measuring the impact of workplace...

BOSTON COLLEGECENTER FOR WORK & FAMILYWallace E. Carroll School of Management

W O R K P L A C E F L E X I B I L I T Y

M E A S U R I N G T H E I M P A C T O F

© Boston College Center for Work & Family, October 2000

WORKPLACE FLEX IB I L I TYM E A S U R I N G T H E I M P A C T O F

Rachel Pruchno, Ph.D.Leon Litchfield, Ph.D.Mindy Fried, Ph.D.

Findings from the National Work/Life Measurement Project

The authors would like to expresstheir sincere appreciation to the parti-cipating sponsors of the NationalWork Life Measurement Project:Amway Corporation, Bristol-MyersSquibb Company, Honeywell, KraftFoods, Lucent Technologies, andMotorola, Inc. By opening theirdoors to this study, these companieshave not only contributed to thestrategic planning of their ownwork/life policies and programs, theyalso have made an enormous contribu-tion to the work/life field. Specialthanks for their contributions to theevolution of this report, feedback onthe original research design, and facili-tation of project implementation.

Thanks to our partners whose support,talent, and determination made thisresearch report possible. They are:Cindy Leep,* Administrator,Employee Benefits at AmwayCorporation; Stacey Gibson, Directorof Work/Life Diversity at Bristol-Myers Squibb; Susan Hofman, VicePresident for Global Diversity atHoneywell; Greta Schutt, Director ofDiversity at Kraft Foods; JoanFronapfel,** Staff Manager, Work andFamily Programs at LucentTechnologies; and Rick Dorazel, VicePresident for Global Rewards atMotorola.

We also want to thank our seven corporate partners who provided critical financial support to the projectwithout participating in the data collection. They include: MarthaMuldoon* at BankBoston, Toni Dara-Infante at Goldman Sachs, KathyHazzard at John Hancock, MargaretKraemer* at Levi-Strauss, SandraBorders at The New EnglandFinancial, Julie Foshay at TextronSystems, and Aimee O’Donovan atWainwright Bank.

Special thanks to the Center for Work& Family research team members—who shared their extraordinary skillsand insights, making the completionof this project possible—including:Kathleen Jenkins, Tom Leavitt, andCindy Thompson. We are grateful toEllen Bankert, Brad Googins, andMarcie Pitt-Catsouphes for their earlywork in conceptualizing this projectand helping to get it off the ground.

Thanks also to our colleagues at theCenter who assisted with the formatand production of this report, includingKathy Lynch, Beth Fredericks, andEllen Bankert. Special thanks to EllenBankert for writing the ExecutiveSummary. We also greatly appreciate theefforts of the research assistants whoworked on this project: NicholasLeydon, Elizabeth Lodise, andStephanie Wade.

Acknowledgments

*Note: these individuals have since left these companies for other positions.**Currently at Avaya Communications.

We are grateful to Jonathan Brill,Ph.D., Director of Product Strategyand Research with CMP InternetGroup, for his editorial guidance andassistance throughout the preparationof this report.

Finally, without the many individualemployees at Amway, Bristol-MeyersSquibb, Honeywell, Kraft, Lucent

Technologies, and Motorola whom weinterviewed and surveyed, this reportnever could have been written. We areindebted to them for their time andopenness, and sincerely hope that thefindings presented in this report willmake a positive contribution to enhan-cing their work/life balance, as well asthe lives of their fellow employees.

Contributing StaffNational Work/Life Measurement Project Mindy Fried, Ph.D., Director,

and Co-Principal InvestigatorLeon Litchfield, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator

Research Team Kathleen Jenkins, Tom Leavitt, Cindy Thompson

Marketing and Communications Kathy Lynch

Graphic Design Thomas J. Payne

The Boston College Center for Work& Family is a research organizationwithin the Carroll School ofManagement that bridges the acade-mic research community to the work-place. The Center’s guiding vision isto gain increased understanding of thechallenges faced by both employees

and employers in meeting the goals ofthe individual and the enterprise. TheCenter conducts basic and appliedresearch studies and analyzes secon-dary information sources. The Center’sactivities focus on research, employerpartnerships, and information services.

About the Center

Table of ContentsSection 1 Executive Summary 1

Section 2 Background and Objectives 7

Section 3 Characteristics of Users and 11Non-users of Flexible Work Arrangements

Section 4 Accessing and Using Flexible 17Work Arrangements

Section 5 Contrasts Between Users and Non-users 23of Flexible Work Arrangements

Section 6 Views of Employees Using Flexible 27Work Arrangements and Their Managers

Section 7 Views of Employees Who Do Not 33Use Flexible Work Arrangements

Section 8 Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements 37on Managers

Section 9 Implications for Employers 41

Section 10 Conclusions, Study Limitations, 45and Next Steps

Appendix 1 Study Design 49

Appendix 2 About the Companies 55

Appendix 3 References 61

1

People make choices about how tospend their time as a function ofboth their personal and work/life

needs. For many years, both businessleaders and the public at large haveheard anecdotal reports that employeeswho are given opportunities to workmore flexibly are more dedicated andproductive employees and are betterable to manage their lives outside ofwork. The Boston College Center forWork & Family, in partnership with sixmajor corporations, conducted a two-year research project to assess theimpact of workplace flexibility. Resultsfrom this study of 1353 employees and151 managers now make availableempirically-based information to supportthis experience, concluding that inmost cases greater workplace flexibility

is a win-win situation for both compa-nies and the individuals they employ.

A Closer Look at FlexibilityPrevious studies of the effects of flexi-ble work arrangements typically havenot distinguished the findings by typeof flexible work arrangement. Rather,they have combined informationabout employees who use a variety offlexible work arrangements, includingpart-time work, job-sharing, telecom-muting and shorter work weeks. Incontrast, this study more closely exam-ines and distinguishes the effects ofthree forms of flexible work arrange-ments being used by employees work-ing full-time jobs: traditional flextime,daily flextime, and telecommuting.

Executive Summary

1S E C T I O N

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

2

The Case for Daily Flextime Results reveal that the most promisingform of flexibility is daily flextime.While there is still a place for moretraditional forms of flexible workarrangements, companies can be evenmore successful by embracing abroader commitment to flexibility.The same dynamics that are requiringcompanies to be more nimble in themarketplace hold true for today’sworkforce. The world is more com-plicated, the pace of life has dramati-cally quickened, and demands on timeare greater. Companies have foundthey need to be much better equippedto adapt quickly to this changingworld, and employees are coming tothe same conclusion.

Companies that create work environ-ments allowing for this daily flexibilityare finding that their commitment ispaying off. Employees using daily flex-time are more likely to say that this

■ Traditional flextime is defined asworking a schedule that has startand end times that the employeehas chosen and includes certaincore hours determined by thesupervisor or organization.

■ Daily flextime is defined as working a schedule that enables the employeeto vary their work hours on a dailybasis.

■ Telecommuting is defined as aschedule in which employees con-duct their work off-site for someportion of their core workinghours. The location of work maybe the employee’s home or satel-lite office.

flexibility has a positive impact on theirproductivity, quality of work, and theirplans to stay with the company. Forindividuals, the findings are equallyexciting. Employees working flexiblyare more satisfied with their jobs, moresatisfied with their lives, and experiencebetter work/family balance.

The Challenges of Telecommuting Experts in the area of telecommutinghave long warned of the potentialproblems with telecommuting, if notmanaged appropriately. The data gath-ered through this study confirm thattelecommuting arrangements, as theyare typically construed, pose the great-est number of problems for employeesrelative to other forms of flexible workarrangements. Compared with bothdaily flextime and traditional flextimeusers, telecommuters work more oftenwhile on vacation, rate their work/lifebalance and life satisfaction significantlylower, believe they have more negativerelationships with their managers andco-workers, and are less committed totheir jobs. Compared to managers whosupervise telecommuters, employeeswho telecommute are less likely toreport that they are viewed as committedto their jobs, and are more likely tobelieve that they do not get the samechallenging assignments as other work-ers. In contrast, managers who super-vise telecommuters are more likelythan employees who telecommute tobelieve that telecommuting has nega-tive effects on employee-supervisorrelationships, and are less likely to feelthat telecommuters get the same pro-motions and performance reviews asother employees.


3

Project BackgroundThe Boston College Center for Work & Family conducted this research incollaboration with six companies:

■ Amway Corporation■ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company■ Honeywell■ Kraft Foods■ Lucent Technologies■ Motorola, Inc.

This study is unique for several reasons.First, as a cross-company study, theproject provides first-of-its-kind compar-ative data about the impact of flexiblework practices in different industries.Second, by including information fromboth users and non-users of flexiblework arrangements, the study is uniquelypositioned to examine perspectives ofdiverse team members. Third, becausethe study included reports from man-agers as well as employees using flexiblework arrangements, it provides theopportunity to examine the more far-reaching effects of flexible workarrangements. Data for the study werecollected using surveys, in-depth personal interviews, and focus groups,allowing for meaningful analysis of bothquantitative and qualitative responses.

STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

Impact on CompaniesAccording to both users of flexibilityand their managers, there are severalbusiness-related advantages of flexiblework practices, most notably in theareas of productivity, quality of workand retention.

Productivity70% of managers and 87% of employeesreported that working a flexiblearrangement had a positive or very positive impact on productivity.

Quality of Work65% of managers and 87% of employeesreported that working a flexiblearrangement had a positive or very positive impact on quality of work.

Retention76% of managers and 80% of employeesindicated that flexible work arrange-ments have positive effects on retention.

Impact on ManagersIn addition to overall positive out-comes for the companies, the directmanagers of employees working flexi-bly reported favorable results in rela-tion to their own work. 75% of man-agers reported no change in their ownworkload, while nearly all believe thatwork group productivity and their jobperformance was the same or better.

Impact on EmployeesUsers of both daily flextime and tradi-tional flextime reported many positiveoutcomes. In most instances, employeesusing daily flextime were most positivelyimpacted while telecommuters reportedthe least positive effects.

Work-Life BalanceUsers of traditional flextime and dailyflextime reported better work/life balance than both non-users andtelecommuters. Daily flextime usersreported the best scores, with 38% of this group indicating that their


4

work/life balance was "good" or"very good," compared to 31% of traditional flextime users, 26% of non-users and 24% of telecommuters.

Life SatisfactionWorkers using daily flextime reportedthe highest life satisfaction scores, with65% of daily flextime users saying theywere satisfied or very satisfied, com-pared to 58% of non-users and 46% oftelecommuters.

TelecommutingThere were striking differences in theexperiences of employees usingtelecommuting and those using eitherdaily flextime or traditional flextime.These include:

■ 46% of telecommuters reportedworking while on vacation, compared to 34% of non-users,30% of daily flextime users, and28% of traditional flextime users.

■ 24% of telecommuters rated theirwork/life balance as "good" or "verygood" compared to 26% of non-users, 38% of daily flextime users,and 31% of traditional flextime users.

■ 46% of telecommuters said theywere "satisfied" or "very satisfied"with their lives, compared to 58%of non-users, 65% of daily flextimeusers, and 61% of traditional flex-time users.

The statistics above examine theimpact of telecommuting on the livesof employees outside of work. Interms of career-related issues, therewere also some interesting findings,with frequent differences in perceptionbetween managers and employees.

Managers and employees agree that:

■ Telecommuters are less likely to getthe same salary increases as otheremployees.

■ Telecommuters are less likely to havepositive relationships with their co-workers.

However, a greater percentage ofmanagers who supervise telecom-muters than telecommuters themselvesbelieve that telecommuters are:

■ More likely to have negative or neutral relationships with their supervisors than other flextime users.

■ Less likely to get good performancereviews.

■ Less likely to get promotions.

On the other hand, a greater percent-age of telecommuters than managerswho supervise telecommuters believethat telecommuters are:

■ Less likely to receive the same chal-lenging assignments as employeesnot using these arrangements.

■ Less committed to their jobs.

While these findings highlight theexperience of individual employees,results related to the business impactare considerably more favorable. Therewere no significant differencesbetween telecommuters and otherusers of flexibility on questions ofattachment to the company, quality ofwork, or productivity, with high scoresin each of these areas.

Perceptions of Non-UsersWhile most employees who were notusing flexible work arrangements


5

believe that employees using flexiblearrangements are just as committed totheir jobs as other workers, non-usersexpressed some significant concerns.For example, 35% of non-users believethat their co-workers who use flexiblework arrangements cause resentmentamong those working on-site, 48% saythat it is more difficult to work collabo-ratively with employees who use flexiblework arrangements, and 30% believethat it is more difficult for supervisorsto communicate with employees whouse these arrangements.

Implications for CompaniesIn summary, this study presents a“good news/bad news” scenario related to workplace flexibility, with

the good news potentially far morepositive than the bad news is negative.We arrive at this conclusion based onthe fact that many of the problemareas relate to issues of perception,either between users and non-users ormanagers and employees. Companiesproactively investing in the actualmanagement of these work arrange-ments — addressing head-on issuessuch as communication, equity, andclarity of objectives — will likely reapfar better results than companies fail-ing to attend to these issues. Theseefforts, combined with a company-wide commitment to daily flexibility,should have tremendous implicationsfor the long-term success of the flexi-ble workplace.

7

Background and Objectives

During the past decade, techno-logical advances have revolution-ized the world of work, modify-

ing how and where work is performed.Many employers can now offer theiremployees increased flexibility in termsof when and where business is performed.In fact, the 1997 National Study ofthe Changing Workforce conducted bythe Families and Work Institutereports that “nearly half of all employ-ees are able to choose – within somerange of hours – when they begin andend their days.”1 Yet, change does notcome easily, as established work cul-tures fueled by a pervasive belief in“face-time” continue to characterizemany work environments. Employersare now at a critical juncture as they

weigh the costs and benefits of thesenew options in a labor environmentthat has become increasingly competi-tive for talented employees. Theyremain uncertain about whether flexiblework arrangements address theiremployees’ needs as well as their seri-ous bottom-line concerns, and theyneed data to support their decisions.Providing critical information aboutwhere and when work is best complet-ed was the impetus for this study.

There have been a number of studiesof flexible work arrangements, buttheir results are far from conclusive.Some researchers have focused onidentifying workers who use thesearrangements.2,3 Others have studiedthe impact of flexible work policies on

2S E C T I O N

B A C K G R O U N D A N D O B J E C T I V E S

8

reducing employee stress andwork/family conflict.4-7 Finally, a num-ber of studies have examined theimpact of flexible work policies onproductivity, quality of work, commit-ment and labor force attachment.8-11

While these studies provide a founda-tion of evidence regarding the impactof flexible work arrangements, majorgaps remain. These include:

■ An incomplete understanding ofwho uses flexible work arrange-ments and how employees gainaccess to these arrangements;

■ Inadequate differentiation of theeffects of different types of flexiblework arrangements on outcomes;

■ Limited information from co-workersand managers about the effects offlexible work arrangements; and

■ Reliance on information from a singleindustry.

The National Work/Life MeasurementProject was a two-year, cross-companystudy that focused on the impact ofthree types of flexible work arrange-ments (traditional flextime, daily flex-time, and telecommuting) on bothemployees and managers. Whileemployees were also asked about compressed work week and job sharing arrangements, these results are not reported here because so fewrespondents were using them.

The study aims to provide answers tothe following questions:

■ What distinguishes employees whouse traditional flextime, daily flex-time, and telecommuting from oneanother as well as from employeeswho do not use these flexible workarrangements?

■ Why don’t all employees use flexi-ble work arrangements?

■ How do employees who use flexi-ble work arrangements gain accessto them?

■ Do employees who use traditionalflextime, daily flextime, and telecom-muting work more hours thanemployees who do not use them?

■ How does using different types offlexible work arrangements affect theextent to which employees experi-ence time crunch, work/life balance,negative spill-over from work to fami-ly, job satisfaction, life satisfaction,and commitment to the workplace?

■ How do employees using flexiblework arrangements and their man-agers assess the extent to whichthese flexible arrangements affectemployee productivity, quality ofwork, relationship with supervisor,relationships with co-workers, com-mitment to job, and the likelihoodof getting promotions, challengingassignments, good performancereviews, salary increases, and support from co-workers?

■ How do employees who do not useflexible work arrangements perceiveemployees who do use them?

■ How do flexible work arrangementsaffect the manager's job?

Organization of this ReportThis report highlights findings from thestudy, focusing on issues most importantfor management to examine as theyeither introduce or continue to implement flexible work arrangements.Section 3 describes the characteristics ofpeople using the various flexible workarrangements and contrasts them withthose of people not using them. In


9

Section 4, information is provided aboutthe ways in which employees using flexi-ble work arrangements gained access tothem. Issues such as the extent to whichformal company policies affect usage offlexible work arrangements, how thearrangements are negotiated with super-visors, and how they are actually imple-mented are described.

Section 5 contrasts the experiences ofemployees who were using differenttypes of flexible work arrangements(daily flextime, traditional flextime,and telecommuting) and those notusing any of these arrangements. Thereport examines the extent to whichthese employees:

■ Work long hours;■ Have worked while on vacation

during the past year;■ Experience a "time crunch";■ Experience negative spillover from

work to family;■ Maintain a sense of balance

between their work and family lives;■ Feel attached to the companies for

whom they work;■ Feel satisfied with their jobs; and■ Feel satisfied with their lives.

Section 6 contrasts views fromemployees using flexible work arrange-ments and their managers. The reporthighlights the effects of flexible workarrangements on:

■ Productivity;■ Quality of work;■ Relationships between supervisor

and employee;■ Relationships between co-workers;■ Plans to stay with the company;

■ Commitment to job;■ Likelihood of being promoted;■ Likelihood of getting challenging

assignments;■ Likelihood of getting good perform-

ance reviews;■ Likelihood of getting the same

salary increases as those not usingflexible work arrangements; and

■ Likelihood of getting job-related support from co-workers.

Section 7 describes the feelings thatemployees who are not using flexiblework arrangements have aboutemployees who do use these arrange-ments, while Section 8 examines theviews that managers have about theeffects of supervising employees whouse flexible work arrangements ontheir own jobs. Section 9 identifiesimportant issues for employers to con-sider as they introduce and integrateflexible work arrangements in theworkplace. Finally, Section 10 presentsstudy conclusions and limitations, andidentifies critical next research steps.

Appendix 1 describes the study designand presents information about the peo-ple participating in the survey and thecompanies for which they worked. It isimportant to understand these character-istics, as they have significant implica-tions for the extent to which results canbe generalized to employees working forother companies.

Appendix 2 provides backgroundinformation about the companies participating in the project, and provides the reasons their companieschose to participate in the study intheir own words.

10


Throughout the report, contrastsreported between groups are thosethat are statistically significantly different from one another at the

95% confidence level (i.e., differencesbetween groups that are greater thanwe would expect just due to chancealone).

Characteristics of Users and Non-usersof Flexible Work Arrangements

The majority of employees respond-ing to the survey (883) were notcurrently using a flexible work

arrangement. They are referred to as"non-users" in the remainder of thisreport. Traditional flextime was usedby 191 respondents, daily flextime by156 respondents, and telecommutingby 123 respondents. Most employeesusing telecommuting reported doingso only one (26.0%) or two (15.4%)days each week. An additional 17.1%reported that they telecommuted lessthan one day per week.

Employees using daily flextime, tradi-tional flextime, and telecommutingwere compared with those not usingthese types of arrangements.Interestingly, some differences werefound between the groups:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cent

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Chart 1: Gender

Women Men

■ Non-users of flexible work arrange-ments and users of traditional flextimewere more likely to be women, whileusers of daily flextime and telecom-muting were more likely to be men.

3S E C T I O N

11

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F U S E R S A N D N O N - U S E R S O F F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chart 2: Elder Care Responsibilities


Per

cent

■ People most likely to be involved inproviding care to a dependentelder were telecommuters.

■ Telecommuters earned the highestincomes.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Chart 3: Household Income (>$100,000)

Per

cent


0

5

10

15

20

Chart 4: Commute Time (>1 Hour)

Per

cent


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Chart 5: Education Level(High School or Less)

Per

cent


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chart 6: Professional Position

Per

cent


■ Telecommuters had the longest com-mute times.

■ Non-users had the lowest levels ofeducation.

■ Non-users were least likely to holdprofessional positions in their com-panies.


13

Among employees completing the survey, the importance of position as acharacteristic enabling employees to useflexible work arrangements was clear.It was widely recognized that somejobs, both lower level and higher levelpositions, simply do not lend them-selves to flexible work arrangements.

The groups did not differ from oneanother in terms of age, marital status,and likelihood of having childrenunder 19 living at home.

Several factors—including a supportivedepartment where the employeeworks, a sympathetic manager, a jobwith specific characteristics, and theskill level and perceived qualities ofthe employee, particularly the abilityto work independently and responsi-bly, with a history of high productivity—determine which employees getaccess to flexible work arrangements.Most readily acknowledge the importance of the nature of jobresponsibilities as a determinant ofwhether flexible work arrangementsare possible.

"The lower levels probably have morerigid jobs. You know, the factory stuff,secretarial work. Most of the time thesegirls need to be sitting at their desks, covering the phones. It’s harder to do thatfrom home. And I think that as you getup to higher levels in the corporation,your time is not your own, and it’s harderto work [flexibly]. You can still worksome flextime, work home here or there.But you tend to work so many more hoursthat it’s kind of hard."

"I think I’m probably in the level [wheretelecommuting] is easier to happen. Inthe technical work…measurements arelike deadlines that are two or threemonths. So I think it’s probably easier.Where for a secretary, the managers andother team members who depend on asecretary depend on the person five daysa week or five hours a day."

In addition to these demographic characteristics that distinguish employees using different flexible workarrangements from those not usingthem, users recognize that individualcharacteristics, particularly their abilityto work independently and trustearned through a history of high productivity, also are important.

"The management team trusts me. Theyknow what kind of budget I can hold.They’ve seen what I’ve done. They knowthat I’ll get the job [done], …that dead-lines are met. And they just give me theresources I need. They’ve never questionedme…Now there are people in my group,who for some reason have the same man-agers, where they don’t get approved."

WHAT DISTINGUISHES EMPLOYEES

WHO USE TRADITIONAL FLEXTIME,

DAILY FLEXTIME, AND TELECOM-

MUTING FROM ONE ANOTHER AS

WELL AS FROM EMPLOYEES WHO

DO NOT USE THESE FLEXIBLE

WORK ARRANGEMENTS?


14

Reasons Employees Are Not UsingFlexible Work Arrangements Among employees who do not useflexible work arrangements, 54.0%reported that daily flextime or tradi-tional flextime benefits were not avail-able to them, while 72.1% said thattelecommuting was not an option forthem. Employees who were not usingflexible work arrangements said thatthey did not use them for the follow-ing reasons:

■ The nature of the job responsibilitiesrequires regular contact with workerswho do not use alternative workarrangements (25.4%).

"I need a lot of personal interaction withpeople. I just don't see how it [telecom-muting] could ever work in this job. Imight need my co-worker...and you needto talk to them and be there and exchangeinformation constantly. I think yourbeing [based] out of the house would justtake too much time to do the job. I'm onefor flexible work hours and I'm one forarrangements where you can work athome but I just don't see it in our job."

■ A more traditional work schedulebetter meets their needs (20.4%).These needs may include access toequipment and other resources necessary to produce work.

"I have too much stuff in the office. Ineed to meet with people. I need to get agood printer. I don’t have one. In mostcases, though, it is better to be in theoffice because you can answer the phoneinstead of answering voice mail."

"I've worked with different departmentsand you need everything that's here.You rely on different resources from different employees so you can't reallytelecommute in all departments."

■ Their job would be difficult or impos-sible to do using these arrangements(16.3%). Some jobs are simply notconsidered "good fits" for workingflexibly. When there is a perceptionthat the work requires "face time,"either because it is necessary toaccomplish the work itself or to con-tribute to the morale of the work-place, there is a negative attitudetoward flexible work arrangements.

"If it's the kind of job that needs to inter-act with people, it doesn't work. Or ifyou need to be there to give them anassignment, it doesn't work."

"The nature of our business doesn’t allowit… if you start taking things home andsomething happens, we don’t have thatinformation. So we have to have every-thing there where we can get to it imme-diately, so we can’t do teleworking."

"I don't want to work at home. I don’tthink you could do our job at home. Youneed the interaction, meeting time, andgetting information from various depart-ments. You just could not do it from thehome I don't think. Certain aspectsmaybe, but most areas, I'd say no."

WHY DON’T ALL EMPLOYEES USE

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS?


15

■ They felt that using an alternativework arrangement would not begood for their careers (14.1%).

"I felt at my level,. . . telecommuting,that's okay for an hourly employee orthat's okay for a secretary. But if you'rea Director, and you're serious about yourcareer, people wouldn't take you as seriously. ...You become lumped with agroup of part-time people who are herejust because they want to pick up a paycheck, not because they're seriousabout their careers here. And thatcouldn't be further from the truth."

■ They felt that supervisors look downon workers who use alternativework arrangements (12.0%).

"As far as moving forward, if you wanted to, as far as promotions down theroad, I think the perception was that youhad to be the 'player' and be there whenthey needed you. That was the pressure Iwas looking at in trying to negotiate aflexible work schedule."

Accessing and Using Flexible Work Arrangements

Employees using flexible workarrangements were asked about theprocess by which they gained access

to them. Among all users of flexiblework arrangements, 33.1% reportedthat they were able to use these benefitsbecause of a written company policy;42.2% explained that it was "acceptedcompany practice," and 24.7% reportedthat they individually negotiated thearrangement with their manager.

There are differences, however, in theways that the three groups of people

using flexible work arrangements gainaccess to these benefits, with users oftraditional flextime most likely to gainaccess through written policies andleast likely to gain access because ofaccepted company practice.Telecommuters are most likely to gainaccess by negotiating individually withtheir manager.

Whose Choice are Flexible WorkArrangements?The majority of all flexible workarrangement users (59.0%) indicatethat use of these arrangements wastheir choice; 8.2% indicate that it wasthe company's choice; and 32.9%report that it was a mutual choicemade by themselves and their company.Users of daily flextime were most like-

HOW DO EMPLOYEES WHO USE

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

GAIN ACCESS TO THEM?

4S E C T I O N

17

A C C E S S I N G A N D U S I N G F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S

18

ly (70.1%) to indicate that using thisflexible work arrangement was theirchoice, while users of traditional flex-time typically reported that the deci-sion was mutual (41.9%).

A Privilege, Not an EntitlementMost employees said that flexible workarrangements are a privilege or luxury,and not an entitlement. For manyemployees, the ability to use flexiblework arrangements came only after theyhad gained their manager’s trust.

"I have a track record. I have provenmyself. There's never any doubt that I'mgoing to get my stuff done and probablywork extra...but there is that whole levelof trust that it takes time to develop."

"Right now telecommuting is considered areward, not an entitlement. It's an excep-tion. It's a reward. It is something specialfor somebody special, not an entitlement."

Since the opportunity to use flexiblework arrangements is viewed as a priv-ilege, many employees feel that theyowe something back to managementfor permitting it.

"You kind of have that expectation sincethey are allowing you this tremendousbenefit, that you should deliver somethinga little over and above what other peoplewho don’t have the same benefit."

Indeed, the idea of flexible work arrange-ments being a privilege was so pervasivethat many expressed feelings of insecurityabout the likelihood of continuing tohave the opportunity to work flexiblyshould managers or jobs change.

"It still is a feeling like this could betaken away from you at any moment."

The Role of ManagerNot surprisingly, managers were verycareful about deciding whether a partic-ular employee could use a flexible workarrangement. With the pressure to per-form, managers are shouldered with theresponsibility of identifying employeeswho will be productive while using flex-ible work arrangements. One of thegreatest concerns expressed by man-agers is the employee’s ability to workindependently, which reflects both thenature of the job and the qualities ofthe individual employee.

"I think the person’s character and jobperformance has everything to do with it."

"The employees I approve [to work flexi-bly] are people who get the job done.They work faster. They take initiative.They are the conscientious employees."

Managers look most favorably onemployees who are highly productive,because they trust that these employeeswill continue to do what it takes tomaintain these high levels of productivity.

Managers said they carefully assess anemployee's ability to work flexibly, aswell as whether the job can be per-formed with a flexible work schedulewhile maintaining productivity.According to managers:

"If you trust the person. You have tohave a level of trust there when they areat home [working], they won't be cookingdinner, or doing their dinner, washingdishes..."


19

"I know she's a great worker...I see theproductivity...I think if people have trackrecords -- if they report to you, you knowthey always put in that extra time, verydevoted and committed to their job -- younever worry about that."

"If I feel they have integrity and they'regoing to say 'I'm going to work at hometoday.' Great! I know you're going to doit...on the other hand, if there's somebodywho I've observed in the office and Idon't have that same feeling of integritywith them, I’ll admit, I'm less comfort-able doing it."

Employees using flexible workarrangements are very aware that notall employees are able to use them.

"My manager had another person whowas requesting a flexible work arrange-ment. . . and, because of her backgroundand the experience that the manager hadwith her, she did not give them to her."

Employees also were aware of theimportance of the precedent they weresetting in their department.

"I always felt pressure on me to makesure that this was successful because some-one else may want to do it."

Negotiating Flexible WorkArrangementsThe typical negotiation processdescribed by employees involves theemployee pleading her/his case, themanager determining if this particularcandidate is capable of maintaining ahigh level of productivity under these

circumstances, and often a trial period.The fact that using flexible workarrangements is not a right or entitle-ment lays the foundation for the nego-tiation process. In this process, thebusiness objectives of the company areforemost and approval to work flexiblymust coincide with these businessobjectives. This means that the managerneeds to believe that the employee willbe equally or more productive usingflexible work arrangements than ifhe/she was working without them.

There was tremendous variationregarding the amount of time it tookfor employees to get approvals to useflexible work arrangements. Somespoke of days, while others spoke ofmonths, as they waited to hearwhether they would be approved.

"I explained to [my manager] why Iwanted to use a flexible work arrange-ment. He wanted me to talk to [HR] tofind out how it was going to work as faras the hours were concerned. And I didall that. And I think we must havestarted in January and it was just on atrial basis for a month …and then afterthe month, he saw that everything wasworking okay. It was okay for me tooand we just continued throughout theyear. But to me, it's been a long process."

With no written process in place,employees often created their ownprocess to convince managers theywould be good candidates to workflexibly.

"I laid out a proposal with three optionsor scenarios. It was a detailed proposal


where I outlined all financial implica-tions…I sold them the idea."

"I worked the back room. I went to peoplethat I trusted and said, 'how do Iapproach [my manager] so that thisrequest is positive?' "

Employees noted that getting approvalto work flexibly is largely dependent onthe manager. Some managers embracethe idea, while others approach it cautiously or even negatively.

"You don't know what you are walkinginto…when they move on [to anotherdepartment]. [It’s] like, 'Oh my God,who is my next boss going to be?!"

For newly hired employees, theprocess was even more tentative.

"You have to wait until the offer comesand bring it up later as a bonus. Youhave to negotiate it. And then you don’tknow if once you get into the environ-ment, if they really believe in flexibilityin the first place."

In some cases, the manager’s decisionto enable an employee to use a flexiblework arrangement is motivated by theopportunity to reduce costs and savethe company money. By reducingdowntime and travel time, some man-agers feel that they can increaseemployee morale and commitment,thereby increasing productivity.

After the Negotiation The implementation of flexible workarrangements also varied across the

companies. In some of the compa-nies, employees described the strate-gies they developed that enabled themto remain in constant communicationwith their co-workers and managers.

"I always change my message on myanswering system so they know when I’mnot in the office and they know if I’mworking at home. I always have mypager. So I tell people, ‘Leave a message.If it’s an emergency, call my pager.’ Itworks fine."

Another employee who provides tech-nical support to others, said:

"If I’m at home, and they called me a fewminutes ago--say I stepped out to go tolunch or something like that...they do getmy home business line...it rolls into thisline here. After three rings, it rolls auto-matically to the phone line here and thenI can back it up with Audix. So eitherway I get it, no matter where I’m at."

In some of the companies, employeesusing flexible work arrangements tried tocreate an "invisible wall," doing every-thing within their powers to create theillusion that they were not using thesearrangements and making it impossiblefor clients and co-workers to know thatthey were not in the office. Electroniccommunication—voice-mail and e-mail—contributes to the ease of telecommutingand supports the invisibility of the flexiblework arrangement. According to onetelecommuter, her co-workers didn't realize for two years that she was workingat home one day per week:

20


21

"I don't say I'm out of the office. I mean,they'll send me e-mail and I'll send themone right back. It's instantaneous. Theycall me. I call them right back.. I'm inthe loop, so they don't know. I just don'tschedule meetings on that day."

Managers talked about the importanceof carefully monitoring employeesusing flexible work arrangements.

"You have to start documenting andthat’s what we’ve done. Someone who isconstantly taking and never giving, itgets docked on your vacation time. I’mwilling to be really flexible. I under-stand. I’m a mother. I understand.But, someone who is constantly takingand never giving, then guess what? Youare going to have to use vacation time."

"I’m monitoring them on a daily basiswhenever they are home."

Sometimes It Just Doesn’t WorkWhile most managers were very care-ful about agreeing to flexible workarrangements, employees and man-agers reported that there were timeswhen this flexibility backfired. Oneemployee who worked in a very flexi-ble department talked about how theabuse of a flextime schedule for anadjacent department ruined the policyin her own department.

"When [the other department’s] manager was on vacation for two weeks,they came and went as they pleased andthings didn’t get covered, and theyweren’t conscientious about it..."

The result in this case was that themanager ended their flexible work policy.

Contrasts Between Users and Non-users of Flexible Work Arrangements

The study contrasted users andnon-users on the followingdimensions: hours worked, time

crunch, work/life balance, spillover,job satisfaction, life satisfaction, andattachment to company.

Hours WorkedEmployees who returned the surveyconfirmed the existence of a “longhours” culture. They reported work-ing an average of 50.6 hours per week(range 40 – 96), with only 17.0%working a 40-hour week. Over a thirdof employees had worked while onvacation during the past year. Hoursworked are viewed by employees as ameasure of their commitment andproductivity. As one employee said:

"You do whatever it takes. You stayovernight."

"I work about 10 hour days [now, but]…I used to get in at 8 or 9 a.m., and Iwould fall off the map at 2 a.m."

As seen in Chart 7, non-users reportedworking significantly more hours thantraditional flextime workers. On theother hand, as seen in Chart 8,telecommuters were most likely toreport having spent time working during a vacation.

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Chart 7: Hours Worked

Hours


5S E C T I O N

23

Employees are sensitive to the issues offlexible work arrangements, yet areoverwhelmed by the amount of workto be done.

"We talk the talk [work/life], but I don'tsee a lot happening where the workload isreduced. You can't continue to do every-thing that's expected on a day-to-daybasis and have flexible work arrange-ments and not take stuff home or comein on your day off. You will fall behindand never come from under."

Time Crunch Employees were asked four questionsabout the extent to which they feelthat they have enough time for them-selves and feel rushed to get every-thing done each day. By calculating atotal score for these questions, a measure of “time crunch” was created.

Scores on time crunch ranged from 4to 20 (mean = 14.2). As seen inChart 9, employees least likely toexperience time crunches were thoseusing daily or traditional flextime.

"It’s really nice. It gives me the opportu-nity of balancing both work and family."

In contrast, employees most likely toexperience time crunches were thoseusing telecommuting. As illustratedbelow, the lines between work andhome often blurred so much that theywere indistinguishable.

"I get up early. PBS has great children’sshows in the morning. Even when [mydaughter] was one, I could put onBarney or something, and she would play,or I’d put her in her high chair and sheeats an hour-and-a-half breakfast. So Ican really crank out a lot of work fromlike 6:30 ‘til about 10. And in betweentime, distracting her here, distractingher there, we do a lot of coloring and alot of painting. She’ll sit great for like ahalf-an-hour to an hour just coloringand painting. So then I would say from10 to about noon, there’s not a lot of pro-ductive time. From 10-12 we get on the

24

C O N T R A S T S B E T W E E N U S E R S A N D N O N - U S E R S O F F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S

0

10

20

30

40

50

Chart 8: Worked on Vacation Past Year

Per

cent


13.2

13.4

13.6

13.8

14.0

14.2

14.4

14.6

14.8

Score

Chart 9: Time Crunch


DO EMPLOYEES WHO USE

TRADITIONAL FLEXTIME, DAILY

FLEXTIME, AND TELECOMMUTING

WORK MORE HOURS THAN EMPLOYEES

WHO DO NOT USE THEM?


25

floor and we play, unless the phone rings.And then I give her lunch and then I getback to work again, and get her downfor a nap. I am blessed with a daughterthat is an incredible sleeper, and she takesthree-hour naps sometimes four, so some-times, at 5 o’clock she’s still sleeping. I’llstart working on projects, or I mighthave to be tracking people down on thephone, which I try to do when she’s sleep-ing, because I don’t like to have her inthe background. And then she gets up,and we make dinner and play some moreand maybe go outside. After she goes tobed, which is around 8-ish, I just check-in [to my voice-mail] one more time. Atthe end of the day I say: ‘Wow, I’veaccomplished a lot.’”

Work/Life BalanceWe asked employees to respond to thequestion: "How would you rate yourwork and family balance -- poor, fair,acceptable, good, or very good?"Those employees most likely to reporta good or very good balance betweentheir work and family lives were usingflexible schedules, particularly dailyflextime.

SpilloverEmployees were asked about theimpact that their work has on theirhome life. There were no differencesbetween employees using the variousflexible work arrangements and thosenot using them. 27.2% of all employeesexperienced negative spillover fromwork to family, 25.1% experiencedpositive impact, and 47.7% reportedneutral or no spillover.

Job SatisfactionEmployees were asked a series of eightquestions about the extent to whichthey were satisfied with elements oftheir jobs, including the number ofhours they were working and theadvancement opportunities available to them. By calculating a total scorefor these questions (i.e., "1" =very dissatisfied to "5" = very satisfied), ameasure of "job satisfaction" was created. Scores on job satisfactionranged from 8 to 40 (mean = 28.2).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chart 10: Work-Life Balance

Per

cent

Good/V

ery G

ood


HOW DOES USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS AFFECT

THE EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEES

EXPERIENCE TIME CRUNCH, WORK/LIFE

BALANCE, NEGATIVE SPILL-OVER FROM

WORK TO FAMILY, JOB SATISFACTION,

LIFE SATISFACTION, AND COMMITMENT

TO THE WORKPLACE?

Users of both daily flextime and tradi-tional flextime were more satisfiedwith their jobs than non-users andtelecommuters.

Life SatisfactionEmployees rated the extent to whichthey felt satisfied with their life. Whilenot statistically significant, there was atendency for telecommuters to reportthe lowest levels of life satisfaction andfor users of daily flextime to report thehighest levels of life satisfaction.

Attachment to CompanyThe extent to which employees feltattached to their company was assessedwith 18 questions that inquired aboutcompany pride and the likelihood ofleaving the company. By calculating atotal score for these questions, a

measure of "attachment to company"was created, with scores ranging from26 to 90 (mean = 57.2). Attachmentto company was not observed to berelated to whether employees wereusing flexible work arrangements.Among all employees, 16.7% were veryattached to the company for whichthey worked, 60.6% were moderatelyattached, and 22.7% were not attached.

SummaryIn order to account for demographicdifferences in gender, childcare respon-sibilities, elder care responsibilities, edu-cation, race, income, position, workhours, and commute time, and to moreaccurately examine the effects of flexiblework arrangements on outcomes for thefour comparison groups (non-users,daily flextime, traditional flextime,telecommuters), a series of analyses wascompleted in which these demographicdifferences were controlled (i.e.,removed) statistically. These analysesrevealed that even after these differenceswere removed, employees using dailyflextime experienced:

■ Less time crunch■ Less negative spill-over between

their work and family lives■ Better work/family balance■ Greater attachment to their company■ More job satisfaction ■ More life satisfaction

In contrast, similar analyses, control-ling for demographic differencesbetween the groups revealed thatusing traditional flextime increasedonly the level of job satisfaction.

26


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Chart 12: Life Satisfaction

Per

cent

Satisf

ied/V

ery S

atisf

ied


26.5

27.0

27.5

28.0

28.5

29.0

29.5

30.0

Chart 11: Job Satisfaction

Score


Views of Employees Using Flexible WorkArrangements and Their Managers

In this section, we contrast the perspec-tives of employees who were usingflexible work arrangements with those

of their managers. Analyses described inthis section combine information fromemployees using daily flextime withthose of employees using traditionalflextime. This approach is used for tworeasons: (1) preliminary analysesrevealed that there were no substantivedifferences between these groups offlexible users; and (2) information col-lected from managers did not distin-guish the views of managers supervisingemployees who were using traditionalflextime and those using daily flextime.As such, in order to examine parallelviews, the experiences of flextime users(traditional and daily combined) arecontrasted with those of telecommuters.

ProductivityAccording to employees using the variousforms of flexible work arrangementsand managers supervising employeesusing these arrangements, there wereno differences in perceptions of pro-ductivity. Reports from both groupssuggest very positive impacts of using

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chart 13: Effects on Productivity

Employees Managers

NeutralNegative Positive

Per

cent

6S E C T I O N

27

flexible arrangements on productivity,with higher proportions of employeesreporting positive impacts on produc-tivity than managers.

Quality of Work Employees and managers of employeesusing flexible work arrangementsreported that an employee’s quality ofwork was not affected by the use ofeither flextime or telecommuting.Reports from both groups indicate verypositive impacts on work quality, with ahigher percentage of employees assign-ing positive ratings than managers.

Relationship with Supervisor There was no difference betweenemployees using flextime and thoseusing telecommuting regarding theuse of these flexible work arrange-ments and the relationship with theirsupervisor. The majority of employees(58.0%) reported that flexible workarrangements had positive effects ontheir relationship with their supervisor,37.0% reported that they had neutraleffects, and only 5.0% reported thatthey had negative effects. Managers,however, had a very different view of

these effects. They reported that theirtelecommuting employees were morelikely to have negative or neutral rela-tionships with them than wereemployees using flextime.

Relationships with Co-WorkersEmployees and managers agreed thattelecommuting employees are less likely to have positive relationshipswith their co-workers than are flextimeemployees, with managers reportingmore severe consequences thanemployees.

The theme of feeling left out wasclearly expressed by many telecom-muters.

28

V I E W S O F E M P L O Y E E S U S I N G F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S A N D T H E I R M A N A G E R S

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chart 14: Effects on Quality of Work

Per

cent

Employees Managers

NeutralNegative Positive

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chart 15: Effects on Relationship with Supervisor

All Flex Users Telecom

(Managers)

Per

cent

Neg

ative

/Neu

tral

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


Chart 16: Effects on Relationships with Co-workers

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Neg

ative


29

"The only drawback is when I work moreat home. ..you sort of feel left out a littlebit sometimes, because there’s nobody elseto talk to during the day."

"Out of sight, out of mind."

"I think there’s a certain dynamic of beingin the office that you cannot achieve beingat home. There is certain informationthat you glean from being in the office."

"They kind of tend to forget you whenyou’re a telecommuter."

RetentionWhen employees and managers ofemployees using flextime and telecom-muting were asked about the impactof using these flexible work arrange-ments on their plans to stay with thecompany, most (81.3% of employeesand 76.1% of managers) reported thatthey had very positive effects.

"The flex is why I’m here. . .Flex is mak-ing it a nicer place to work. They aretruly making an effort to help peoplebalance their family and home issuesand recognize that people have morethan their job to do."

"It’s been a retention opportunity . . .aretention vehicle for me. When I hadproblems balancing family and work Iwas like, ‘I’m going to stay here.’"

"If she [supervised employee] was stillunder the manager she was under severalyears ago, she probably would have beengone by now because that manager didnot embrace the concept of telecommutingas much as I do."

"There is no question that, if thistelecommuting hadn’t been in place.. . .Iknow that I would not retain her."

Extent to which Others ViewEmployee as Committed to JobEmployees reported that people whoused telecommuting were viewed asbeing less committed to their jobsthan people who used flextime.Among managers, however, commit-ment to job was not related to use offlexible work arrangements. The over-whelming majority of managers(91.8%) reported that employees usingflexible work arrangements were com-mitted to their jobs.

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82


Chart 17: Influence on Retention

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Posi

tive

0

5

10

15

20


Chart 18: Job Commitment(Employees)

Per

cent

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e/D

isagre

e

Likelihood of Getting PromotionsAccording to employees, there was noassociation between the use of flexiblework arrangements and the likelihoodof getting promotions. Most employees(65.1%) reported that people usingflexible work arrangements were just aslikely to get the same promotions asemployees not using these arrange-ments, 21.4% reported that there wereneutral effects, and only 13.4% reportedthat users were not as likely to get thesame promotions as non-users.Managers, however, indicated thatemployees using telecommuting wereless likely to get promotions than wereemployees using flextime.

"I have a person who is working fromhome most of the time. She's not learningthe new stuff. Guess what? She doesn'tget to work on the cool new project which,in the future, is going to make her lessmarketable."

Likelihood of ReceivingChallenging Work AssignmentsEmployees indicated that usingtelecommuting had a more negativeimpact on the extent to which theyreceived challenging assignments than

did employees using flextime. Amongmanagers, however, there was no rela-tionship between using a flexible workarrangement and receiving challengingwork assignments. The majority ofmanagers (84.4%) agreed that employeesusing flexible work arrangements werejust as likely as other employees to getchallenging assignments, 9.6% wereneutral about this, and only 5.9%reported that employees using flexiblework arrangements were not as likely toget the same challenging assignments.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


Chart 19: Likelihood of Getting Promotions

(Managers)

Per

cent

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e/D

isagre

e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Chart 20: Likelihood of Getting Challenging Assignments

(Employees)

Disagree Strongly Agree

Per

cent

HOW DO EMPLOYEES USING FLEXIBLE

WORK ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR MAN-

AGERS ASSESS THE EXTENT TO WHICH

THESE FLEXIBLE ARRANGEMENTS AFFECT

EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY, QUALITY OF

WORK, RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPERVISOR,

RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS,

COMMITMENT TO JOB, AND THE LIKELI-

HOODS OF GETTING PROMOTIONS, CHAL-

LENGING ASSIGNMENTS, GOOD PER-

FORMANCE REVIEWS, SALARY INCREASES,

AND SUPPORT FROM CO-WORKERS?

30

"Managers will have weekly statusreports, and I’ll see them say so-and-so’sdoing this and so-and-so’s doing that,and I’ll think, well, those are reallyinteresting projects and I had no ideathat was even going on! And I wouldhave maybe been interested in doing that,and I’m not getting the good cookiesthrown at me."

Likelihood of Getting GoodPerformance ReviewsEmployees indicated that there was noassociation between the use of flexiblework arrangements and the likelihood ofgetting good performance reviews. Themajority of employees (78.2%) reportedthat people using flexible work arrange-ments were likely to get good perform-ance reviews, while 14.5% were neutralabout this, and only 7.3% reported thatpeople who were using flexible workarrangements were not as likely to getgood performance reviews. Reports frommanagers, however, indicated thatemployees using telecommuting were lesslikely to get good performance reviewsthan were employees using flextime.

Likelihood of Receiving SameSalary IncreasesEmployees and managers both reportedthat telecommuting employees were lesslikely to get the same salary increases asother employees.

Likelihood of Getting Job-RelatedSupport from Co-WorkersEmployees and managers both indicatedthat telecommuting employees wereless likely to get job-related supportfrom their co-workers.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Chart 21: Likelihood of Getting Good Performance Reviews

(Managers)

Per

cent

Dis

agre

e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Chart 22: Likelihood of Receiving Same Salary Increases

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Agre

e/St

rongly

Agre

e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Chart 23: Likelihood of Getting Same Co-worker Support

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Agre

e/St

rongly

Agre

e


31

32


SummaryEmployees and managers agree thatusing flexible work arrangements havepositive impacts on productivity andquality of work, regardless of the typeof flexible work arrangement used.They also agree that employees usingtelecommuting are more likely to havepoor relationships with co-workers,less likely to get the same salaryincreases, and less likely to get co-worker support than employees usingflextime. Employees and managersdiffer on their perceptions of some ofthe effects of flexible work arrange-

ments. Employees are less likely toview telecommuters as committed totheir jobs and are more likely tobelieve that telecommuters do notget the same challenging assignmentsthan managers who supervise theseemployees. Managers, on the otherhand, are more likely than telecom-muting employees to believe thattelecommuting has negative effectson employee-supervisor relationshipsand are less likely to feel thattelecommuters get the same promo-tions and performance reviews asother employees.

Views of Employees Who Do Not Use Flexible Work Arrangements

The previous section examined theeffects of flexible work arrange-ments from the perspective of the

users of these arrangements and man-agers who supervise users. In order togain a more complete appreciation ofthe effects of flexible work arrange-ments, it is equally important tounderstand how they affect theemployees within a work group whoare not using them. This Section dis-cusses the views of employees who donot use flexible work arrangements.

As indicated in Chart 24, mostemployees who do not use flexiblework arrangements believe thatemployees using these arrangementsare just as committed to their jobs asother workers.

However, non-users expressed someserious concerns about flexible workarrangements. For example:

■ 39.2% indicate that employees whouse flexible work arrangements arenot as likely to get the same promo-tions as non-users.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Disagree Neutral Agree

Chart 24: Job Commitment(Non-user View)

Per

cent

7S E C T I O N

33

■ 30.3% report that employees who useflexible work arrangements are not aslikely to get as challenging workassignments as other workers.

■ 34.8% report that users of flexiblework arrangements cause resent-ment among those working on-site.

Resentment may arise for a variety ofreasons. Lack of equity in terms ofprivilege or in terms of perceivedeffort were common:

"If two people have the same job, that's notfair if one person [gets to work at home]...you know? The jobs are the same, and it'slike if Mary Smith is doing the same thingas me, same job, just different plans, shegets to work from home and I can't, thatdefinitely would I think develop someunhappiness, some tension."

"With the ones who are on these flexibleschedules, with the kids, working at home,we find that very difficult [to believe] thatthey really put in 8 hours… But then that'sjust us, because probably because we arejealous. I mean you know when you haveyour kids there [at home], you're gonna stopand you're gonna do things. You are goingto do the wash and throw a load in. Youknow you are going to do stuff. My hus-band works at home. I know. And he doesn'thave little kids. I mean you know he'll stopto do something. So I know. I see it."

In addition, flexible work arrange-ments may only widen the divisionbetween hourly employees whose jobsrequire set hours and salaried employeeswhose jobs permit greater opportuni-ties for flexible schedules.

34

V I E W S O F E M P L O Y E E S W H O D O N O T U S E F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Chart 25: Likelihood of Getting Same Promotions

(Non-user View)Per

cent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chart 26: Likelihood of Getting Challenging Assignments

(Non-user View)

Per

cent


28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Chart 27: Resentment Among Co-Workers

(Non-user View)

Per

cent


HOW DO EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT USE

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS PER-

CEIVE EMPLOYEES WHO DO USE THEM?

V I E W S O F E M P L O Y E E S W H O D O N O T U S E F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S

35

"I’m an hourly person; they are salaried,and I don’t think it’s fair that I don’tget to do it."

■ 48.4% say that it is more difficult towork collaboratively with employeeswho use flexible work arrangements.

"It’s harder to maneuver and schedulemeetings. It's usually when something isurgent, like you're trying to schedule ameeting, trying to get a group of peopletogether. I think [the telecommuter] isonly here two or three days a week. So it'sreally difficult. And then she's reallybusy when she is in. So I guess it makesthings more difficult sometimes."

"You just can't stop your [work] executionon those two days they’re not there. Lifegoes on. I don't know if some people are asgood at doing that. So when they're not,you know, when they're gone Mondays andTuesdays, and then for two days you'rewaiting,... it can be inconvenient."

■ 19.7% feel that the productivity ofthe work group suffers whenemployees use flexible workarrangements.

■ 30.4% indicate that it is more diffi-cult for supervisors to communicatewith employees who use flexiblework arrangements.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Chart 28: Difficulty Working Collaboratively

(Non-user View)

Per

cent


0

10

20

30

40

50

Chart 29: Effects on Work Group Productivity

(Non-user View)

Per

cent


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Chart 30: Difficulty Communicating With Supervisors

(Non-user View)

Per

cent


Effects of Flexible WorkArrangements on Managers

37

In granting managers the authority toapprove or disapprove an employee’suse of flexible work arrangements, the

company provides managers with amechanism to support employees’ non-work needs. With the pressure to per-form, managers are burdened with theresponsibility of determining whichcandidates will provide the necessaryproductivity outcomes. Each manageris empowered to make decisions basedon his/her perception of what is bestfor the work group and the company.

Managers are very much aware thattheir choices will have an impact ontheir own workload. Employees usingflexible work arrangements who arenot able to meet the work groups'productivity standards put extra pressureon managers, most of whom are

already overburdened in a high pressure, high workload environment.

Arranging Meeting TimesManagers of telecommuters weremore likely to report that they hadtrouble finding times to meet withthese supervised employees than weremanagers of employees using flextime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Chart 31: Difficulty Finding Meeting Times

(Manager View)

Per

cent

Agre

e/St

rongly

Agre

e

8S E C T I O N

"I will tell you that it throws me off balance. I can’t be impromptu andbring the team together for meetings."

Manager’s Work LoadWhile the majority of managersreported that supervising employeeswho use flexible work arrangementsresults in no differences in workload,22.6% indicated that this caused themmore work. There were no differ-ences in the reports of managers ofemployees using flextime and managersof employees using telecommutingregarding the amount of work.

"What also happens is you wind up having...to pick up the slack and not beingas productive as you'd want to be...If youcan agree to it, whether it be a job shareor a telecommute, you're going to have to pick up the extra slack at times."

"I think sometimes when you are missingor you're short handed and all, it's a big[mess], like gee, not only am I doing myjob, I'm doing somebody else's job toobecause you just need to pick up thatslack whenever emergencies do evolve."

Job PerformanceWhen managers were asked about theimpact that supervising employees whouse flexible work arrangements has ontheir own performance, the over-whelming majority of responses wereeither neutral (67.7%) or positive(25.6%). There were no differences inthe reports of managers of employeesusing flextime and managers of employeesusing telecommuting regarding theimpact on job performance.

Work Group ProductivityManagers were asked how much more or less work their work groupaccomplishes because it includesemployees who use flexible workarrangements. The majority of managers(61.2%) indicated that there were noeffects on work group productivity.However, approximately one-third ofmanagers indicated that their workgroup was more productive because itincluded employees who used flexible

38

E F F E C T S O F F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S O N M A N A G E R S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Less Same More

Chart 32: Manager Work Load(Manager View)

Per

cent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Chart 33: Work Group Productivity(Manager View)

Per

cent

Less Same More

HOW DO FLEXIBLE WORK

ARRANGEMENTS AFFECT THE

MANAGER’S JOB?

E F F E C T S O F F L E X I B L E W O R K A R R A N G E M E N T S O N M A N A G E R S

39

work arrangements. There were nodifferences in the reports of managersof employees using flextime and man-agers of employees using telecommut-ing regarding the impact on workgroup productivity.

Tension Between AssistingEmployees to Balance Their Workand Family Responsibilities andMeeting Business Goals Managers were asked about the extentto which they felt a tension betweenassisting their employees with balancingtheir work and family responsibilitiesand meeting the business goals of theirwork group. Most managers (93.6%)reported at least some degree of tension

between these objectives. There wereno differences in the reports of man-agers of employees using flextime andmanagers of employees using telecom-muting regarding this tension.

"I think upper management supportswork/life balance, but I don’t thinkthere’s any leeway for not completing thework that has to be completed. I thinkall of our company believes in work/lifebalance and thinks it’s the right thing.But I also think that when some SeniorVice-President wants something, he doesn’tcare whether somebody is not here todaybecause they’re telecommuting. It’s got toget done."

Implications for Employers

41

The findings from this study suggesta number of important implica-tions for employers as they inte-

grate flexible work arrangements in thework place. Results clearly indicatethat encouraging the use of daily flex-time has the potential to make employeesexperience better balance between theirwork and family lives, as well as greaterjob and life satisfaction. It also haspositive effects on employee productiv-ity, work quality, and retention.

The notion of "daily flextime" as themost positive form of flexibility is a keyheadline from this research, withimportant implications for companiesstriving to be leaders in innovativeworkplace practices. Employees whohave access to daily flextime reportmore positive impacts on productivity

and the quality of their work, and aremore likely to stay with their company.These findings should not come as asurprise to most readers of this report,who probably can attest from their ownexperience that the ability to juggle thedifferent demands in our lives whenneeded is critical. It is therefore quiteunderstandable that when employeesare given some latitude in arrangingtheir time as they see fit, they are likelyto respond by "going the extra mile" toget the job done well.

The issue for companies is how to bestsupport a company-wide commitmentto everyday flexibility. Our experiencehas shown that strong statements ofsupport from key business leaders com-bined with both role modeling andrecognition of key individuals or work-groups is critical. In the best situation,

9S E C T I O N

this comes from the highest ranks ofthe company and is integrated through-out the organization. However, thereare many more examples of companiesin which enlightened business leaderswithin certain pockets of the companyembrace this commitment and make itwork within their own business units.These success stories typically serve as acatalyst for change within other parts ofthe company.

The good news is that the concept ofdaily flextime does not require exten-sive discussion and development ofnew company policies. What may bemost effective, this study shows, is tobroadcast the "business case" benefitsof daily flextime and work with indi-vidual managers to create their ownwork environment that supports thisbroader commitment to flexibility.

Equally important to the finding thatdaily flextime has positive effects is thedata that emerged associated withtelecommuting. Telecommuting,while enjoyed by many of the employeeswho use it, is a much more complexissue. The picture that emerges fromthis study is that:

■ Employees who use telecommutinghave less clear demarcationsbetween their work and familylives. They are more likely to workduring a vacation and experiencegreater time crunch in their lives.They also have a less positivework/life balance.

■ Employees who use telecommutingare less satisfied with their jobs andwith their lives than are other flexi-ble work users.

■ Managers feel that they have poorerrelationships with their telecommut-ing employees, and indicate thattelecommuters are not likely to getthe same promotions and good performance reviews as otheremployees. They also have a moredifficult time scheduling meetings.

■ Employees as well as managersbelieve that co-worker relationshipsare more strained for telecom-muters, and that telecommuters arenot as likely to get the same salaryincreases as other employees.

■ Telecommuters perceive that othersview them as less committed to theirjobs, and report that they are notas likely to get challenging assign-ments as others.

On the other hand, telecommutingdoes offer two important benefits:

■ It allows companies to retain highperforming or otherwise valuableemployees; and

■ It does not decrease productivity.

As such, greater caution is advisedwhen telecommuting is integrated inthe work place. Advice offered by par-ticipants of our focus groups includedthe importance of not enabling anemployee to telecommute for morethan two or three days per week, andlimiting the number of consecutivetelecommuting days. When telecommuting is used, the importanceof being available to managers and co-workers was highlighted. Fortelecommuters themselves, our datasuggest the importance of distinguishingbetween work time and non-worktime. The fluid boundaries betweenwork and family that develop when an

42

I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R E M P L O Y E R S

I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R E M P L O Y E R S

43

employee works out of the home canhave positive as well as negative consequences. Programs that instructtelecommuters on how to create separate physical spaces within theirhome for work and family time areimportant. In addition, creating concrete transitions between worktime and family time are critical.

We encourage companies to use thefindings from this study to help understand the specific challenges andopportunities within their own organi-

zations. Clearly, the results from thisstudy are not reflective of every com-pany or each individual working a flex-ible schedule. What is important isthat flexibility can be a win-win situa-tion for companies and employees.Data from this study highlight thebenefits that ensue when employerscan trust their employees to makedecisions about how their time isspent so that they are as productive aspossible at work and as close to homeas they need to be.

Conclusions, Study Limitations, and Next Steps

45

This study is significant for severalreasons. First, the inclusion ofinformation from people working

in a variety of industries enables findingsto be generalized to a variety of workenvironments. Second, by making thedistinction between different kinds offlexible work arrangements—daily flex-time, traditional flextime, andtelecommuting—this study enables acloser examination of the effects ofdifferent types of arrangements on various workplace outcomes. Third, amore complete picture of the effectsof flexible work arrangements emergesby including the perspectives ofemployees who use the various flexiblework arrangements, their managers,and employees who do not use flexiblework arrangements.

Results highlight the complexitiesassociated with flexible work arrange-ments.

■ Employees using flexible workarrangements were more satisfiedwith their jobs than non-users.

■ Use of daily flextime is especiallylikely to reduce the extent to whichemployees experience time crunchand to increase positive work/familybalance, job satisfaction, and lifesatisfaction. Employees who havethe ability to structure their days sothat they can meet their personaland work obligations have the bestof all possible situations.

■ However, the experiences oftelecommuters are more troubling.Employees who telecommute haveless clear work/family demarca-tions in their lives. They were more

10S E C T I O N

likely to report working duringvacations, experience greater timecrunches, poorer work/family balance, and less life satisfaction.These data suggest that telecom-muting may actually add to thestress experienced by employeeswho are unable to separate theirwork selves from their familyselves. As one telecommuterexplained, having to balance thedemands of her young child withthose of her work all day, everyday resulted in a feeling of exhaus-tion. The additional strain of poorer co-worker relationships andthreats to salary increases make it clear that telecommuting, whilepotentially a positive experiencefrom a retention and employee productivity perspective, can havenegative effects.

■ Employees who were not usingflexible work arrangements identi-fied a significant number of prob-lems with them. These includedresentment of employees using flex-ible work arrangements, problemsworking collaboratively, and nega-tive effects of flexible workarrangements on work group productivity. As such, these resultshighlight the importance of allowingthe opinions of all employees in awork group to be evaluated whenflexible work arrangements arebeing considered.

■ Finally, for many managers, flexiblework arrangements served toincrease workload. Yet, such man-agers often reported positive effectson their job performance and onthe productivity of the work group.

Study LimitationsWhile the results from this study areintriguing, the reader is cautionedabout generalizing findings for the following reasons:

■ The six companies in which the studywas conducted are all "best practicework/life" companies. It remainsunclear whether results can be gener-alized to companies that do not havesuch excellent work/life programs.

■ The number of employees usingtelecommuting was small.

■ The study was only conducted in certain business units within the companies, so it is unclear to whatextent the respondents represent theviews of all employees in the companies.

■ Data were not collected in a waythat the employee survey datacould be linked directly with themanager survey data (i.e., we haveno way of knowing whether thosewho completed the employee surveys are being supervised by the managers who completed themanager survey).

■ Data were collected in a way thatreports from non-users confoundwhether they are referring to employeeswho use traditional flextime, dailyflextime, or telecommuting.

■ Although information was collectedat companies representing diverseindustries, because the number ofemployees and managers partici-pating in the study from each industrywas relatively small, it was not possible to examine the role playedby industry.

■ Employees selected for survey par-ticipation were not selected in anunbiased, random fashion.

46

C O N C L U S I O N S , S T U D Y L I M I T A T I O N S , A N D N E X T S T E P S

C O N C L U S I O N S , S T U D Y L I M I T A T I O N S , A N D N E X T S T E P S

47

Next StepsMany of the findings from this studybeg for greater attention and indicatethe need for the following studies:

■ Replication of this study in companies that include those thatare "new economy," those that arejust beginning to consider enablingemployees to use flexible workarrangements, and those that are small to medium in size.

■ An in-depth study focusing ontelecommuters. Better understandingof the costs and benefits of this

arrangement will aid managementin making decisions about whenand by whom it should be used.

■ Closer examination of other flexiblework arrangements, including part-time work, job-sharing, and com-pressed workweek.

■ Return on investment studies inwhich the bottom line costs to com-panies of enabling employees touse flexible work arrangements areassessed in terms of attrition, training,and retention, with translation intoreal dollar costs.

Study Design

49

Data were collected using a com-bination of in-depth personalinterviews, focus groups, and

self-administered surveys.

A total of 59 personal interviews wasconducted with a variety of workers ineach company, including employeesusing flexible work arrangements (21),co-workers who were not using flexiblework arrangements (13), new employees(13) and exited employees (11). Inaddition, a personal interview was heldwith the director of a department inone of the companies that had imple-mented a successful flexible workarrangement (compressed workweekand telecommuting). The main criterionfor new hires was that they had somefamily responsibilities, and the focus ofthe interview was on the extent to

which flexibility was an attraction to thecompany. Interviews with exitedemployees focused on the factors thatcontributed to their leaving, includingthe role of flexibility, both for the com-pany they left and for the choice theypursued after leaving the company.

Focus groups were conducted withflexible work arrangement users andmanagers of users. A total of 12 focusgroups was conducted, six withemployees and six with managers.These focus groups included 42employees and 36 managers. Of theemployees participating in the focusgroups, 34 were women; of the man-agers participating in the focus groups,26 were women.

The interviews and focus groups wereboth conducted in Spring, 1999.

1A P P E N D I X

Employees were selected to participatein interviews or focus groups by com-pany representatives. Company repre-sentatives who invited employees tojoin the study intentionally soughtthose employees who were affected byflexible work arrangements, eitherbecause they used them or their co-workers used them. Managers whoparticipated in focus groups representeda mix of individuals, some who super-vised flexible work arrangement usersand others who did not.

The survey data were collected fromemployees who reported on their ownexperiences with flexible work arrange-ments and from managers who reportedon their experiences supervisingemployees using flexible work arrange-ments. Surveys were distributed to3,900 employees and 600 managers.Since the intention of the study was tounderstand the ways in which flexiblework arrangements affected the livesof the people using them, their co-workers, and their managers, the ques-tionnaires were not randomly distributedthroughout the companies. Rather,they were purposely distributed toemployees who were known to beusing flexible work arrangements, theirco-workers, and their managers. Infive of the companies, surveys weresent to employees in a single businessunit, and in one company, the surveywas sent to one geographic location(which included more than one busi-ness unit). The criterion for selectionwas that the unit/location needed to

include employees who used flexiblework arrangements. In all cases, surveydata were collected in the same locationwhere interviews and focus groups hadbeen conducted.

Surveys were distributed at the work-place along with a cover letter explainingthe study. These letters were co-signedby representatives of the relevant company and the Boston CollegeCenter for Work & Family’s Directorof Research. Employees returned thecompleted surveys to the Center forWork & Family using postage paid bythe company. Data from employeeswere collected during Fall, 1999; datafrom managers were gathered duringWinter, 2000. A total of 1,511employees (38.7% response rate) and256 managers (42.6% response rate)completed the surveys. Due to thesmall number of surveys returned fromemployees working part-time, workingcompressed workweeks, or participatingin job sharing arrangements, these surveys were deleted from the analysesthat follow, resulting in a total of1,353. While the surveys werereturned from both managers whowere currently supervising employeesusing flexible work assignments andthose who were not, the analyses high-light the experiences of the 151 man-agers who were currently supervisingemployees using these arrangements.

Due to the voluntary nature of surveycompletion and the convenience sam-pling strategy used, we cannot be surethat the data represent either the

50

A P P E N D I X 1 : S T U D Y D E S I G N


51

companies participating in the study orthe individual units where the datawere collected. Furthermore, it shouldbe noted that information provided inthis report cannot be used to estimatethe prevalence with which flexible workarrangements are used, either in thecompanies participating or generally.

The data collected via surveys, in-depthpersonal interviews, and focus groupscomplement one another. While thesurvey data provide important quanti-tative information about the employeesand managers who participated in theproject, the interview and focus groupdata provide rich details and more in-depth understanding of their experiences.

Characteristics of SurveyParticipantsTable 1 presents demographic informa-tion about the 1353 employees partici-pating in the survey. Employees rangedin age from under 25 to over 65. Theoverwhelming majority was White, andmost had at least a college degree.Close to half of the respondents had achild under age 19 living in their house-hold; 15.8% were responsible for eldercare. One-way commute times rangedfrom under 15 minutes to more than anhour, with the majority of respondentsspending between 16 and 44 minutescommuting to work. Participantsreported working a mean of 50.6 hoursper week, with hours worked per weekranging from 40 to 96.

52


TABLE 1 . — CHAR AC TERIS T ICS OF EMPLOYEES

(n=1353) (n=1353)

Gender

Male 48.3%

Female 51.7%

Age (years)

< 25 3.5%

25-34 30.4%

35-44 37.9%

45-54 22.0%

55-64 5.8%

65+ 0.4%

Highest Level of Education

High school or less 12.3%

Associate degree 12.5%

College degree 35.8%

Advanced degree 35.4%

Missing 4.0%

Ethnicity/Race

White (not of Hispanic origin) 83.2%

Black (not of Hispanic origin) 4.1%

Hispanic 2.7%

Asian 7.2%

Other 2.8%

Marital Status

Single 28.4%

Married 67.2%

Missing 4.4%

Household Income

< $25,000 0.9%

$25,000-$49,999 11.6%

$50,000-$74,999 23.8%

$75,000-$99,999 25.5%

$100,000-$149,999 25.1%

$150,000-$200,000 8.0%

> $200,000 4.9%

Current position

Office 12.0%

Professional 57.3%

Production 2.8%

Customer service 8.3%

Management 13.5%

Sales 2.4%

Other 3.7%

Children under 19 in household

(yes) 45.8%

Elder care responsibilities

(yes) 15.8%

One-way commute time

<15 minutes 14.4%

16-30 minutes 31.3%

31-44 minutes 22.3%

45-60 minutes 22.1%

>60 minutes 10.0%

Hours worked per week

(mean) 50.6


53

Table 2 depicts characteristics aboutparticipating managers. Most weremale and ranged in age from 35 to 44.The majority of managers had earnedadvanced degrees and had been workingfor their company for more than 10years. Managers typically had been in

their current jobs 3 to 5 years. Mostcharacterized themselves as middlemanagement. The managers super-vised an average of 3.2 employeesusing daily flextime, 5.0 employeesusing traditional flextime, and 1.2employees using telecommuting.

TABLE 2 . CHAR AC TERIS T ICS OF MANAGERS

Gender

Male 70.7%

Female 29.3%

Age (years)

< 34 10.6%

35-44 53.6%

45-54 24.5%

55-64 11.3%

Education

High School or Less 3.3%

College 31.1%

Advanced Degree 64.2%

Race

White (not of Hispanic origin) 86.8%

Black (not of Hispanic origin) 4.0%

Hispanic 3.3%

Asian 5.3%

Other 0.7%

Tenure at Company

Less than 5 years 21.2%

5-10 years 11.9%

More than 10 years 66.9%

Years in Current Job

Less than 1 year 17.9%

1-<3 years 28.5%

3-<5 years 25.2%

5-<10 years 17.9%

More than 10 years 10.6%

Management Level

Direct Line 22.4%

Middle Management 66.0%

Upper Management 11.6%

(n=151) (n=151)

Characteristics of the CompaniesThe companies participating in thestudy provided their employees with awide range of work-life benefits. Allprovided employees with work-liferesource and referral services, and allhad either on-site fitness rooms ornearby facilities. Most provided a lactation room and financial aid foradoption. Three of the companiesprovided on-site childcare.

At the time that data were collected,none of the participating companieshad a universal flexible work policy.Some of the companies were in theprocess of developing policies and

documenting the procedures thatwould be used to enable employees touse flexible work arrangements. Oneof the companies offered a "flexiblework arrangement proposal kit" to aidemployees in putting together a proposal and to guide negotiations.However, awareness of this kit waslimited among employees. Whilesome of the companies were openlysupportive of employees using flexiblework arrangements, others permittedonly some employees to use them anddiscouraged their usage from becomingcommon knowledge among otheremployees.

54


About the Companies

55

The participating sponsors of thisstudy joined the project for arange of reasons, including the

need for benchmarking data, informa-tion about the barriers to implementa-tion of flexible work arrangements,information about how flexible workarrangements can be used to attractand retain valuable employees, anddata to help them strategize aboutprogram institutionalization.

The National Work Life MeasurementProject, a first-of-its-kind cross-companystudy owes its success to the willing-ness of these six organizations to opentheir doors to the Boston CollegeCenter for Work & Family. The statements that follow were written by company representatives.

AMWAY CORPORATION Amway has become one ofthe world’s largest directselling companies through

its support of a business plan thatallows Independent Business Owners(IBOs) to affiliate with the companyand achieve their personal goalsthrough their own efforts. Founded in1959 by Jay Van Andel and RichDeVos, Amway today is a global busi-ness with 53 affiliate markets support-ing the efforts of nearly 3 million IBOs.

With today’s rapidly evolving workenvironment, Amway Corporation istaking proactive steps to create effectivework/life policies. Our company’s goalis to create a work environment thatsupports our business strategy and

2A P P E N D I X

enables our employees to maintain abalance between their work responsibil-ities and personal lives. The NationalWork Life Measurement Project provid-ed us in-depth and objective feedbackbased on benchmarks among otherleading US corporations.

Amway has always been proud of itshistory as an employer of choice.However, as Amway Chairman SteveVan Andel stated: "It’s not sufficientto be on a list that says we are one ofthe best place to work. It’s moreimportant that our employees believethat Amway is the best place to work."

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANYBristol-Myers SquibbCompany is a $20 billion diversified globalhealth and personal care

company whose mission is to extendand enhance human life. Bristol-Myers Squibb is a leading maker ofinnovative therapies for cardiovascular,metabolic and infectious diseases, central nervous system and dermatological disorders, and cancer.We also are a leader in consumer medicines, orthopedic devices, ostomycare, wound management, nutritional supplements, infant formulas, and hair and skin care products. For more information on Bristol-MyersSquibb, please visit our web site athttp://www.bms.com.

Our number one growth priority is todevelop the depth, breadth and diversityof global leadership talent at everylevel throughout our company. Eachof our 54,000 employees is committedto "fostering a company-wide culture

that encourages excellence, leadership,innovation and a balance between ourpersonal and professional lives," asexpressed in the Bristol-Myers SquibbPledge. The National Work/LifeMeasurement Project offered an excel-lent opportunity to assess the value ofour dependent care programs, policies,and services in meeting this commit-ment. It was also an opportunity tocollaborate with other leading companies in the work/life arena sothat we could deliver a broader perspective of research that willadvance the field. The results fromthe National Work/Life MeasurementProject will enhance our ability to create a work environment that helpsour employees and our bottom line.

HONEYWELL Honeywell is a US$24-billion diversi-

fied technology and manufacturingleader serving customers worldwide,employing approximately 120,000people in 95 countries. The companywas formed in December 1999 withthe merger of two global leaders,AlliedSignal and Honeywell, Inc.

You can’t see most of our products,but you can count on them. Your safeflight might depend on our collisionavoidance and traffic control systems,wing ice and wind shear sensors,autopilots and landing systems. Ourcontrol systems keep your home andoffice at just the right temperature.Our chemicals for pharmaceuticalshelp safeguard your health. Our spaceage fibers make body armor bullet-resistant. And, as leading makers of

56

A P P E N D I X 2 : A B O U T T H E C O M P A N I E S


57

safer substitutes for CFC’s, we helpprotect the earth’s ozone layer.

To better integrate business goals withemployee goals, we set out about threeyears ago to find the "employee win."One of the most powerful things weheard from employees is that the way asupervisor or manager interacts withthe employees on his or her team is themost important factor in an employee'sexperience of the company. All theprograms and policies in the worldwon't make a difference if you don'thave a supervisor who creates an envi-ronment where there is trust andemployees feel respected and can accessthe information and resources that areright for them — when they need it.

We wanted employees to feel that whatthey get from their association withHoneywell can't be matched by anyother company. We needed to delivermore value to our people for each dollar we spend, and we didn't want tospend more. We focused our programsaround the kinds of help that fit ourpeople and our environment. What weembarked on was not a quick fix-it wasa long-term strategy.

Honeywell participated in theNational Work/Life Measurementproject because we wanted to measuretwo things: 1) the impact on produc-tivity that supervisor’s relationship haswith an employee and, 2) the valueour employees put on several programenhancements we put in place threeyears earlier through an initiativecalled "Total Value."

We rate our improvement throughemployee satisfaction results, surveys

such as the work/life measurementproject, marked improvements in ourretention rates, and through bettercustomer satisfaction and labor pro-ductivity. The Boston CollegeNational Work Life MeasurementProject helped us to better understandour people's challenges and to measurethe impact that our initiatives have ontheir work and personal lives.

KRAFT FOODS, Inc. Kraft Foods, Inc. isthe North Americanfood business of

Philip Morris Companies Inc. Ittraces its history to three of the mostsuccessful food entrepreneurs of thelate 19th and early 20th centuries: J.L.Kraft, Oscar Mayer, and C.W. Post.Today, Kraft Foods is the largest U.S.based packaged food company in theworld with some of America’s best-loved brands such as Kraft cheeses,dinners and salad dressings, OscarMayer meats, Maxwell House coffees,Post ready-to-eat cereals, Jell-Odesserts, Kool-Aid beverages,Philadelphia cream cheese, Tombstonepizza, Stove Top stuffing mixes, andMiracle Whip salad dressing.

To reach Kraft’s goal of UndisputedLeadership in the Food Industry, Kraftmust be considered by its employeesto be the "employer of choice". Toreach that goal, Kraft Foods is focusingon improving employees’ satisfactionwith their work and life.

As a result of a recent Philip MorrisWorldwide employee survey, indicatingthat work/life was an area aboutwhich Kraft Foods employees were


most concerned, Kraft is concentratingefforts on work/life in much the sameway the company focused on diversityseveral years ago. Some of the keyissues that Kraft Foods is strugglingwith are how to get employees to takeadvantage of work/life policies andprograms currently in place and howto create a culture that is more accepting of using these policies.

The National Work/Life Measurementproject is a tool to understand theimpact of work/life programs onemployees satisfaction with work life,as well as a manual that will provide ablueprint for implementing measure-ments of work life satisfaction at KraftFoods. This project provided KraftFoods with three important outcomes:1) provide direction for futureWork/Life programs; 2) gain a betterunderstanding of the barriers that slowor prevent work life initiatives frombeing successful; 3) develop andimplement ongoing measures toensure we meet employees needs.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES LucentTechnologiesdesigns and

delivers the systems, software, siliconand services for next-generation communications networks for serviceproviders and enterprises. Backed bythe research and development of BellLabs, Lucent focuses on high-growthareas such as optical and wireless networks; Internet infrastructure; com-munications software; communicationssemiconductors and optoelectronics;

Web-based enterprise solutions thatlink private and public networks; and professional network design andconsulting services. For more infor-mation on Lucent Technologies, visitits Web site at: http://www.lucent.com.

Lucent has created a high performancework environment, where employeesembody the company to customers.We recognize that an important com-ponent of such an environment is tohave a workplace that is open, supportiveand diverse. To that end, we surveyall employees annually to better understand how employees experienceand perceive the work environment.In the National Work/LifeMeasurement Project, we saw theopportunity to take a closer look athow specific work/life programs areviewed by employees, and the extentto which such programs increaseemployee commitment. Participatingin the project provided a unique wayto simultaneously obtain internal,company specific information andexternal benchmark data, all collectedwithin the same framework. Thestudy will also give us, and the businessworld at large, concrete evidence ofthe importance of supportive management and the benefits that acompany can reap. We plan to use theresults of the study and the toolsdeveloped in the process to educateLucent managers of the intrinsic valueof programs that support work/lifeissues and to encourage all Lucent colleagues to adopt practices that contribute to the success of ouremployees and, therefore, our company.

58


59

MOTOROLA, INC . Motorola isextendinghuman capabili-

ties by providing integrated wirelesscommunication and embedded elec-tronic solutions for the individual, thework-team, the vehicle, and the home.The new Motorola develops and deliversnew ways to meet people’s insatiabledesire to communicate. We are one ofthe leading architects of a world with-out wires, without borders, withoutlimitations.

In a world where wireless is pervasive,the wireless Internet offers a newworld of personal networking. Forbusiness enterprises and governmentagencies, it offers flexibility to bettermanage their communications systems.With the convergence of voice, video,

and data, Motorola is focusing onbroadband solutions that deliver inter-active television, Internet, and tele-phone services. In a world whereembedded systems are proliferating,we make things smarter, simpler, safer,and more synchronized. Motorola iscommitted to being the link betweenpeople’s dreams and technology’spromise.

Motorola is committed to providingwork/life policies and programs thatwill increase employee productivity,attract and retain key talent, and helpemployees balance their professionaland personal lives. We are aware ofthe necessity to provide quantitativemeasurable data to substantiate thatthese programs and policies are indeedvalue added.

References

61

1.Bond, James T., Galinsky, Ellen, & Swanberg,Jennifer E. (1997). The 1997 National Studyof the Changing Workforce. Families and WorkInstitute: New York, NY.

2.Hannah, Richard L. (1994). The tradeoffbetween worker mobility and employer flexibility:Recent evidence and implications. EmployeeBenefits Journal, 19(2), 23-25.

3.Hohl, Karen L. (1996). The effects of flexiblework arrangements. Nonprofit Managementand Leadership, 7(1), 69-86.

4.Christensen, Kathleen E. & Staines, Graham L.(1990). Flextime: A viable solution towork/family conflict? Journal of Family Issues,11(4), 455-476.

5.Galinsky, Ellen, Bond, James T., & Friedman,Dana E. Families and Work Institute. (1996).The role of employers in addressing the needsof employed parents. Journal of Social Issues,52(3), 111-136.

6. Shinn, Marybeth, Wong, Nora W., Simko, PatriciaA., & Ortiz-Torres, Blanca. (1989). Promotingthe well-being of working parents: Coping, socialsupport, and flexible job schedules. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 17, 31-55.

7.Thomas, Linda T. & Ganster, Daniel C.(1995). Impact of family-supportive work vari-ables on work-family conflict and strain: A con-trol perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,80(1), 6-15.

8.Dalton, Dan R. & Mesch, Debra J. (1990).The impact of flexible scheduling on employeeattendance and turnover. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 35, 370-387.

9.Grover, Steven L. & Crooker, Karen J. (1995).Who appreciates family-responsive humanresource policies: The impact of family-friendlypolicies on the organizational attachment ofparents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology,48, 271-288.

10. McCampbell, Atefeh Sadri. (1996). Benefitsachieved through alternative work schedules.Human Resource Planning, 19(3), 31-37.

11. Shepard, Edward M., Clifton, Thomas J. &Kruse, Douglas. (1996). Flexible work hoursand productivity: Some evidence from the phar-maceutical industry. Industrial Relations,35(1), 123-139.

3A P P E N D I X

measuring the impact of workplace...

Documents