How Can We Achieve Bipartisan Support for Flexible Work Policies?
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.
