Kathie Lingle's Work-Life Blog

Is it Flexibility?
Guest Blogger: Marilyn Kraut, University of Pennsylvania

Aug. 22, 2008 — There is much media coverage lately about four-day workweeks representing the new flexible workplace. But when an organization moves to a four-day workweek schedule unilaterally and universally, does this provide "flexibility?"

Examples of new  four-day workweeks are found at Brevard County's Community College and Miami-Dade County's government and may soon be the case for Chrysler Corporation. Friends and colleagues send me media articles about these new work arrangements. They assume I will celebrate them as progress toward a more flexible work environment. After all, I've been championing a flexible work environment for over a decade. But I have to caution that it's not that simple. I appreciate the range of issues that have been supported by flexible work arrangements since the 1970's. These have been as diverse as addressing work and family conflicts and professional development goals and, more recently, sustainability goals and the rising cost of commuting. However, our experience has been that no one arrangement works for everyone (and isn't that exactly the point of "flexibility?").

When we look below the surface at four-day workweeks, we do see that for some, this is the three-day weekend they always dreamed of. For others, this reduces dependent care costs and assuages guilt about limited time with a child, spouse/partner, or elder. But there are also those workers who are not comfortable working long hours for four days in a week in order to have the fifth day off. They may not have the stamina, or health, or interest in longer workdays.  Others may find that this new schedule interferes with important parts of their life that used to occur in the early morning or early evening — such as special time with loved ones, or community service activities or hobbies. And clearly, some workers are being severely challenged by the need to find and pay for dependent care during these formerly untraditional work hours.   

With this in mind, I make a distinction when consulting on flexible work options between flexible work arrangements requested by the employee and alternative work schedules established by the employer. In the first case, this is something the employee decides to do and is interested in taking responsibility to make work. The employee is expected to get the proper technology in place, make sure it works, and stay connected with the main activities of the office when others are there and he/she isn’t (either due to an offsite work arrangement or a part-time or compressed schedule). He/she also is expected to be flexible about temporarily reversing an arrangement if organizational needs require it (a big meeting on the typical day off, etc.). And the employee must be prepared to reverse the arrangement if it is not working. 

The second situation, as a result of employer mandate, typically is up to the employer to support. In cases of telecommuting, where an office space is removed and the employee is expected to work at home fully or the majority of time, the employer is more likely to provide equipment and tech support and pay for periodic appearances at the office, when long distances must be traveled. However, what happens when longer days are mandated for a large organization? Are employers expected to make sure the community can support the needs that this situation creates or will “society" kick in? In the free-market system, supply will rise, eventually, to meet the demand for longer hours of child care or four-day programs, hopefully (note, I'm not saying “quality” supply). Dependent care resources may become more readily available during early morning and early evening hours, but they may be less reliable and less professional. And until they do, I wonder how many workers will have to leave their jobs either because they can't find resources or because they can't afford the extended hour costs. The answers won't be available for a while, but we shouldn't be surprised if we find out this is not a celebrated change. 

Ultimately, I think it is fair to say that unless a work arrangement truly is flexible in responding to individuals, individual offices and work assignments, let’s stop calling it “flexible.”

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of WorldatWork and its affiliate, Alliance for Work-Life Progress (AWLP).