We have shifted into the age of human capital. What an organisation produces is often nothing more than what comes directly out of the heads of its employees, which makes those employees valued equals rather than just hired help. At the same time, technology has given individuals the tools to work and create for themselves. In our recent industrial past, the machines that made things were huge and expensive, so only the company owned them. The machines that make things in our new knowledge and service economy are laptops, modems and mobile phones. We can all afford them and carry them around with us. Our skills - and the means of applying them - are portable and eminently marketable and demand for them exceeds supply. We aren't prepared to put up and shut up any more, especially since the traditional rewards of lifelong security, steady progress and a gold clock are no longer available to buy our uninterrupted service and compliance. So we ask for what we want, and we expect to be paid attention to - and so we are. The Government's new working directives are being incorporated in HR policies all over the country, along with enlightened add-ons such as sabbaticals and flexible working.

But, although these may be a start, they don't relieve the pressures and frustrations of work, and they aren't delivering the kind of work/life balance we want. This is partly because increased flexibility comes with the condition that we meet the same outputs - do the maths - and partly because it is being grafted on to the old model that sees work as the main focus of our lives and 'grants' us concessions that 'allow' us to enjoy more home and leisure time.

In the 21st century, there are two fundamental flaws with that model. One, we don't want our bosses or the Government to decide which benefits and concessions we should have; we want to select for ourselves and implement them personally, not according to an HR manual. Work/life balance means different things to different people, and 'individually tailored packages' topped the list of preferred benefits for the majority of our survey; this was followed by training and education; flexible leave was in third place.

More than a third of managers report that flexible working is now on offer, but most think that taking it up would be career-limiting

Calvin Hanks, a 29-year-old centre services director from Buckinghamshire, left a successful career as a hotel manager precisely because there was no employer in his own field who could match his own definition of flexible working. 'The hotel industry offers a version of flexible working, but it isn't really flexible at all. It will be the choice to work 9-3, or 3-9 or 9-12. And once you make your choice, that's your working pattern every day. After the birth of my son, I wanted to be able to set my own working hours on a day-to-day basis. I might work long days some times, but if my son has chicken pox I might decide to work from home a couple of days. And I want to be free to decide that as and when it suits me.'

The only way for Hanks to find that level of flexibility and personal autonomy was to change his job and his life. He now works for a Christian charity at 60% of his previous salary, but his son stays in the on-site nursery (where his wife also works). He never works more than 40 hours a week, and he decides where he needs to be and when. 'I do miss the buzz of my old career, but now I'm selling my skills for the reward that means most to me.'

Jill Carling, on the other hand, still works a 60-hour week as a retail marketing director. She chose extra holidays when negotiating her own benefits package. 'I'm not a parent, I'm the principle breadwinner in my relationship and I love my job. I prefer to work when I'm working, and switch off when I'm not. If I left work early every day I'd feel frustrated at what I hadn't finished and I'd spend those extra hours off thinking about it. I prefer to compartmentalise my work and my time off. That's the kind of flexibility I want.'

click here to mail this page to a friend