Last week’s Workplace Trends entry about people working reduced hours sparked a good discussion. Forbes magazine offers an interesting article on a similar subject – “Flex Time in a Down Economy.”
It begins with Kym Ward Gaffney’s story:
On becoming a mom, Ward Gaffney, a national director for coaching at PricewaterhouseCoopers, felt her work schedule needed to change in order to accommodate her new family obligations… Ward Gaffney hoped her boss, a father of four, would understand. In fact, she was surprised by how receptive he was to her ideas.
The result? Ward Gaffney now works from home one day a week and limits travel to the east coast. “I’m excited about the challenge of balancing all of this,” she says.
However, the article goes on to recommend caution when considering asking for flex time:
“I wouldn’t ask about flex time right now,” Gail Blanke, CEO of Lifedesigns, an executive coaching firm, warns. “There are too many people willing to work seven days a week.”
….
One accountant at Merrill Lynch says flexible schedules are not the norm where she works and that she would be the last one asking for favors in the aftermath of the Bank of America takeover.
Certainly, in these times, every person’s situation will be different – and every employer will have different needs. Some will be able to accommodate work-life balance requests, some – as discussed last week – will welcome employee offers to reduce their hours as this saves costs and retains talent and “corporate intelligence.”
Others will not even want to put the energy into considering it right now, which could be a mistake as the Forbes article concludes:
“With layoffs, remaining employees are overtaxed,” [Deborah Epstein Henry, founding president of consulting firm Flex-Time Lawyers] warns. “I don’t advocate ignoring these work-life challenges until the market improves. It won’t benefit anyone in the long run to suppress them.”
Any more thoughts on this subject?
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Ample evidence of how suppliant workers are hoodwinked into accepting draconian conditions in return for their labour. What a bunch of halfwits those people who don’t have flexible working are: your boss takes your labour and uses it to make more money for himself. The more you work, the less favourable the ratio. I just find it amusing that so called intelligent people try to pretend that “it’s ok to be greedy” or “it’s good for the economy to work ourselves to an early death” or “who needs friends when I’m an office monkey!”.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
I’ve spent time over the past while discussing offices and work hours with friends. We get paid, not necessarily for the work we produce (quality, how efficiently, etc.), but rather for the amount of time we spend in the office. We are paid to be there for 35-40 hours, and likely expected to be there for more if we want a hope of being promoted. I rail against this waste of my time to spend on my own, creative pursuits.
There is a mindset in many modern businesses that the hours you spend in the office equate to the amount of work you product. I say it has the opposite effect. As someone who generally works effectively, I often finish my work early. This leaves me with extra time. I could ask for more work but I won’t get paid any more money than the person next to be who completes an average workload. And by doing more work, I make the other people around me look worse therefore creating animosity within the office. Instead, I do an average amount of work (although I do it well) and waste the rest of my work week doing things that aren’t productive for the company and definitely aren’t productive for me.
I would take the concept of flex time and its benefits to the worker one step further. I believe that companies will see even greater benefits if they design their incentives so that employees have a reason to fit as much good quality work into a week as possible. I believe that companies need to break the connection between the amount of time an employee spends in the office and the value they add to the company.