An effective reorganization can have benefits for employees and employers alike

The demand for and expectation of workplace flexibility for employees is a construct that is not going away anytime soon, if ever. The confluence of ever-developing technological means new generational expectations, particularly among millennials, and pandemic-related work experience is leaving business leadership with the challenge of meeting production goals with workforces yearning for more resiliency in how they operate on the job. This phenomenon provides individual workers with potential opportunities, but also possible obstacles, as they pilot their careers.

This is a time to observe how employers assess and manage workplace flexibility in determining if your current employment is meeting the needs of your individual career development.

Initially, ascertain if your employer even considers workplace flexibility a talent management issue. If not, then you will have learned a fundamental quality about your employer and should consider future employment with them accordingly. If, on the other hand, your employer demonstrates a willingness to engage the workforce with operational practices which attempt to satisfy both employer and employee needs in a harmonious way, then attempting to participate with management fruitfully may be warranted.

Balance and moderation should be key features of any workplace flexibility set of policies and procedures. As many businesses realize, this is easier said than done.

Flexibility practices can range from employee accommodations, such as allowing for an employee to deal with personal emergencies or other non-work-related activities, to negotiating with employees as full partners in designing an alignment that takes into consideration the interests of employers and employees. Widespread empowerment that results in optimal production and ideal proficiency throughout an organization is the primary goal.

Practices like employee accommodation and another now-common routine, the always-on workplace, do offer employees adaptability compared to legacy workplaces, but have inherent risks associated with them, which may be counterproductive.

In accommodation scenarios, managers are in the role of giving permission to employees to take time off to satisfy an employee request, if the manager sees fit to do so. A hierarchical structure is assumed. Also, the workforce can become bifurcated between those who more frequently need accommodation, such as women with greater child, household and elderly parent needs and men, who in general handle these demands less. Resentments from both groups can result.

Problems surrounding the always-on or boundary-less workplace are now becoming well-publicized. This is the type of flexibility in which workers can be engaged anywhere and at any time. Work-anytime arrangements can leave employees working longer hours and carrying more stress than if they remained in traditional on-site settings and confined to well-defined start and stop times.

Employers also can be disadvantaged by an always-on model. Retaining valuable talent can be difficult when workers realize their work-life balance is too disrupted, and a perception sets in that employers are over-advantaged in the flexibility configuration.

Researchers Ellen Ernst Kossek, Patricia Gettings and Kaumudi Misra reveal that superior workplace flexibility arrangements are achieved when employers provide structures comprised of a variety of flexibility choices, related equipment and positive performance-management mechanisms within which employees commit to organizing how they can best work. Foundational to such an agreement is an intentional diminishment of the topdown hierarchical model to one honoring trust, power sharing, accountability and respect for the contributions of each individual within the organization.

Upon this groundwork can spring other necessary features, including universal flexibility for all employees; unambiguous policies and procedures regarding flexibility; better enabled employees and managers; a culture that does not discourage flexibility; and continuous measuring of outcomes with agreed-upon policy alterations as needed.

Above all is the need for competent leadership that can embrace workplace flexibility, effectively communicate its objectives, and practice the agility required to make the model work for all. An effective workplace flexibility reorganization can both enhance competitiveness and also enliven careers.

Bill Ryan writes about career, employment and economic topics from his home in North Sutton.