Flexible work arrangements: balancing employee needs and employer productivity

Flex Work Literature Review

Gone are the days of single-income households being the norm. The costs and other economics of today basically mandate that many families have both parents working and this leads to the need for day care, school transportation plans and other arrangements for things like doctor visits and school events. This can present a challenge if neither parent has a workplace situation has a job that is forgiving and understanding and allows for somewhat frequent (if not very frequent) quick breaks and extended lunch periods to deal with family affairs. Combine that with the fact that many employers are actively or hostilely resistant to flexible work arrangements under the auspices that it allows for or even encourages waste and misuse of time, then the problem is exacerbated even more. However, the author of this paper would assert that employers should be as understanding as they reasonably can be given the familial and other social obligations of their workers and a flexible work arrangement that is constructed and regulated properly allows for both working getting done on time and correctly while also allowing the parent/employee to fulfill their parental and societal obligations thus rendering satisfaction and security for all parties involved.

Statement of the Problem

The problem at hand is the sometimes adversarial relationship that exists between employees with parental or other familial obligations and employers who have major concerns about potential productivity losses through lack of continuity and work getting done in a haphazard or incomplete manner due to employees either having to leave and come back to the office a lot and/or the worker not being present and thus directly supervised in the office. Many employers try and fail to strike a balance while other employers go to one extreme or the other. An example of a policy and setup that is too lenient and too free-form was the recent Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) that was used by Best Buy. The basic premise was that work could be done at any time and from any place and leave was unlimited with the implicit understanding that work would still get done and that results were really the only thing that mattered. The program was shuttered in 2013 when it became clear that the program's flexibility was not being used for its intended purpose, that being the allowance for people to spend more time on family functions and requirements. Instead, the policies were being appropriated to different motives and activities (Wong, 2013).

The other end of the spectrum was the recent decision by Yahoo Chief Executive Officer Marissa Mayer to completely ban telecommuting across the board because she said it was a major loss in productivity and corporate camaraderie to not have people on-site and thus have their progress and actions visible to the reporting parties. Given that technology firms are quite easily associated with work flexibility and the general practice of being able to be productive anywhere whether it be a remote office in general or out of one's home, this came as quite a shock to Yahoo employees as well as many corners of the United States and international media (Kolhatkar, 2013).

The problem to be solved is to have a balanced and reasonable policy that allows for home or remote-based workers and/or flexible work arrangements that allow for discretion and flexibility while at the same time not allow people to actively abuse the system and use the framework in a way that is clearly wasteful and pointless. Agency theory run amok leads to a near dictatorial approach from management at times. However, being too lax and pliable form a business policy and practice standpoint is practically begging for people to abuse and misuse the system. The idea that employees cannot go too far and take advantage of the family-friendly policies of businesses is a fallacy and this is literally proven every day by employees who have extremely misguided priorities and values. To say that corporations alone are guilty of over-reach and improper standards and behaviors in the flexible work dynamic is simply false on its face.

Intended Audience

This research paper should be receive and evaluated by anyone who is curious as what has been tried, what tends to work and what tends to blow up in one's face as it relates to flexible work arrangements. This would be useful to employees who, either now or in the future, would prefer to be able to have a flexible work arrangement and/or are curious as to how this would manifest itself. It would also be useful for anyone that thinks that corporations are heartless entities that care not about anything other than working getting done and within the desired frameworks. Corporations are made of people and those people have families and children of their own the vast majority of the time. Even so, when the aforementioned Yahoo CEO Mayer bans telecommuting but also has an in-office nursery, it is perhaps perceived by many (and probably rightfully so) that she is having her cake and eating it too. Some would argue that rank has its privilege and that Ms. Mayer has the right to expect the flexibility while others in a lower and less trusted position do not (Kolhatkar, 2013). However, many people that are at the lower levels of industry and corporate stature have families too and/or do not have the intentions or dreams to ever reach the upper echelons of corporate power yet they still want the ability to be the best family member they can be in terms of both providing and "being there." This report is tailored to those that believe in that and want to know what they will face in terms of options and challenges in meeting that goal. Of course, personal accountability is important when speaking people that work in a work-from-home or otherwise flexible work arrangement but employers absolutely have a burden as well.

Scope of the Investigation

The scope of what will be looked at in this report will be fairly basic. In short, what has worked and what has not worked in terms of corporate results will be assessed with a focus and goal of fixating on what is best for all parties involved. Solutions that allow for the necessary productivity while at the same time allowing parents to meet requirements like taking children for doctor or dentist appointments, dropping them off or picking them up from daycare or dealing with sicknesses or other emergencies should be the ones selected. Parents should not be punished for engaging in reasonable and ethical obligations but employees who are clearly abusing the system or are even just disruptive due to the flex work provisions being overused should be reined and made to comply with the same general standards as everyone else.

Value to the Audience

The value to the audience is an understanding and an embracing of the fact that while many jobs out there require physical presence in some manner or form, many other jobs including many service and professional sector positions can be done from just about anywhere with an internet connection and a computer. Other jobs still can be done at discretionary times and do not necessarily have to be done during a normal "9 to 5" shift. However, this flexibility, when offered, has to be accepted with at least some basic strings attached and allowing the proverbial inmates to run the asylum is just begging for abuse. People reading this work will be asked to understand that the employer/employee relationship relative to work obligations and arrangements should be a partnership and not based on being adversarial or acrimonious.

Identify Alternative Solutions to Problem

To be fair, not everyone deserves or can be offered a flexible work arrangement. On the same note, not everyone needs such an arrangement. While it is true that everyone has to pick up their car from the shop or pick up a relative from the airport, there are many people without kids and/or familial obligations that do not terribly need a flexible work arrangement. However, for people that do desire or need such an arrangement and have earned the right to have it offered through performance and consistency, it should be an option.

One way to effect the above is to attach at least some basic strings to the flexible work option, regardless of the circumstances that allow for or require such an arrangement. For example, asking a person to adhere to at least a general schedule and/or to punch in and out (especially for hourly employees) is a basic requirement that should meet little to no resistance. Also, the conditions by which that schedule can or should be deviated from need to be set. If there is a common appointment or obligation that happens every work day or on some sort of fixed schedule, it should be integrated into the regular schedule. For events that are a surprise or are intermittent, some sort of notification or pre-approval process should be undertaken by all parties involved to make sure that nothing comes as a surprise and that the person is at their station or in the office when they are expected to be there. Another best practice, especially for people who do not normally work in the office itself, is to remain connected through instant messenger, cell phone or email at all times.

As for suggestions for the employers, something that should be avoided with painstaking effort is treating adult employees like children. If employees get the idea that they are not trusted for no good reason and/or that the employer is being run like a children's school, the blowback (both implicit and explicit) from being treated like that (even if some people deserve it) is going to be massive. Employees should be treated individually whenever possible with individual events of compliance and non-compliance applied to the people that are actually in question. Treating everyone the same, good or bad, due to the actions of a few is exceedingly unwise. This is something that both Best Buy and Yahoo screwed up on (Kolhatkar, 2013)(Wong, 2013). A flexible work arrangement should be a general offering but it is not a right and it has to be regulated. Not everyone can remain productive when in a flexible work arrangement and, as such, the program should not be offered to those people until/unless they can comply, if ever. However, the people that can be an asset to the firm and do have the general option to get their work done even in the framework of a flexible work environment should be given that option unless business needs and requirements negate it from being an option.

A litany of technology and procedural options exist to allow for and further facilitate flexible and online work arrangements. Conference calls can be used to connect workgroups for mutual calls with one tool in particular, that being Skype, being a very viable option given its capabilities and backing/ownership of IT juggernaut Microsoft. The use of secure virtual private network technology as well as email and instant messenger tools allow for employees to share files, share views of their desktop and present exhibits quite easily and effectively and in a way that is perhaps even better than corralling everyone into the office for a meeting.

Also, making people to adhere to a traditional 9 to 5 schedule and/or to require them to be in the same city, state or time zone as the client base of the customers is simply not necessary as many workers are willing and able to work on a shifted timeline even if it requires that they get up early or go to bed late. For example, many people on the east coast are willing to work on a schedule tailored to the west coast and vice versa. Just because it is 5 am in California when it is 8 am in New York does not mean it is not an option. As long as the employee knows what is involved and they follow the schedule required by business policy and/or operation patterns, so be it.

Lastly, something that should not be done is obvious and over-the-top micromanagement of employees who work in flexible work environments with remote employees being the best example. There are technology tools that allow for discreet yet sufficient monitoring of whether employees are actively using their workstations or not. However, even if those tools are used and even if they reveal something potentially improper, nothing should be assumed. Just because someone's keyboard has been unused for fifteen minutes does not mean they are dawdling or otherwise not working. They could be on a phone call that doesn't require computer input or they could be looking through paperwork at their desk. Trust and verification should be employed but so should giving employees the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. If the employee is not deemed trustworthy of a flexible work arrangement, it should not be offered. However, the employer should be fair in making that determination.

Conclusion

Businesses and the employees employed by them all need to act like adults and understand that a solid work/life balance is essential to prolonged and pronounced happiness. People should be able to have both a flexible work arrangement and a stable career at the same time. It is true that some jobs and roles are not consistent with that type of policy but for employers/positions where it is practical and possible, it should at least be an option presuming an acceptable arrangement can be worked out and the employee is willing and able to work within the requirements and policies therein.