» Network Home

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