» Network Home

Featured Guest Blogger October 5th, 2009

Juliet Bourke is a partner at Aequus Partners. She works with leading organizations to develop and implement organizational change strategies to promote equity and diversity, deliver training programs, and conduct workplace investigations and mediations. Juliet Bourke is also a part-time chairperson with the Government and Related Employees Appeals Tribunal, in which capacity she conciliates and determines workplace disputes. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

I recently experienced the visceral alienation of those who fall outside the “work/family” paradigm and it brought me up short. Of course I have written about a “work/life” approach–in an effort to be inclusive–but if I am honest I probably had more of my heart in the “work/family” camp.

My wake-up call came about this way:

Last month, I was commissioned to write an on-line opinion (for a national news service) about the recently introduced “right to request flexibility” (“r2r”) laws in Australia.  Under this law, from January 1, 2010, eligible employees will have the right to request of their employers access to a flexible work arrangement.  The legislation also provides that an employer must respond in writing in 21 days and that a request can only be refused on “reasonable business grounds.”

I’m a big fan of the r2r, but I titled my opinion “Looking past a golden opportunity” to highlight some research we had conducted that found that  3 months out from the start date of the r2r, the majority of employees and managers are unlikely to be aware of their new rights. Given that the legislation provides a workable framework for transparent conversations about flexibility and evidence-based decision-making I see this knowledge gap as problematic. And that was the focus of my article–or so I thought.  What was picked up by the deluge of on-line comments was the unfairness of legislation which gives rights to some people (namely parents with children under school age, or children under 18 with a disability), and not others. For example:

• “It’s always the breeders who take the rights. What about special consideration for those caring for aged or infirm parents or siblings or partners? When I hear ‘family friendly practices’ I want to vomit.”
• “Those of us who choose to benefit the planet rather than selfishly pass on our own equally worthwhile genes, by remaining childfree get what? Stuff all …”

I was stunned.  I had struck a nerve, but not the one I had intended.  I had thought that readers would see the logic of a legislative starting point that was relatively narrow in nature, i.e., one that would allow employers to get used to the new regime and then lead to expanded rights over time for all carers, which is exactly what had happened in the United Kingdom.  What (some) readers saw was exclusion: working parents are in an inner circle that is deemed worthy of primary support and they are not.

It struck me that they are right.  So many of our legislative initiatives have working parents at the center, working families (e.g., those with elder care responsibilities) in the outer ring, and working “lifers” (do we even have a name for this group?) left out. This carries over into workplace policies.  We may entitle the policy “work/life”, but what we really mean is “work/family”, and what gets pride of place even in this group are “parents”.  How can we expect employees to behave in a collegiate way towards each other if our workplace practices endorse a hierarchy of “needs”?  I may have opened a can of worms here, but isn’t it time we face-up to the practical consequences of paying lip-service to the work/life agenda?

• Flexible Schedules , Policy , Publications , Workplace
• Comments(6)

Featured Guest Blogger September 21st, 2009

Sandy Burud, Ph.D., is a researcher, consultant and author on human capital and work-life. She is the Chief Strategy Officer for FlexPaths, a flexibility-focused software platform for employers and employment portal for individuals. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

If we are to see truly flexible workplaces anytime soon,  it’s important that we get beyond our own circles and collaborate with new partners whose interests align with ours. I’d like to see us pay more attention to business continuity planners.

It’s easy to superficially add ‘business continuity’ to the list of advantages brought by flexible workplaces — businesses can continue operating in an emergency if teams are skilled at flexible work. But as I read more deeply about it, I find some gems that make my eyes pop out. One in five US businesses suffers a disaster that causes it to cease operations for a time. Of course there are the big ones — earthquakes, tornadoes, horrific man-made disasters, but did you know the scale? Seventy-five of them in 2008, says FEMA. And, 43% of companies that go through a severe crisis never open their doors again; another 29% fail within 2 years. Add to that the day-to-day, basement-flooding variety that may not put a company out of business but still throws a big kink into productivity, and it’s clear why disaster plans need to be taken seriously.

Disaster plans typically involve paying to reserve alternative space in which to operate in the event of a disaster. Ah, but if people are already equipped, trained, and comfortable working from home or some alternate workplace (that serves lattes), it means those costs are avoided and can be added to the plus column of direct savings (aka ‘hard dollars’) from flexible work. Put that in your flexibility ROI analysis! I certainly added it to our white paper on the business case for workplace flexibility public policies: Flexible Work: In Whose Best Interest?

The real kicker, though, is this: we proponents of flexibility struggle to get businesses to ‘offer’ flex. As disaster planners see that teams who can work on the spur of the moment from anywhere, anytime can literally save the business, the disaster planners have begun to do something we have not. They have begun to require (yes, I said ‘require’) that teams (individuals, managers, and executives) practice working flexibly on a regular basis. Otherwise, the reasoning goes, people will not remember the access codes, know the tricks for sharing documents, etc. — all the things that are critical to smoothly functioning in an emergency.

When the disaster planning team says, ‘you will do this’….everyone listens. Now that’s a partner.

• Flexible Schedules , Organizations , Publications , Workplace
• Comments(1)

Judi Casey September 16th, 2009

We just finished our Year 2 (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009) report for the Sloan Foundation.  It’s been a great year! Traffic to the Network website has tripled over the past year to over 300,000 unique visitors and over 550,000 page views (compared to 104,318 visits last year, when our visits doubled from the previous year). Through direct outreach and site traffic, we added 682 new affiliates.  Lastly, we received two Apex Awards for our high-quality monthly newsletter, the Network News.

According to Google Analytics, the top five downloaded documents were:

1. Flexible Work Schedules Fact Sheet, a compilation of stats in Q&A format by topic,  answers the following questions:
   • Are workers satisfied with their work-family balance?
   • How do families deal with the work-family time crunch?
   • Do workers have access to flexible work schedules?
   • Much more!
2. Effective Workplace Series: Flexible Work Schedule, a one-page summary of our Topic Page, considers:
   • Why are organizations implementing flexible work schedules?
   • What are the benefits of flexible work schedules?
   • Why are flexible work schedules an important workplace issue?
3. Women in the Workplace Fact Sheet focuses on
   • How many women are in the workforce?
   • Where are women working?
   • What is the impact of women in leadership positions?
4. Generation X/Generation Y Fact Sheet looks at
   • How have gender roles in the workforce and at home changed for Generation X and Generation Y?
   • How does Generation Y make employment decisions?
   • What does Generation Y expect from and value about their careers?
5. Changing Definition of Families Fact Sheet explores
   • How have families changed?
   • How have marriage trends changed?
   • What do we know about households today?

Check them out if you haven’t read them.

• Definition of Family , Flexible Schedules , Gen X/Gen Y , Publications
• Comments(1)

Featured Guest Blogger September 7th, 2009

by Liz Watson, Legislative Counsel, and Jessica Glenn, Communications Specialist, of Workplace Flexibility 2010.

This year, workers and their families across the country felt the impact of serious economic downturn, with unemployment reaching a 26-year high. While recent news suggests things may be improving, we cannot forget that for many low-wage and hourly workers–who now represent over a quarter of the U.S. workforce–the recession only exacerbated their ongoing struggle to hold down quality jobs while caring for their families.

Low-wage workers face many of the same challenges that the rest of us face in reconciling our work, family and personal lives, but for many of these workers, it’s simply a whole lot harder. Low-wage workers are more likely to face involuntary part-time work, rigid or unpredictable schedules, or night, evening and weekend work, all of which can have serious consequences for families, including unstable and inadequate child care, poor health outcomes, family instability, missed work, lost and unstable income and job loss.

A persuasive case has been made that access to various forms of time off are critical to low-wage workers’ job quality, economic security, and family and individual health. More recently, research has shown that Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs)–including meaningful input into work schedules, as well as predictable and stable work schedules–are also important parts of the solution. Although FWAs cannot ease all the complex struggles facing low-wage workers, they are a key part of a larger solution that will increase low-wage workers’ ability to raise healthy families and achieve financial security.

FWAs can help workers provide care for young children, aging relatives, and other loved ones while remaining effective on the job. They can enable workers to stay on top of their own medical care, which reaps benefits for employees and employers alike. FWAs can also help workers access advanced job training in order to expand opportunities for meaningful work and to build family assets. For employers, FWAs help achieve a more stable and predictable workforce and improve employee engagement and productivity.

This year, WF2010 has taken a close look at the role FWAs can play in improving job quality for low-wage workers and increasing workforce stability for employers across a range of industries, occupations and work schedules. In January, we hosted a community forum in partnership with Step Up Savannah, an initiative that works to reduce pervasive poverty in the community of Savannah, Georgia as an economic development strategy. During the forum, we heard directly from local employers, nonprofit and government agency representatives and community advocates about the challenges facing Savannah’s low-wage employees–specifically, the negative consequences that arise from a lack of needed control and predictability in their work schedules. We engaged in in-depth conversations on how innovative workplace flexibility policies can help Savannah’s low-income workers maintain meaningful employment while allowing the city’s employers to reduce turnover, enhance job performance, and increase their competitive advantage.

In July, we co-hosted a briefing with the New America Foundation that examined the particular challenges low-wage workers face in balancing the vicissitudes of life with work schedules that are often rigid or unpredictable. Panelists presented the latest research on scheduling challenges and best practice solutions to these challenges from the research and business community. The briefing also highlighted the increasingly powerful business case for expanding access to flexible work arrangements for low-wage workers. Employers now implementing FWAs for hourly and low-wage workers are reducing costs associated with turnover and overtime in addition to improving workers’ satisfaction and well-being and increasing productivity. We know that FWAs make a tremendous difference to low-wage workers and their employers and yet very few low-wage workers have access to FWAs.

Our goal is to identify which types of FWAs are most salient to low-wage workers and their employers across a range of industries, employers, and occupations and develop a range of public policy ideas for making those FWAs widely available. In the private sector, innovative pilot programs have explored what types of FWAs can make a significant difference in the lives of low-wage and hourly workers and to discover which FWAs can improve business outcomes. In our Public Policy Platform on Flexible Work Arrangements released this spring, we called for the federal government to begin a pilot program requiring federal contractors to offer hourly workers at least two types of FWAs and to fund similar pilots in the private sector, with both researchers and businesses at the helm.

Although FWAs are historically associated with middle and higher-income workers, innovators across a range of perspectives are working to change that.  (See an extended list of resources on FWAs for Lower-Wage Workers here).  In the coming months, we hope to contribute to this dialog a robust range of policy ideas to make FWAs more widely available to low-wage workers.

For more information on Workplace Flexibility 2010’s recent work, please see our July Network News interview with Chai Feldblum and Katie Corrigan.

• Flexible Schedules , Policy , Publications , Research , Workplace
• Comments(2)

Judi Casey August 19th, 2009

As I blogged last month, the IESE Business School of Barcelona, Spain recently hosted the Third International Work and Family Conference on “Harmonizing Work, Family and Personal Life in Times of Crisis.” Some of the participants, including yours truly, made short, videotaped interviews about current work-life trends and issues. The interviewees answered the following questions:

1. How have companies’ work-life policies been affected by the global crisis?  Do you think companies will continue using established work-life polices or will any polices be suspended?
2. How have employees been dealing with the present situation? Do they find that they have more pressure to perform and need to take on additional workloads?

You can hear the opinions of many work-life experts about these issues on this video, including Jeff Greenhaus, Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Tammy Allen and Karen Korabik, to name a few.

For more about how the global recession is affecting employers, the Families and Work Institute (FWI) just released a timely report, The Impact of the Recession on Employers. This nationally representative sample of 400 employers is the only one I know of that specifically investigates the impact of the recession on workplace flexibility efforts. FWI reports that “most employers are either maintaining the workplace flexibility they offer (81%) or increasing it (13%) during the recession….While more than a quarter (28%) have turned to involuntary reduction in hours, a comparable percentage (29%) have used voluntary reductions in hours. And perhaps surprisingly, 57% report giving employees some or a lot of say about the schedules they now work. (pg. 1)”

• Flexible Schedules , Organizations , Publications , Research , Workplace
• Comments(0)

Featured Guest Blogger August 17th, 2009

Sandy Burud, Ph.D., is a researcher, consultant and author on human capital and work-life. She is the Chief Strategy Officer for FlexPaths, a flexibility-focused software platform for employers and employment portal for individuals. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

What makes it legitimate for people to work flexibly isn’t whether their company has a policy allowing it, but whether there is a subtle (or not-so-subtle) penalty for doing so.  Below are four examples of characteristics of a flexible culture, which although rarely focused on, have everything to do with whether the culture supports flexibility.

• Are people who request flexibility or who already work flexibly considered equal in terms of their access to advancement, status, integration into the business, or quality of assignments?

Are those who work a reduced work schedule, for example, considered on an equal par for professional development, as future management material, as ‘high potentials’? Or by definition are ‘high potentials’ the individuals who always put work first and work long hours?  Are the best clients, projects, challenging work opportunities given to the people who work from the office, rather then remotely – because subtly, the manager thinks they are easier to reach?

• Are people valued who–although accomplishing their work well– set boundaries on their time and/or accessibility?

How okay is it to say ‘no’?  When someone consistently leaves ‘early’ (because they may have started earlier than others), or says they cannot do a client meeting when they are on vacation, or isn’t available for spur-of-the-moment overtime, or doesn’t answer email at all hours — do they subtly lose points?  Or is their commitment, engagement, and responsiveness determined by whether they ultimately deliver on their core responsibilities?

• Does the organizational climate recognize and respect that employees have lives outside of work?

Where once the core workforce had an ‘invisible’ support system at home (otherwise known as a wife) that allowed workers to focus exclusively on work when they were at work, those days are long gone.  The typical worker now has a dual focus (navigating work and personal responsibilities at the same time).  But most organizational cultures haven’t quite adapted. So when an employee cannot take on business travel easily, or attend business social events, or needs to take time off in the middle of the day to take children to the dentist – it requires a shift in mindset.  Attendance policies are a good example.  Once they were a key factor in measuring performance – missing 3 days in a quarter was a slippery slope to dismissal.  Now even the best performers must adjust their schedules occasionally.  Attendance alone is no longer a good indicator of job performance or commitment.

• Do cultural norms assume people are not always available to attend to work beyond work hours?

There is an unrelenting tug-of-war between the blessing and curse of 24/7 electronic access.  Do leaders make a point to say, “I don’t expect an instant reply on weekends or holidays”?  What practices do individuals who are considered to be the ‘best’ follow?  Or is there a Jack Welch-like pride in scheduling last-minute Saturday morning meetings that weed out the so-called non-serious team members?  The question is – are long hours and constant availability equated with high performance?  In a human capital environment where the ability to do reflective thinking — be rested and clear-headed, the ability to set your own limits and manage your own attention lead to the best performance.

These ideas, brought to our attention by Lotte Bailyn and her colleagues, rarely receive the attention they deserve.  There is much that must change in a transition from a 9-to-5 culture to a fluid culture that takes advantage of what’s possible now in flexible work (call it ‘anytime, anywhere work’).  Underlying elements like these are among the most important in making it a reality.

• Flexible Schedules , Organizations , Workplace
• Comments(0)

Julie Schwartz Weber August 12th, 2009

As previously discussed here, last August, Utah implemented a four-day workweek pilot program for 17,000 of its state employees, whereby state employees work 10 hour days on Monday through Thursday, and do not work on Fridays. This program, the Work 4 Utah Initiative, was initially launched to reduce energy consumption, extend customer service, improve employee recruitment and retention, and reduce the environmental impact of state government operations. While a comprehensive and final report on the entire year is not expected for several months, the results available today are promising.

1. Cost benefits – As of May, the state had already saved 1.8 million dollars in electrical bills. By closing offices on Friday, there is no need to power lights, elevators, computers, air conditioning (in the summer), and no need to provide custodial care on that day.
2. Environmental benefits – Utah has projected a reduction of greenhouse emissions by over 12,000 metric tons, due to Friday building shutdowns and fewer cars commuting on Fridays. Additionally, Utah projects that its program will reduce gasoline consumption by 744,000 gallons.
3. Employees approve – In fact, 82% of employees surveyed like the program that provides them with a regular 3-day weekend.
4. Employee benefits – Surveys show decreased health complaints, less stress and fewer sick days used with this new schedule. Notably, overall, there has been a reduction in employee absenteeism.
5. Utah residents benefit – With extended hours for all residents to access government services, other workers, who work 9 to 5, are able to get business done before or after work (e.g., going to the DMV).

When the final report is published, we will update this blog. Until then, let us know if this kind of work schedule would work well for you.

• Flexible Schedules , Policy , Research , Scheduling , Workplace
• Comments(3)

Featured Guest Blogger July 27th, 2009

Sandy Burud, Ph.D., is a researcher, consultant and author on human capital and work-life. She is the Chief Strategy Officer for FlexPaths, a flexibility-focused software platform for employers and employment portal for individuals. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

Flexible work practices that enable employees to vary a work schedule or location, work a reduced schedule, or take time out of a career path without penalty are the shift from how work was done in the Industrial Age — when a machine-driven economy prospered with a homogeneous workforce working 9-to-5 at a central location, full-time without interruption throughout a career. In contrast, today’s Knowledge Age thrives on a diverse workforce of individuals working autonomously on different schedules and from different places, exiting and re-entering employment.

As we weigh whether public policies promoting flexible work should be enacted, who will care, and what they should look like, I find it helpful to consider the evolution of flexible work that shaped where we are now. These practices began as individual ‘deals’ between a few highly-valued employees and their manager, often behind closed doors. Far from transparent, the business intent was to not open the floodgates and was, in fact, to limit the number of such deals. These ad hoc arrangements were not only deliberately invisible but highly inconsistent and even discriminatory, often relying on a single manager’s attitude, knowledge and comfort level and how the employee presented his/her ‘case.’ In most companies today, that has not changed.

Great-place-to-work employers were congratulated for their flexibility — what were termed ‘employee-friendly’, ‘family-friendly’ or ‘work-life balance’ programs– administered by HR. These labels and more so the mindset are now frankly stifling the expansion of flexibility, perpetuating an image that they are something done for employees, not the business. Flexible practices were also, ironically, inflexible — a new set schedule or wholesale shift to a compressed work week, for example.

We are on the cusp of a new phase in the evolution of flexible work practices that is transforming their shape and relevance to business and society. For a few leading organizations, flexible work is no longer an ‘employee program’ driven by HR but a ‘business initiative’ driven by facilities planners, business continuity managers, transportation and operations managers, and human capital strategists. Their job is to leverage any advances that make the business run better — to reduce real estate/space costs, prepare to operate during an emergency, reduce a carbon footprint, and increase performance. These are the new champions of flexible work and they require that the managers, employees, and even leaders are equipped, trained, and given incentive to work offsite, virtually and on different schedules. The federal government’s promotion of telework by federal employees to assure continuity of operations in a pandemic is a prime example.

In these leading organizations, flexible work is integrated in the DNA of the business. They are not simply allowing it, but embracing it — not as a secret and individual accommodation to be discouraged, but a transparent practice to be encouraged, even required.

The vision of what constitutes flexible work is also evolving. No longer inflexible flexibility, it is now a fluid way of working — ‘anytime, anywhere’ work, powered by Blackberries, laptops and broadband. It is less a change in work schedule/location and more a change in who decides what the schedule/ location should be, with more say given to employees and teams. It is driven by the emergence of knowledge work, which is accomplished best when knowledge workers are accountable for results but otherwise have the autonomy to determine how best to get it done.

However, not all employers have yet seen the light.

As a result, in most businesses — large, medium or small — flexibility continues to be inconsistently offered, silo-ed in Human Resources, treated as an accommodation to employees with ‘issues,’ focused only on certain demographic groups, and not built into the fabric of how things are done. Employees still hesitate to take advantage of it, fearing a subtle or not-so-subtle penalty. Managers — the lynch pin — are often ambivalent, apprehensive, and ill-equipped to change how they have done things. As a result, progress is stalled, to no one’s benefit.

Policies that push employers out of this mode and encourage them toward systemic and transparent flexibility are in their best interest and that of the larger society. The ever-evolving research evidence illustrates the measurable advantage that embracing and optimizing flexible work brings to employers and society. If public policies are to be enacted, this part of the story is critical to leveraging bipartisan support.

In short, public policies that promote the growth of flexible work practices achieve goals vital to America’s businesses and our economy and contribute to the well-being of employees and their families. (You may request a new white paper summarizing the latest findings.)

It’s rare when something benefits workers, businesses, the environment and economy all at once. The inevitable question then arises — if flexible work is so advantageous for businesses, why are public policies necessary? The reason is that a transformation of business practice of this magnitude requires a change of long-held attitudes, systems, and business structures. A pace at which such a change would occur without incentives or catalysts will simply be too slow. The critical gains would be delayed, and in short, we simply cannot afford to wait.

The best public policies will be those that ensure that the opportunity to work flexibly is transparently available to employees at all levels and employer practices are consistent but individualized to fit different individuals and teams. They must protect both employees who use and managers who grant flexible alternatives from being penalized. They would educate and encourage managers and others to embrace this way of working and build their knowledge and skills. They will encourage systemic approaches that reinforce the mutual benefit to the organization and employees. They will be strong enough to ensure that the great potential of flexible work is achieved — better quality of life for employees, better performance for employers, and environmental and economic benefits for society.

It is the prospective of these results that make the pursuit of new public policies worthwhile. And the inclusion of business interests critical to their adoption and success.

• Flexible Schedules , Policy , Research , Workplace
• Comments(0)

Featured Guest Blogger June 24th, 2009

Sandy Burud, Ph.D., is a researcher, consultant and author on human capital and work-life. She is the Chief Strategy Officer for FlexPaths, a flexibility-focused software platform for employers and employment portal for individuals. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

I believe that flexible work practices will naturally continue to filter into the fabric of organizations — at the rate of an iceberg melting.  So, unless we’re willing to wait another generation or so, it will take a policy “push” to move things along.

We know that:

• Businesses thrive when they embrace flexible work practices. Employees are more focused, engaged, and productive, overhead costs are reduced, and earnings and shareholder returns grow. (Workers, families, the economy and the environment also benefit significantly.)
• Though many employers ‘allow’ flexibility, most employees still are not using it, even though most would prefer to do so.  In most organizations there are substantial barriers to its use, even in ‘best practice’ companies — a condition that has changed little over the last decade.
• A catalyst is required.  Businesses are not sufficiently motivated to ensure that everyone whose job is suited to flex can work flexibly, despite the fact that it’s in the organization’s best interest.
• A significant barrier to the widespread use of flexibility is the lack of systems to ensure consistency and practical application.  Managers and employees don’t know what’s possible and flexibility is inconsistently applied in most companies. (Hewitt, 2008) Employees are afraid to request it, fearing a subtle or not-so-subtle penalty. Nine in ten low-wage workers who do not use it would, if it carried no penalty. (WFD and Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2009) When employees do request it, they often are refused because their manager is resistant to considering the idea or lacks the support to make it work.
• A mandate?  While employers resist mandates and more regulation, a mandate that ensures a thoughtful consideration of an employee’s request for flexibility is one such motivator.  Companies say informally that without a doubt, such a mandate would cause them to be more systematic, consistent, and transparent in their decision-making about whether to grant employees’ requests.  Such a requirement would also encourage internal record keeping systems that by themselves would raise the level of knowledge.  The systems can include ‘informal’ flexibility — a change work hours or location on short notice — and ‘formal’ flexible arrangements negotiated in advance.
• Mandates should be coupled with incentives for companies to provide pragmatic information.  Incentives are also essential (tax incentives, for example) for employers to disseminate practical information internally, e.g., how to manage teams who work flexibly.  Incentives alone are not sufficient, however.  More is required to overcome the inertia of the old way of doing business.

It will take a combination of ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’ to achieve the desired results — workplaces that are more productive because they place the emphasis on achieving results rather than on where and when the work is done and citizens who can navigate their complex lives successfully.

• Flexible Schedules , Organizations , Policy , Research , Workplace
• Comments(1)

Featured Guest Blogger June 8th, 2009

John Wilcox is the Vice President of Operations at Corporate Voices for Working Families.  He manages Corporate Voices’ family economic security work, focusing on lower-wage working families. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

When Michelle Obama attended the Corporate Voices for Working Families Annual Meeting in early May, she talked about the importance of work-life programs to working families and to the competitiveness of American business.
In conjunction with Mrs. Obama’s talk, Corporate Voices released a comprehensive study that looks at workplace flexibility options and programs involving hourly employees, Innovative Workplace Flexibility Options for Hourly Workers.

Recent research about the value of workplace flexibility has focused primarily on management and professional workers. This study finds that workplace flexibility initiatives, when available for hourly employees, are as successful as those designed for professional staff. It also demonstrates that businesses offering hourly employees flexible work options benefit through enhanced recruitment, retention, engagement, cost control, productivity and financial performance.

Equally important, we find that it is not only formal flexible arrangements that produce these impressive results, but progressive personnel policies and a work culture supportive of occasional flexibility that give workers access to a variety of time-off options and control over their work schedules. When companies provide employees with an array of flexibility and time-off options and an environment in which it is possible to access flexibility opportunities without barriers, employees develop their own strategies to use the options that best meet their individual needs and satisfy business requirements.

Highlights of the key findings of the report include:

• Managers and employees agree that flexibility has positive benefits and adds value for the business and for the individual employee in key areas involving productivity, customer service, employee work-life effectiveness, stress and well-being.
• For businesses, flexible schedules are an effective means of managing personnel costs, in particular overtime costs, which is a win-win for employees and employers.
• More than 80 percent of employers and employees surveyed say flexibility is important to recruitment and retention.
• In childcare, where there is a shortage of qualified early childhood teachers, flexible work options represents a key management strategy to recruit and retain individuals who are committed to their profession and to tap a wider labor pool than might be possible if the business offered a more limited work schedule.
• Companies have found that offering flexible schedules and innovative time-off policies contribute to being an “employer of choice” for younger workers in their competitive labor market.
• For positions in customer service and sales with typically high turnover, companies find that flexibility is a way to keep high-performing employees both in the short term and the long term.  These companies use flexibility to respond to the changing needs of their workers at various stages of their lives and careers—going back to school, raising a family, or to retain mature workers.
• Flexible work options are being used in businesses with continuous operations that need weekend coverage or whose business hours extend beyond a 9 to 5 eight-hour day.  This includes voluntary part-time positions as well as flextime and compressed work schedules.

Innovative Workplace Flexibility Options for Hourly Workers was researched and written by WFD Consulting and supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

• Flexible Schedules , Organizations , Publications , Research , Workplace
• Comments(1)