also agree to trial the arrangement for three months, with customer response times, workload and the impact on colleagues reviewed at agreed points.
The trial shows that the alternative pattern is workable. The employee gets the flexibility they need, whilst the manager protects service levels and avoids placing additional pressure on the team.
This is where flexible working can work well in practice. The manager has not simply accepted the original request or searched for a reason to refuse it. They have identified the genuine operational issue and involved the employee in finding a solution.
The important point here is that the decision was reached through a meaningful conversation supported by relevant information.
Scenario #2: a statutory reason is used without testing the evidence
Another employee asks to work from home two days a week. Their manager refuses, citing a detrimental impact on performance and customer service.
Although a meeting takes place, the refusal has already been prepared. No alternative days, trial period or partial arrangement are discussed.
When challenged, the manager cannot identify which tasks or service levels would be affected. The employee has previously worked successfully from home on an informal basis and people in comparable roles elsewhere in the organisation are permitted to do so.
The refusal uses statutory language, but the reasoning beneath it is unclear.
The new reasonableness requirement could make it harder to rely on a permitted ground without explaining why it applies to the particular request. Other legal risks may also arise where the request relates to a disability, childcare, or caring responsibilities.
Employees now also have tools that can help them interrogate these decisions. Generative AI may not provide reliable legal advice, or determine whether a refusal is reasonable, but it can quickly identify unanswered questions and help an employee draft an appeal, grievance, or request for further information.
A generic refusal could therefore produce a detailed challenge asking what evidence was considered, which alternatives were explored, and why similar arrangements have been accepted elsewhere.
HR may then be left trying to justify a decision for which little evidence was gathered. The answer is not a longer, more defensive, refusal letter, but a reasoned decision and a clear record of how it was reached.
Scenario #3: one policy, but very different employee experiences
A large organisation updates its flexible working policy, briefs managers on the new requirements, and communicates its support for different ways of working.
At a central level, everything appears to be in place.
In practice, approaches vary significantly between departments. One manager routinely explores alternatives and agrees trial periods. Another expects full-time office attendance and tells employees informally that requests for homeworking are unlikely to succeed. A third approves arrangements but keeps no clear record of how the decisions were reached.
Because some employees are discouraged before making a formal application, those conversations never appear in HR’s data. The organisation records relatively few refusals and assumes that the policy is working.
Over time, employees begin comparing experiences. People in similar roles discover that they have received different answers. Some perceive flexibility as dependent on having the “right” manager rather than on the requirements of the job.
Different outcomes are not automatically unfair. Roles, customer requirements, and team structures vary. However, the organisation should be able to understand and explain why those differences exist.
Without visibility of the conversations, outcomes and reasons being used across the business, HR cannot determine whether the differences are legitimate or whether particular teams are applying the policy more restrictively.
The organisation has one consistent policy in theory, but something very different in practice.
Managers need more than an updated policy
Many organisations respond to employment law changes by publishing a revised policy and delivering a manager briefing.
That may create awareness, but managers are unlikely to remember every part of a training session months later when they are handling a real request alongside other operational pressures.
They need practical support at the point of decision. That could mean guided questions covering what the employee is requesting, which elements of the role could be affected, what information supports any concerns, and which alternatives could be explored.
Managers should also be prompted to consider whether a trial period could help and, if so, how long a trial period should be, whether a protected characteristic may be relevant, and when HR or legal advice should be sought regarding a request.
This is not about removing discretion from managers or requiring HR to approve every request. Managers are often best placed to understand the practical requirements of their teams.
Rather, it is about creating sensible guardrails, clear escalation points, and a consistent record of how decisions were reached. Delegating decisions should not mean surrendering visibility of them.
Data can reveal what policies cannot
An individual decision may appear reasonable when viewed on its own. Patterns across the organisation can provide a different perspective.
HR should ideally understand how many requests are being made, what types of flexibility employees are seeking, how often they are approved, and which statutory ground(s) are being used when they are refused.
A higher refusal rate in one department might reflect genuine operational constraints. It could also indicate that managers need further support, or that the policy is being interpreted more restrictively than elsewhere within the business.
Repeated requests for the same arrangement may reveal wider issues with shift design, commuting expectations, caring responsibilities, or when work needs to be performed. HR could also examine whether refusals are followed by grievances, sickness absence, or employees leaving. Those outcomes do not prove that the refusal was the cause, but an emerging pattern may warrant closer examination.
Technology can support this by presenting relevant guidance, capturing the rationale, and giving HR visibility across the organisation. It cannot determine whether a refusal is reasonable. That still depends on the information available and the judgement applied to it by the manager.
The strongest approach is likely to combine training managers, structured processes, accessible legal support, and meaningful data.
Test the reality, not only the policy
Employers preparing for flexible working reform should look beyond whether their written policy reflects the legislation.
They should examine what happens when an employee actually raises a request. Does the manager know what to do? Are alternatives genuinely explored? Is the decision connected to the circumstances of the role? Are higher-risk issues recognised? Can HR see the outcome and understand how it was reached?
A compliant policy may set the expectation, but it cannot guarantee that every decision made under it will be reasonable or consistent.
The reforms provide an opportunity for employers to examine the conversations, judgements, and systems surrounding flexible working before the new requirements take effect.
That is where any gap between policy and practice is most likely to become visible, and proactively closing those gaps now, before the reforms come into effect, is what will best protect the business in the long term.
You might also like:
