Fiddling with Flex-Time

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

By definition, flex-time should be easy to fiddle with. It's "flexible," after all, so that implies it can be twisted and turned as needed by employees to suit their comfort—so long as they continue to meet their job responsibilities. But, unfortunately, it usually doesn't work that way. The employer has the need (or the perceived need) to protect itself against charging (or slowly walking) brigades of lazy workers.

I've noticed a compulsion to force employees to choose either a traditional work schedule or a mobility plan as black and white options, so that if an employee who usually works from home suddenly has a need or desire to work for three weeks, from 9 to 5, at the office, a problem arises.  Or, conversely, colleagues often are put-off by a co-worker who asks to work from home for a month or a few weeks, even if their output is the same. As long as supervisors and colleagues can reach the employee, whether at home or at work, and the employee's obligations are met with no inconvenience to anyone else, why should it matter if they're here, there, or sitting at the local bar all day sipping tequila? 

One of the sick things I've noticed is the tendency of companies to give the best seats in the house to workers who are rarely at the office. In one workplace, for instance, the choicest cubicles, roomy and with a view overlooking the city, belong to "mobility plan" employees and interns. Since environment is a known motivator, where's the logic?  Unless the company is trying to send a not-so-subtle message that the mobility option is preferred, and will be rewarded, it's a huge oversight. But it also brings to mind the question of how you encourage workers to choose one option versus the other, and whether it's necessary to make it a black or white decision. Do you have to know exactly where employees are physically at all times during the work week?  In the age of the virtual workplace, such questions are outdated, right? 

Monotony is mind-deadening, so to allow employees to come and go as they please, wherever and whenever they like, might keep them on their toes and more alert to their tasks. They never know who's strolling around the corner, so they better stop looking for new outfits for their Second Life character long enough to finish their marketing report.  Or they never know who's in the office that day, so it might not be a good idea to engage the office in a dance marathon contest instead of brainstorming ideas for that new line of product the manager told them to work on.  If you know your bosses' and colleagues' schedules ahead of time, and those schedules are fairly set in stone, you know when you can tune out from your tasks. If you're not sure of their routine, you have to constantly be at the ready to respond to their requests.

More significantly, seeing different people every time you go to the office keeps work relationships fresh, and may help you appreciate colleagues more. Instead feeling about some of them the way you feel about a sibling on a long car ride, you can appreciate their quirks as endearing because they haven't grown tiresome yet from over-exposure. Plus, it's exciting thinking the night before about the possibilities of the next day's interludes. Aside from the excitement of seeing friends and potential love interests (shocking, but still happens), workers may find themselves wondering which manager they'll run into the next day to speak to about new ideas or opportunities for advancement. In other words, it keeps the work environment fresh by not seeing the same people at the same time every day.

For those of you with offices around the world, how easy is it for workers to glide in and out of your various locations?  Would it be okay to spend January through March in your Sydney, Australia office, then move onto your San Diego headquarters from April through the middle of June, and then sashay back to New York City for the summer?  If the work is getting done, and customers and clients are happy, is it okay with you?

In the age of not only the virtual, but global workplace, what does "flex-time" mean anyway?  Is it synonymous with flex-location?  Actually, with shrinking workforces, it's more economical to encourage interested employees to spend parts of the year in different locations. Global companies have a great Generation Y recruiting tool available to them in offering flex-location along with flex-time. How many young people in your employ would like to live part of the year in Europe or Asia?  And how much money could you save in human resources by allowing—maybe even encouraging—them to do so?  This is an ideal plan for companies with busy seasons that vary by location. Instead of hiring part-time, seasonal workers, you can just optimize those already on your payroll by asking them if they'd like to spend the summer in France. Sounds good to me. If you have enough workers participating in the Global-Mobile program, your human resources department can organize housing swaps to make it easy.

If you're really creative and daring, you'll combine the flex-location plan with job rotation. As long as they're pitching in at a faraway location, why not have them try out some of the tasks based at that office that they would never have confronted in their home location?  You might as well try it. If they like it, they can stay there permanently, or head a new work group at your home office to do the task they learned abroad, bringing a new capability to that location.

Don't be too stuck in the mud about where employees are now, where they'll be at 2, and where they'll be the day after tomorrow. The next thing you know, the place they'll be is out the door.

Do you offer flex-time at your company?  How flexible is it?  Could the program use a little loosening up?

Comments

[Jeffrey Hansler]

The title that brought me to the discussion of flex-time was "The ROI of Flex-Time". ROI is a financial term used in evaluation of financial data. The article didn't include a single item that could be identified numerically on any data that would feed into a financial statement. How can an article that utilizes the term ROI so inaccurately be taken seriously?

What is interesting is that "Fiddling with Flex-Time" does bring up an excellent item that will show up on the financial statements: office space (utilization): This can be measured and an ROI can be calculated. The other point I enjoy about the posting is that they didn't drag ROI into discussions about creativity, interaction, etc. Instead, they focused on employee impact in terms of feelings, bonding, creativity. Kudos for an article that delivers ... ROI (just kidding).... some very solid points for discussion and consideration.