PHWP: Good Company Newsletter: Work Flexibility Comes in Many Forms

December 2, 2009

Work Flexibility Comes in Many Forms

By Matthew J. Grawitch, PhD, Larissa K. Barber and Patrick Maloney, Saint Louis University

Work flexibility has become a hot-button issue in the U.S. workplace. Numerous blogs are written on the topic, a host of researchers study the issue, and various consulting firms and advocacy groups promote the concept. At the broadest level, it sounds like work flexibility simply means employees get to work when and maybe even where they want. However, this is not necessarily the case. At a more specific level, there are at least four primary types of work flexibility practices that employers can develop. Each comes with its own benefits for employers and employees; but, in order to maximize these benefits, organizations must carefully select the right mix of work flexibility practices given their unique context.

1. Flexibility in Where Employees Work. This type of flexibility focuses primarily on work arrangements such as telecommuting or work-from-home options. Employees who have access to and use this type of flexibility save time and money in commuting costs (especially when they telecommute regularly). Employers who provide and support this type of flexibility can save money on utilities, other overhead costs, and in organizations that exist only virtually, the cost of actual real estate. In addition, research by Gajendran and Harrision (2007) evidenced that these programs were related to better employee performance and lower turnover intentions. Without the proper infrastructure (especially information technology), a telecommuting program can be costly to start, though effective practices will ultimately pay for themselves.
2. Flexibility in When Employees Work. This type of flexibility focuses primarily on work arrangements, such as flexible scheduling, in which employees can adjust their schedules to work when they are at their peak performance. Employees who have access to and use this type of flexibility gain a greater amount of control over when they respond to work demands and when they respond to their other life demands. Employers who provide and support this type of flexibility gain more productive employees, and in some cases, may even contribute to the positive health of their workforce. For example, in a quantitative review of the literature, flextime was related to both higher employee productivity and lower absenteeism (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999). This type of flexibility typically would not be associated with any substantial increase in costs beyond the need for HR processes and tools to manage the flexible scheduling program. As in telecommuting, an effective program will ultimately pay for itself.
3. Flexibility in the Number of Days Employees Work. This type of flexibility is most often associated with the idea of the compressed workweek. In a compressed workweek, employees may work four 10-hours days instead of five 8-hour days. Employees who have access to and use this type of flexibility gain an extra day each week to spend in life pursuits outside of the workplace. Employers who implement such a workplace approach across the organization can see substantial cost savings, (e.g., Utah state government pilot program); as well as higher employee performance (see Baltes et al., 1999). In addition, environmentally-conscious organizations can also produce less pollutants and contaminants by moving to this type of work schedule.
4. Flexibility in the Number of Hours Employees Work. This type of flexibility is most often associated with part-time options and job sharing. Employees who have access to and use this type of flexibility gain the ability to work for an organization without the need to invest 40, 50, or 60 hours each week. These programs can increase worker productivity (Wigblad, Lewer, & Hansson, 2007) and provide an alternative to downsizing during economic recessions (Sutherland, 1997). Employers who provide and support this type of flexibility can improve their ability to attract and retain talented employees who do not want all of the demands associated with full-time employment (Cunningham & Murry, 2005). Beyond the coordination required in job sharing, there are relatively few costs associated with this type of flexibility.

These four types of workplace flexibility are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Employees can have flexibility both in when they work and from where they work. Taken to the extreme, this can become the foundation of a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE). This emerging form of personnel management, which gives employees complete discretion as to when and how their work gets done, has been linked to reductions in unwanted turnover and increases in productivity. With a variety of options available to enhance workplace flexibility, organizations should determine which practices would best meet their needs and the needs of employees and then design programs to utilize those approaches.

Work Flexibility in Context

The benefits of the four types of workplace flexibility depend on the context in which those initiatives will be implemented. Employees have to value them and have the competencies and willingness necessary to use them. The organization has to ensure that its infrastructure, work processes, and culture will support them. For example, some of the specific organizational factors that may prevent effective implementation or utilization of work-life initiatives include work-life/family culture (e.g., Allen, 2001; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999), perceived organizational support (e.g., Casper & Buffardi, 2004; Witt & Carlson, 2006), justice perceptions (e.g., Greenberg, Roberge, Ho, & Rousseau, 2004; Rousseau, 2001), and quality of communication (e.g., Ryan & Kossek, 2008).

Even though a work flexibility initiative may be appropriately designed for the organization’s environment (e.g., fits organizational needs and capabilities), there may be additional constraints due to attributes of a particular job or workgroup. These constraints may include co-worker and supervisor support (e.g., Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002; Ryan & Kossek, 2008) and work demands and workload (e.g., Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2004; Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005; Grzywacz, Casey, & Jones, 2007). Interestingly, these factors are more likely to affect the use of work flexibility practices than other types of work-life practices (e.g., child or dependent care resources; Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002).

Linking Work Flexibility to Other Healthy Workplace Practices

Flexible work arrangements are a critical element in many psychologically healthy workplaces. When considering the Psychologically Healthy Workplace framework, work flexibility practices relate specifically to work-life balance, but there are also areas of possible synergy with the other four practice areas: employee involvement, employee growth and development, employee recognition, and health and safety.

• Employee Involvement. When employees have input into decision-making processes in their organization, initiatives are more likely to have their intended effect (Grawitch, Ledford, Ballard, & Barber, 2009). Including employees in assessment and development of work flexibility initiatives helps to more accurately identify key employee needs, allowing programs to be tailored in a way that maximizes their effects. Employee involvement early in the process can also help to build ownership over new initiatives, leading to a desire to utilize new programs and less resistance during implementation. Finally, encouraging employees to provide feedback on evaluation and refinement (instead of merely communicating results and potential changes), sustains feelings of ownership throughout the change process.
• Employee Growth and Development. Organizations can also encourage employees to pursue personal or professional developmental goals by providing work flexibility options. By allowing greater control over work hours and scheduling, work flexibility practices may allow individuals to pursue personal or professional developmental goals that may conflict with traditional work arrangements (e.g., promote volunteerism; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). Overall, these practices can be viewed as more than just tools for helping employees avoid conflicting domains across work and non-work domains; they can also promote a positive interaction between work and non-work life.
• Employee Recognition. Employee recognition can play a pivotal role in work flexibility implementation and utilization. Offering work flexibility can be a powerful recognition tool for outstanding employee performance (Nelson, 2005). Such ‘idiosyncratic’ work arrangements (Rousseau, 2001), when properly managed, create a win-win scenario for the organization and employees. Thus, organizational justice can be maintained without standardization by building trust among organizational members, clarifying responsibilities and role requirements, and providing transparent and concrete performance criteria/appraisals that inform the provision (as well as continued provision) of those work arrangements (Greenberg, Roberge, Ho, & Rousseau, 2004; Rousseau, 2001). Moreover, publicly recognizing high performers with work flexibility may send a message to employees that such arrangements (a) are a reward for consistent high performance, (b) are only continued given consistent performance results, and (c) do not prevent them from being seen as a valuable asset to the organization.
• Health and Safety. Work flexibility may also provide employees with much-needed flexibility or time to engage in healthier lifestyles. For example, there are strong empirical links between work-life balance and physiological/psychological health outcomes (e.g., Frone, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; van Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009), and perceived work flexibility predicts better sleep behaviors, physical activity, and participation in stress management practices (Grzywacz et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the full implications of work-life initiatives on worker well-being have yet to be fully explored. For example, a compressed workweek may have adverse health outcomes due to long hours (Knauth, 2007), but many studies find no such health detriments and substantial improvements in work-life balance (Bambra, Whitehead, Sowden, Akers, & Petticrew, 2008).

Conclusions

Organizations interested in creating a flexible work environment have a variety of options available to them. It is really matter of tailoring the specific type(s) of flexibility to employee needs, the constraints of specific jobs, and the organization’s culture and structure. In addition, work flexibility practices can relate synergistically to other types of psychologically healthy workplace programs and practices. Hence, organizational decision makers themselves have a lot of flexibility in how they choose to utilize flexible work arrangements.

References

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A. & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.

Bambra, C., Whitehead, M., Sowden, A., Akers, J., Petticrew, M. (2008). “A hard day’s night?” The effects of Compressed Working Week interventions on the health and work-life balance of shiftworkers: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 764-777.

Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A.S. (2002). Employee’s use of work–family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80, 813–845.

Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2004). Organizational commitment and constraints on work-family policy use: Corporate flexibility policies in a global firm. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 243-267.

Butler, A. A., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 155—169.

Casper, W. J., & Buffardi, L. C. (2004). Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: The role of anticipated organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 391–410.

Cunningham, C. R., & Murray, S. S. (2005 February). Two executives, one career. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 125-31, 150.

Frone, M. (2000). Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888–895.

Gajendran, R. S. & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524-1541.

Grawitch, M. J., Ledford, G. E., Ballard, D. W., & Barber, L. K. (2009). Leading the healthy workforce: The integral role of employee involvement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and Practice, 61, 122-135.

Greenberg, J., Roberge, M., Ho, V. T., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Fairness in idosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an i-deal. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 23, 1-34. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.

Grzywacz, J. G., Casey, P. R., & Jones, F. A. (2007). The effects of workplace flexibility on health behaviors: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49, 1302-1309.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research, 27, 555-574.

Nelson, B. (2005). 1001 ways to reward employees. New York, NY: Workman Publishing Company, Inc.

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness? Organizational Dynamics, 29, 260-273.

Ryan, A. M, & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work–life policy implementation: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47, 295–310.

Southerland, J. (1997). Workforce reduction strategies: An empirical examination of the options. Employee Relations, 20, 148-163.

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115-131.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.

van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Is managing the work–family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30, 617–642.

Wigbals, R., Lewer, J., & Hansson, M. (2007). A holistic approach to the productivity paradox. Human Systems Management, 26, 85-97.

Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343–357.