When talking about work+life solutions, formal flexible work arrangements tend to get the most attention. It’s easy to forget that for most of us, most of the time, an official change in when, when and/or how we work isn’t the answer. All we need is a small adjustment in our work+life reality to make a big difference in our well-being. This is a story of how a parking space transformed one woman’s work+life fit.
I recently met Donna at a conference. She’s been with the same employer for over 20 years, but for the last five years, she’s worked full-time while caring for a husband who has Alzheimer’s disease. Even though a caregiver comes to her home everyday, it’s not unusual for Donna to have to leave the office, often unexpectedly, a couple of times a week during the day to coordinate her husband’s care. Whether it’s taking him to a doctor’s appointment or helping the caregiver deal with a challenge, she makes the 30 minute round-trip drive home.
Luckily her boss and team have been very supportive and understand her need for flexibility. She confessed that the problem was, “The lack of midday parking close to my office building.” Getting a parking space near the office wasn’t difficult in the morning, but if she needed to leave in the middle of the day, “I’d find myself driving around for an extra 30 minutes searching for an open space, or parking almost a mile away and then walking 20 minutes. Believe it or not, the worry of not being able to find a parking space if I needed to leave was taking a toll. I’d panic about whether or not I’d get back in time for a meeting and would rush out of the house or a doctor’s appointment earlier than I should have just in case.”
A few of months ago her boss asked if there was anything else he could do to support her. He encouraged her to consider reducing her schedule. She explained that working full-time wasn’t the problem, “The problem is the lack of parking if I need to leave in the middle of the day for an hour, and I’m not sure there’s much you can do about that.”
A couple of weeks later, her boss came back into her office and said, “Donna, Jim is retiring and his reserved spot in the lot next to the building is opening up. Even though there’s a waiting list, we’ve all agreed that you should take it. And we’re waiving the annual fee of $750 usually charged the person’s P&L for the parking space.”
She laughed, “You’d have thought I’d won the lottery. Knowing that parking space is there waiting for me whenever I need it makes all the difference in the world. I know I can go and get back without having to worry. My stress level is way down which is good for everyone, especially my husband. And all it took was a $750 a parking space…imagine.”
What are some of the small changes you’ve seen make a big difference in the way either you or someone you know manages their work+life fit?
The celebration of our country’s independence this past weekend made the harrowing Twitter and blog posts of the resistance movement in Iran even more poignant. As they continue to challenge the legitimacy of that country’s elections and crack the foundation of the theocratic regime, it’s important to remember the role of “social media” in our own painful, violent birth. Iran’s bloggers and Twitterers are the modern-day offspring of the American Revolution’s pamphleteers.
More than 230 years ago, ordinary citizens across the colonies printed and distributed the passionate words of “amateur” writers to shape public opinion and galvanize the independence movement virally. Like the Iranians, these colonial social media pioneers faced violent suppression from a powerful ruling class. But their simple pamphlets proved to be even more powerful. They offer hope not only to the courageous Iranians, but to anyone interested in harnessing the collective for change.
My grandmother first introduced me to the bravery of the American Revolution’s pamphleteers through stories about one of my ancestors, Samuel Loudon. In addition to publishing the newspaper The New York Packet, he was part of the underground network that printed and distributed pro-independence pamphlets This included the a popular response to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense for which, legend has it, Loudon was tarred and feathered.
This description of pamphleteering from 1940 by Homer Calkin for The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, could be about the blogs of today, “From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century the pamphlet was the chief instrument to carry one’s ideas to the public…The pamphlet, forerunner to the newspaper, was well adapted to this use because it was small and cheap and could reach ‘a larger audience than the orator in the House of Commons.’”
These childhood tales of how Samuel Loudon’s pamphlets changed the world may have helped me recognize the potential of blogging in early 2006 when I started my Work+Life Fit blog, way before most people even knew what a blog was. At the time, I was frustrated. For more than a decade, I’d been part of a vibrant, dynamic field that helped organizations and individuals partner to flexibly and creatively manage work and life. Yet the broader world had no idea the field existed much less how our work could help them. I wanted to change that.
Now, Twitter. It’s been six months since I joined Twitter(@caliyost), and I’m equally as impressed by its power to share information, create community and drive change. Tweeting for the pamphleteers of the Revolution would have meant printing and distributing eight to ten short 140 character statements daily. Impossible. But that’s what’s different about Twitter—it’s quick. It’s fast. It’s real-time. It doesn’t replace the thoughtful, longer form writing of a blog post. Twitter augments it by allowing you to:
“Follow” People from Different Industries and Cultures: Twitter keeps the ongoing struggle of the Iranian protestors alive for me, even as the coverage in newspapers and network television trails off. I’m in New Jersey, but I’m connected. On Twitter, I’m following and am being followed by an international group of work life experts, journalist/authors, musicians, HR experts, social media gurus, career experts, publishers, astronauts, tattoo artists, environmentalists, eldercare experts, elder caregivers, financial planners, moms, dads, and students, just to name a few. I learn from and “retweet” or share their often thought-provoking and informative tweets everyday, and am better for it.
Share Information Quickly, Instantly: I can sit at my desk, read an interesting article, blog post or tweet from someone else and within 20 second share it with my network. And then watch as others in my network “RT” or retweet what I’ve sent out.
Read Each Person’s Twitter Bio: Every time someone follows me or I reach out to follow them on Twitter, I love reading their bio. Even though a bio on Twitter is only a couple of sentences long, it’s amazing how much unique personal and professional information people include. It confirms what a wonderful, complex world we live in where no two people are the same.
Get Updates Related to Personal Interests: Here’s a benefit of Twitter I didn’t expect but value. So far I’ve linked to a person who lives in Lancaster, England and goes to Lancaster University, the school I attended for a semester in college. Fun to get his updates. I feel like I’m right back in the Lake District. I also follow a newspaper reporter who covers the beat that includes the town in Maine where my grandparents lived for many years. Through them, I’m linked to two different parts of the world that were very meaningful to me.
Join Virtual Community: Where did I share my surprising grief on the day Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died? Twitter. As the news spread, people where shared their shock and often funny memories real-time.
As the Revolutionary War pamphleteers proved, even the earliest forms of social media can bring democracy to life in the face of the most powerful foe. Hopefully, this will be the outcome in Iran, as long as the global community continues to hear their voices. In my own work, I’ve seen the power of blogging and Twitter to share and expand the work life discussion and sustain meaningful change. What’d your passion? How can social media help you connect and spread the word?
At the beginning of June, swine flu or H1N1 hit my daughters’ school in full force. Thankfully, everyone survived the outbreak, but what about next time? Experts predict that we haven’t seen the last of H1N1, or its more troublesome sibling H5N1, better known at bird flu. In a recent Washington Post article, John M. Barry, a scholar at the Center for Bioenvironmental Research at Tulane and Xavier Universities and author of the book, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” wrote:
“There have been four pandemics that we know about in some detail: 1889-92, 1918-20,, 1957-60 and 1968-70. All four followed similar patterns: in initial sporadic activity with local instances of high attack rates—just as H1N1 has behaved so far—followed four to eight months later by waves of widespread illness with 20 to 40 percent of the population sickened. Subsequent waves followed as well. In all four pandemics, lethality changed from wave to wave—sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing. It’s impossible to what will happen this time.”
If this pattern holds, some time between October, 2009 and February, 2010 we could face an even stronger more widespread epidemic. Over the past month, I’ve been awestruck, in a creepy, skin-crawling way, by how fast the virus moved through one population, and then began to infect other grades and schools in the district as siblings and friends exposed one another. I watched the challenges public officials, parents and doctors encountered as they grappled to coordinate a response. It makes me very afraid for the next go round. Here are a couple of the observations that surprised me:
It happens so quickly it’s hard to get in front of the outbreak. The first official notification that something was amiss in the school arrived via an email from the Superintendent on Monday, June 1st:
“The school district is continuing to monitor the potential outbreak of H1N1 cases in our school community on a daily basis…Student absenteeism rates across the district have been close to normal, with the present exception of one elementary school. Following a field trip to Philadelphia last Wednesday, a high number of 5th graders are now home with flu-like symptoms. We have briefed health officials on this development, and will monitor attendance closely in the days ahead.”
But that was three days after the first unofficial signs something was wrong began to travel through the all-powerful “moms network.” On the Friday after the Wednesday field trip, my 5th grader came home from school and told me that half of both fifth grade classes were out of school sick. Clearly something was wrong, and she was running a low grade fever. Soon phones buzzed with symptoms that sounded very similar. Over the weekend, more cases emerged and people began to wonder if they should keep their kids home.
Unfortunately, the school district wasn’t looped into the informal network. So by Monday they were greeted with a big problem that was too far gone. The exposure had occurred. The H1N1 horses were out of the barn, and the county stopped testing once swine flu was identified in the school. Eight days late on June 9th, we received this email update:
“There are now four confirmed cases, all of which were from a cluster of students tested on June 2. These students experienced mild flu symptoms, stayed home for seven days, and have now returned to school. Attendance rates at the elementary school have improved dramatically in the past five days. The Junior School is now experiencing a higher than normal rate of absenteeism”
Parents lie because they need to go to work and can’t afford to have their child home for 7 days which undermines containment efforts. Maybe it’s a combination of economic fear, and a lack of paid vacation days but more than a few parents admitted that they’d sent a child who had exhibited flu-like symptoms to school before the 7 days mandated by the district. The reason for most, “I can’t afford to miss work.” Trust me, I was doing the happy-dance when my daughter’s fever went away in 24 hours and she exhibited no other symptoms. So I understand their struggle.
The number of kids with flu-like symptoms who returned to class two or three days later got so bad that the district began to require doctor’s notes vouching that the illness was not the flu. Some schools in other neighboring districts did close in an effort to get in front of the virus. I’m beginning to think that may be the only response if we do experience a more intense second-wave later this year.
But then what about these parents and their jobs? Will a school closure qualify under FMLA even if your child isn’t sick? Will parents risk losing their jobs? From a public health policy perspective especially in this economic environment, does the government need to pass legislation protecting parents if schools are shut down because of H1N1?
Telecommuting/telework needs to become more commonplace and widespread. If the history outlined above is an indicator, waves of H1N1 will continue for at least two years. But what if more workplaces decided to telecommute at the first signs of an outbreak? What if entire cities told employees to work from home for a week? Would that cause the virus to die out faster? Technology gives us a powerful weapon in the form of telecommuting to combat the flu that didn’t exist in 1889-92, 1918-20, 1957-60 and 1968-70. Let’s use it. Here are some excellent resources for managers and individuals who want to learn more about how to work remotely:
Our H1N1 outbreak was mild, but it provided a disturbing preview into how ill-prepared we are to deal with a deadlier, more potent challenge in the near future. Mother Nature’s given us a trail run. We have four to eight months to prepare given what we’ve learned. The question is, will we? What do you think?
We know that the HR community recognizes the importance of work+life flexibility, but what about the people who drive the financial decisions, and write the checks. Is work+life flexibility on the radar screen of CFOs? Is it a core strategic lever for responding rapidly to unexpected economic challenges, and for addressing future trends well in advance? If not, why and how can that change?
The publication of the article and the important insights the CFOs offered couldn't come at a better time. Eighteen months ago global corporate line leadership had a chance to use a broad range of work+life flexibility strategies to respond to the brewing economic crisis, and for the most part they didn't. Early on, they missed the opportunity to consider how they could reduce costs and sustain revenue by being more flexible in where, when and how the business and employees operated. Specifically, they overlooked how to use a combination of flexible scheduling, compressed workweeks, furloughs, sabbaticals, telecommuting, reduced schedules, and job sharing to help employees become more productive, reduce labor costs while minimizing layoffs, cut real estate overhead, lower operating expenses, as well as improve and expand customer service. This was a costly and unnecessary oversight that we can't afford to repeat.
The key findings from the CFO survey outlined in the World at Work Journal article offer guidance into what we can leverage and do differently to make work+life flexibility a more integral part of both the short-term and long-term decision-making process:
Good news: they get it!: CFOs recognize the broad, potential business impacts of work+life flexibility, or flexibility in how, when and where work is done.
Bad news: most can't do much about it because of a lack of formal flexibility policies/procedures and leadership buy-in: Only 13 out of the 100 CFOs report working for an organization with a formal approach to flexibility in place and with a leadership team that sees work+life flexibility as a strategy for managing talent, workflow and resources. The remaining CFOs either work for organizations without a formal approach to flexibility and/or have a leadership team that considers flexibility to be an perk/benefit. Both factors seriously limit the CFOs ability to use work+life flexibility as a lever to execute a rapid response to a business challenge.
We need to do a better job:
"Brand" work+life flexibility upfront as a business strategy for managing talent, resources and workflow within the culture and the day-to-day operating model.
Involve business line leaders in the development and implementation of formal work+life flexibility strategy from the beginning. HR can't be the sole champion. For broad buy-in and understanding, a work+life flexibility strategy must be developed for the business, by the business with HR as a key partner in the process.
Implement work+life flexibility more effectively, to overcome organizational and personal obstacles that stand in the way.
Work+life flexibility needs to be one of the strategic levers that all leaders pull out of their back pocket to manage short-term crises and long-term trends. As the recovery simmers, flexible alternatives to labor cost savings can limit additional layoffs. Some experts predict that oil prices will rise substantially as an economy begins to improve. In both cases, strategic work+life flexibility can be part of the solution.
The recent swine flu epidemic wasn't as disruptive as predicted, but what about the next time? We'll need work+life flexibility. Then there's the aging population. We know it's happening, let's start planning. How can companies retain retiree talent, attract younger employees, and deal with potentially overwhelming eldercare issues? Flexibility. Environmental sustainability may have taken a back seat in the economic crisis, but the need to change how we fundamentally operate remains unchanged. The answer in part: work+life flexibility.
Let's hope the wisdom and experience shared by the CFOs makes flexibility in how, when and where work is done a part of the solution.
Great news... 90% of economists in a recent survey by the National Association of Business Economics predicted the recession will over by the end of 2009! But hold the champagne. These same economists saw unemployment rising as high as 10.7% in the second quarter of 2010, plus:
Historically, jobs lag behind a recovery as employers wait until the last possible moment to ensure the rebound is sustained. As a recent Hewitt Associates study of 518 HR leaders found, even though most believe an upturn will start by year-end, many are “contemplating additional cuts.”
In other words, we are not out of the woods in terms of layoffs; therefore, it’s a perfect time to revisit flexible downsizing strategies to minimize job cuts. As I’ve pointed out for more than a year in numerous posts (20 Reasons to Promote Flexible Alternatives to Layoffs) , reduced schedules/salaries, furloughs, unpaid vacation, job sharing, sabbaticals, telecommuting and compressed workweeks allow companies to manage labor and operating costs without having to let as many people go (for specific examples check out the recently updated Downsizing Flexibility Champions Honor Roll). If a recovery is starting to simmer, it makes even more sense to try to hang on to your people, rather than scrambling for talent when business begins to pick up.
According to a recent Watson Wyatt survey, U.S. employers increased their use of reduced workweeks and mandatory furloughs; however, as with any innovative approach to tackling a problem, there are challenges to the wisdom of these flexible alternatives.
Concern #1: Employees won’t go for it.
When I started writing about flexible downsizing to reduce job cuts in early 2008, the first response was, “Sounds good, but employees won’t go for it.” So, I decided to find out by including questions in our nationally-representative 2009 Work+Life Fit Reality Check survey of full-time employees conducted by Opinion Research Corp at the end of March (+/- 4% margin of error).
We found that 9 out 10 full-time employees said they would be willing to accept a change or reduction in their schedule, or take a pay cut to avoid layoffs. Here’s the breakdown of the specific flexible downsizing options from which respondents could choose (there was no statistically significant difference between men and women):
78% Four-day workweek, but the same amount of hours worked
59% Add additional unpaid vacation days to the year
59% Take one to two weeks unpaid leave, known as a furlough
48% Share your job with another individual
47% Reduced hours with reduced pay
41% Work on a project basis as a contractor
41% A pay cut, but the same amount of hours worked
31% Take a month or more unpaid sabbatical
5% None of these
Are people going to jump for joy when their schedule changes or if they make less money? No, that’s unrealistic. But, I find there’s a pragmatic understanding that these are extraordinary times. And most people, perhaps begrudgingly, will make trade-offs to keep their jobs. One conclusion from the data is that not everyone is interested in the same option. Therefore, organizations might want to include a broad range of cost saving flexibility in any downsizing strategy and let managers and employees choose the options that work best for the individual and the business.
Concern #2: You don’t save money and you will lose your top talent, therefore, the answer is to cut poor performers.
To understand these arguments against salary reductions and furloughs, read “Taking the Easy Way Out—Cutting Hours to Reduce Costs is Not the Answer” on the fistfuloftalent.com blog, and “Employee Furloughs Can Be a Bad Alternative to Layoffs” on the www.ere.net website. Their primary points are that 1) salary reductions and furloughs are an excuse to avoid the tougher yet necessary step of layoffs, and 2) your top talent won’t tolerate flexible downsizing and will leave for greener pastures, so it’s better to lay people off and not ask for a shared sacrifice.
Review the many thoughtful responses to these posts in the comments section on each site. You will see a majority agree with me that these arguments against salary reductions and furloughs miss the point for the following reasons:
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU AREN’T SUPPOSED TO LAYOFF POOR PERFORMING EMPLOYEES. Sorry for the brief outburst, but the assumption that advocating for the use of flexible alternatives to cut costs somehow condemns all layoffs is simply not true. Targeted cuts of under-performing employees are necessary; however,…
We’re hitting flesh and bone: Many organizations are now to the point where they’ve cut the under-performing fat and are starting to target solid performers. Assuming you are not in an industry undergoing a fundamental restructuring, flexible downsizing strategies let you keep at least some of the good people whom you would otherwise have to lose, which makes sense given the predictions of a potential rebound.
Layoffs mean more work and stress for those left behind, even top performers. Yes, with furloughs, high performing employees take a pay cut and need to temporarily step-in and cover for others when they are out. But with layoffs, those who remain may make the same amount of money, but they are permanently covering for people who are no longer there. This is an indirect pay cut and is causing a documented rise in stress for many.
Of course, how you implement a flexible downsizing strategy matters. I provided implementation tips in a recent BusinessWeek article, “Making Pay Cuts Less Painful,” by Michelle Conlin. I also shared some “how-to” steps in Marci Alboher’s Working in the New Economy Yahoo blog. The way you implement any organizational change matters. It’s the key to minimizing the negative impact and recognizing the operational benefits, especially related to top performers. There are other ways, beyond salary, to compensate and reward your most valuable people. And you need to give back even a percentage of lost compensation as soon as you can or, yes, people will leave.
Layoffs cost more—directly and indirectly—than flexible downsizing. The cost-benefit of lay-offs versus flexible downsizing is something I’ve given a lot of thought to in previous posts (here and here) and I have to say I disagree with the push back that you lose more money with pay cuts, furloughs, etc. and save more money with lay-offs. I’m open to having my opinion challenged, but so far nothing I’ve seen has changed my mind. CV Harquail writes in the Authentic Organizations blog that “CEOs leave money on the table when they choose layoffs.” In fact, an interesting post in The New York Times’ Moral of the Story blog by Randy Cohen takes the cost a step further and argues the potential immorality of layoffs.
Concern#3: It doesn’t work for exempt, salaried employees and gives them an hourly mentality.
Yes, identifying a give back of hours worked to match a reduction in salary is easier with non-exempt workers. However, it can still be done with exempt staff but the process will be as much art as science. For example, a team takes a 10% pay cut. The manager sits down with everyone to figure out what a 10% reduction in time at the office might look like for that particular group. Say the group works an average of 50 hours a week. Each person determines how they could reduce their time by 5 hours a week. Depending upon their job and type of work, some might choose to come in an hour later everyday, others might choose to leave an hour earlier, or take a half day on Fridays. The key is that the team decides together and then supports each other.
The question I’ve gotten in response to this suggestion is who’s going to do work? My answer: First, if you have so much work that people who are being asked to take a 10% pay cut can’t reduce the amount they are working by 10% then I would seriously reconsider why you are pursuing layoffs or salary cuts in the first place. That being said, maybe your issue isn’t a reduction in workload but price pressure that’s squeezing your margins. Even then, this is a perfect time to eliminate redundant meetings, and unnecessary face time, and work. Having a team get together and figure out how they can reduce their hours by 10% prompts overdue innovation and process improvement. And even if they only get a 5% reduction in workload and time in the office, at least it’s something.
Concern #4: Legal and benefit impacts make flexible downsizing difficult.
Absolutely, there are legal and benefit considerations associated with many flexible-downsizing options; however, with some awareness and creativity none of this issues are insurmountable (here, here and here).
A recovery may be on the horizon, but employment doesn’t have to be a lagging indicator that rises above 10%. With an alternative approach to managing costs, employers who are starting to cut into the muscle and bone of their operations can hold on to the talent they will need to hit the ground running—and, who knows, maybe make the recovery happen sooner.
Learn more about the “how to” of flexible downsizing:
Join me, Sandra O’Neal, Principal, and Ravin Jesuthasan, CFA Managing Principal of Towers Perrin for the World at Work webinar, “Flexible Downsizing—Striking a Balance Between Cost and Workforce” on June 23rd from 12:00 to 1:00 pm EST/ 9:00 to 10:00 PST where we will:
Cover lessons learned as we examine the results of labor cost controls during past recession
Discuss the wide range of flexible options and the cost/benefit of each
Share an understanding of practical applications and considerations for the use of flexible options, and how to execute a wide-range of flexibility strategies.
Over the past two weeks since we released the thought-provoking results of the 2009 Work+Life Fit Reality Check, I’ve been asked by a number of people what I think the findings mean. To me, the results confirm that it’s time, once and for all, to move the conversation from “If work life flexibility exists,” to answering the questions:
How to make it really work for everyone, individuals and employers, in boom and doom periods and
Why flexibility is important for both employee work+life fit but also the day-to-day operation of the business.
Before we move forward, it’s important to note that these results are based on a telephone survey of 757 full-time employed adults, sponsored by Work+Life Fit, Inc. and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. With a margin of error of +/- 4 percent, this means that 95 out of 100 times the results would be within the +/- 4% if the total population were interviewed.
Flexibility in How, When and Where Work is Done is Here to Stay—“If Flex” is no longer the question
98% of respondents indicated they currently have work life flexibility.
81% of respondents indicated the amount of flexibility they currently have either increased or stayed the same from this time last year.
85% said the flexibility opportunities at their company either increased or stayed the same last year.
85% reported there was either an increase or no change in the likelihood they would use work life flexibility with the increase in the amount of layoffs at companies.
As Kathie Lingle, Executive Director of Alliance for Work-Life Progress commented in response to these findings, “Workplace flexibility has repeatedly demonstrated a remarkably tenacious streak during previous economic downturns. Erroneously labeled ‘soft’ by the uninformed, flexibility practices appear to be holding their own in these particularly tough times. Flexibility requires little to no monetary investment because at its core, it’s a management philosophy. It may morph and adapt, but it will most definitely survive.”
Understandably, these findings about the resilience of flexibility are somewhat counter-intuitive in the face of the worst recession in a lifetime. I have heard , “I find those results hard to believe given that we are hearing anecdotally that people are afraid to ask for anything.” Let’s think about how we defined work life flexibility in the survey: “Having flexibility in when, where and how you work. It allows you to flexibly allocate time and energy between your work life and personal life.”
To me this says that people do have flexibility, but perhaps it’s not exactly the flexibility they would want (we will talk more about this in a minute). For example, someone may want to reduce their schedule, and they haven’t pursued it, but they do have day-to-day flexibility or the ability to telecommute.
The important point is that the flexibility exists. It’s not the foreign concept that it might have been even five years ago. Are there organizations that don’t offer any flexibility? Sure. Are there employees who don’t have any? Sure. But the findings show that these examples are no longer the norm. They represent a minority, and the primary focus can now shift to broadening the business case for flexibility and improving implementation so it really works for everyone.
Broadening the Business Case – Expanding the Answer to the Question “Why Flex?”
The findings also point to an opportunity to broaden the business case for work life flexibility especially since 9 out of 10 people surveyed said they would accept a change or reduction in their schedule or take a pay cut to avoid layoffs. Those strategies are also traditional types of flexibility, but here they are initiated to deal with a business challenge that otherwise would mean job cuts.
For the past twenty years, flexibility in the form of reduced schedules, sabbaticals, and job sharing has primarily been driven by employee-need. What this survey says is employees understand that these same flexible ways of working can also fulfill a business-need. In other words, when sales are down, companies aren’t being paid as much for goods and services and it’s harder to borrow money, flexibility helps employers cut operating and labor cuts, but keep jobs. (Note: let me reemphasize that I am not saying layoffs will never happen; however, having alternatives to job cuts helps when companies start cutting into flesh and bone which many are starting to do.)
After studying and writing about this issue for over a year, I believe the willingness of both male and female respondents to sacrifice pay and schedule to manage through the recession with their jobs intact is less desperation than pragmatism and shared sacrifice.
This recession is an opportunity for flexibility to finally come in from the “nice thing to do, perk and benefit” wilderness and become a standard part of the way the business operates, and a standard part of the way people manage their work and life in up and down cycles.
We may see another current example of the operational application of work life flexibility as part of disaster preparedness in dealing with the potential impact of the swine flu. Companies that are already comfortable with telecommuting will continue to operate even if everyone works from home. Those that aren’t won’t. Again, same traditional flexibility, just applied to meet a business need.
“How Flexibility…” or How to We Make Flexibility Really Work to Achieve Goals of Employees and the Business?
If work life flexibility is now a given, and the broad personal and business impact is understood, then implementation becomes more important than ever. But, right now, it’s not happening, as evidenced by the following findings from the survey:
Yes, 98% of respondents said they had work life flexibility, but 66% indicated that they would have improved or used that flexibility had it not been for one of a number of challenges or reasons. In other words, they have it, but it could be better. And the prime culprit cited was their “type of job” (42%). We need to focus on aligning which types of flexibility will work for which jobs, as well as making the way work is done inherently more flexible so the type of job becomes less of a barrier. These are implementation issues.
9 out of 10 employees say they would be willing to accept a change or reduction in their schedule or take a pay cut to avoid layoffs, but are 9 out of 10 companies incorporating flexibility into their downsizing strategies? Not from what I’ve been able to tell from my research. Authentic Organizations blogger and former Darden Business School professor, CV Harquail, tried to determine how many CEO’s were leaving “money” on the table because they weren’t being more flexible in their cost-cutting, and found that many were.
As the survey of 100 top CFOs we conducted last summer found, they understand at least some of the broad bottom line applications of flexibility. The breakdown occurs in the implementation with only 13 out of the 100 saying their organization has a formal approach to flexibility in place, and a senior leadership team that sees flexibility as a strategic lever. The remaining 87% either have no formal approach in place and/or have a senior leadership team that sees flexibility as a nice perk which makes execution against a business objective difficult if not impossible.
So that's my macro-analysis of the findings. What do you think? Do you agree that “If flexibility” is no longer the question, and we need to turn out attention to “why and how?” Join me for the next few weeks as I dive deeper into each one to uncover further the picture that emerges.
(Note: please forgive the funky font issues in the post--can't figure out what's going on)
Last week, the state and regional unemployment figures increased again, and CEOs at the nation’s largest companies predicted more layoffs. All of this took place just in time for the release of the 2009 Annual Work+Life Fit™ Reality Checksurvey results which found that 94% of full-time employees were willing to save their jobs by changing or reducing their schedule, or taking a pay cut. The Work+Life Fit™ Reality Check is a telephone survey of a national probability sample of 757 full-time employed adults, sponsored by Work+Life Fit, Inc. and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation March 26 – 30, that has a margin of error of +- 4 percent. Other key findings included:
Nine in ten employees (90%) reported the recession has forced them to change their employment plans including nearly half saying they’re less likely to take a career break, for example to care for children or aging relatives.
But what has not changed during the economic downturn is work life flexibility. Most companies continue to offer the same or an increased amount of opportunities, and most employees reported their flexibility use has either increased or stayed the same during the past year.
More than half of those surveyed are optimistic that during President Obama’s administration that there will be new national legislation or programs that would make it easier for organizations to offer, and for individuals to have, more work life flexibility.
What does all of this mean? In means, that regardless of economic boom or doom, work life flexibility is here to stay. Instead of focusing on whether or not flexibility exists, our attention has to turn to figuring out how to use flexibility to help manage our businesses and our lives, both of which are forever changed by this recession.
Change My Schedule, Cut My Hours or My Pay Before You Cut My Job
In order to save their jobs and help their employers reduce costs, nearly 8 in 10 employees would be willing to work a compressed work week, while nearly 60 percent would take additional unpaid vacation days or furloughs (several weeks off without pay). Nearly half would share their jobs with colleagues (48%), or take a cut in both pay and hours (47%). A little more than 4 in 10 would take a pay cut but work the same amount of hours or switch to a project-based contractor employment status (41%). Just under a third say they would take a month or more unpaid sabbatical.
For organizations that looked first at who they could cut instead of how they could change by using workplace flexibility missed an opportunity to reduce labor, operations, equipment, real estate and health care costs. As blogger CV Harquail points out in an excellent post on the subject, they’ve “left money on the table.” And future revenues are at risk, too, because organizations will not be fully staffed when the economy improves. For example, the mortgage industry was one of the first to shed jobs. Now they can’t keep up with refinancing demands. Opportunity lost.
Again, CEOs at the nation’s 61 largest companies last week reported they expect more job cuts. That’s the highest level noted since 2002 when the Business Roundtable began the quarterly CEO survey. The fact is that layoffs will always be a possibility. And it’s not an all or nothing choice—flexibility or layoffs. Hopefully, at some point, the 61 CEOs and other leaders planning job cuts will learn that a five percent layoff can sometimes cost more than a five percent pay cut. All options need to be considered, and according to the research, a majority of employees would be willing to support a variety of flexible approaches.
The same kind of flexibility that can be used to manage labor costs can also save other expenses. BDO Seidman, LLP, a national professional services firm, sees workplace flexibility as more than a way to minimize layoffs. Flexibility is the way BDO runs their business.
The firm’s CFO, Howard B. Allenberg, estimates, “If our BDO Flex strategy allows us to reduce our space requirements or not take on as much additional space by just five percent going forward, we could save more than $1.7 million per year in office and equipment rentals and related occupancy costs.”
The Recession Has Minimal Affect on Work Life Flexibility Offerings or Use
Only 2 percent reported they currently do not have any work life flexibility. Of the 98 percent who do, nearly 20 percent reported they have more work life flexibility now than at this time last year while 62 percent said they had the same and only 17 percent reported less. Overall:
98% of respondents indicated they currently have work life flexibility.
81% of respondents indicated the amount of flexibility they currently have either increased or stayed the same from this time last year.
85% said the flexibility opportunities at their company either increased or stayed the same last year.
85% reported there was either an increase or no change in the likelihood they would use work life flexibility with the increase in the amount of layoffs at companies, proving that job insecurity, for an overwhelming majority, has not scared employees away from flexibility.
“Workplace flexibility has repeatedly demonstrated a remarkably tenacious streak during previous economic downturns,” according to Kathie Lingle, Executive Director of Alliance for Work-Life Progress. “Erroneously labeled ‘soft’ by the uninformed, flexibility practices appear to be holding their own in these particularly tough times. Flexibility requires little to no monetary investment because at its core, it’s a management philosophy. It may morph and adapt, but it will most definitely survive”
Flexibility is surviving the recession. Other surprising findings given the economic climate included:
While 66% said they didn’t improve or use flexibility for one or more reasons, this was a decrease from 71% in 2007.
Only 22% said fears about losing their job kept them from using or improving their work life flexibility, and
Fewer respondents, when compared to previous years’ findings, let concerns about making less money, hurting their career, and/or the perceptions of others get in their way of flexibility. Interestingly, women (38%) were significantly more likely than men (28%) to report being challenged by the fear they might make less money.
That doesn’t mean, however, more can’t be done. Employees reported the most difficulty with how to make flexibility work with the type of job they have (42%). Every job is flexible in some way, but we need to improve the process for matching flexibility with the job, and finding more flexible ways work can be done. (Click here or more detailed findings).
Recession Forces Dramatic Changes in Employment Patterns but Working More Doesn’t Have to Mean Less Flexibility...It Will Mean More
While the recession has had little effect on work life flexibility, it has forced 90 percent of those surveyed to change their employment plans. Nearly 60 percent expect to stay with their current employer longer than first planned (58%) and do some form of work during retirement (58%). More than half (56%) reported saving more and spending less in anticipation of future job changes. And, in what could have significant consequences for child and elder care, 47 percent are less likely to voluntarily leave the workforce for a period of time. Women (56%) were significantly more likely than men (40%) to say they are less likely to voluntarily leave workforce.
This means that both businesses and individuals face unprecedented financial demands, but that doesn’t mean there has to be less workplace flexibility. In fact, it’s the opposite. There will need to be even more effective flexibility—not just access, but real meaningful use by individuals and businesses. We need to learn how to structure and use flexibility so it meets personal and business goals. As the research shows, flexibility is not about working less, it’s about working differently. That’s what most people want, and business needs.
When employees were asked about the type of workplace flexibility they would like to use in the coming year, 8 in 10 wanted the “occasional” opportunity to adjust their schedule (71%) or work from a location other than their office (57%). And even of the 73 percent that said they’d like to make their work life flexibility arrangement “official,” only 12 percent wanted to work fewer hours.
Employees are Optimistic about President Obama’s Support
More than half (56%) of those surveyed are optimistic that during President Obama’s administration there will be new national legislation or programs that will make it easier for organizations to offer, and for individuals to have, more work life flexibility. Women (62%) are significantly more optimistic than men (51%), and more women (67%) than men (55%) believe there should be such legislation or programs.
What do you think? For the next few weeks, I will be blogging in both this and my Work+Life Fit blogs about specific findings. I hope you will chime in and share your opinions. To me, the survey confirms that our work+life reality has been changed fundamentally by the recession. We need to start talking about the ramifications that will last long after the recovery begins. Join me in the discussion.
Today, the Department of Labor reported that first time jobless claims not only rose faster than expected but they were 72% higher than this time last year and reached levels not seen since October, 1982. With this news as a backdrop, it’s fortuitous that Marci Alboher, one of my favorite career experts, interviewed me in her new Working the New Economy blog on Yahoo! Shine for a post entitled “Negotiating an Alternative to a Layoff: 5 Questions for Cali Yost."
Unfortunately, some layoffs are unavoidable. But if leaders considered flexible alternatives as part of downsizing, they would lower costs while retaining as much valuable talent as possible to work through this great recession.
As I determined which links from my blog to include in Marci's interview, I realized how much I’d written over the past year laying out the business case for flexible downsizing. Since unemployment is a lagging indicator to a recovery, unless we change course, layoffs will likely continue at these historic levels. To inspire creative thinking on the part of organizational leaders and to support employees who want to present flexible cost-saving options to their manager, I’ve recapped in one place all of my posts related flexible downsizing as an alternative to layoffs--I hope the information provides some fact-based ammunition to reconsider job cuts as the only and best option, because they aren't in many cases:
Announcement:Alfred P. Sloan Awards for Business Excellence in Workplace Flexibility is now accepting applications for an “at large” national award to honor organizations that are successfully using flexibility to meet both business and employee goals. Deadline to apply is May 1, 2009.
“Gone Fishin’” – I’m going on vacation (yeah!) so I will see you back here on Wednesday, April 15th rested and ready to blog!
Professor Tom Davenport of Babson College recently wrote an interesting post on blogs.harvardbusiness.org entitled, “Is Forced Time Off Fair?” He challenges the “fairness” of flexible labor cost savings strategies such as reduced schedules/salaries, unpaid vacation days, job sharing, and furloughs. And he warns of unintended consequences like losing people who don’t want to participate. While he raises points worth considering, even most of the commenters responding to the post on the site agree—these alternatives may not be completely “fair” but they are necessary in many cases, and are certainly better than layoffs.
Professor Davenport starts off by saying,
“One of the common approaches to dealing with this recession is for companies to ask—well, tell—employees to take time off without pay every week or two. This 10 or 20% haircut is supposed to indicate that ‘we’re all in this together,’ and that it’s better for everyone to suffer a little than lay some people off. While I have sympathies with this philosophy, I’m not sure it’s either fair or wise.”
A “common” approach? Unfortunately, it isn’t common enough
There was a glimmer of good news a couple of weeks ago. Watson Wyatt released a study that found the number of companies saying they were going to cut jobs decreased from the previous quarter. However, as the recession drags on, the pressure to manage labor costs will continue especially since employment is a lagging indicator to a recovery.
As I have written numerous times, a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis clearly shows that the benefits of layoffs are limited. Even more companies should be considering alternatives to layoffs that lower labor costs but retain employees. For inspiration, check out the Downsizing Flexibility Champions honor roll.
What’s “fair” when hard choices have to be made to save labor costs?
Professor Davenport uses Boston’s Beth Israel hospital’s decision to cut salaries to avoid layoffs as a cautionary tale. He believes it will potentially drive more valuable employees to better-paying hospitals across town. Would those same valuable employees be more eager to stay at Beth Israel making their full salary with a demoralized skeleton staff of nurses, lab technicians, and janitors due to layoffs? And are we sure the hospital across town isn’t going to experience the same challenges? Layoffs may allow some people to keep making the same amount of money, but the research shows (here and here) that the direct and indirect costs of those layoffs (here) are often far greater and undermine potential labor cost savings.
The difference between a “forced” versus “flexible” mindset
Okay, let’s talk about language and mindset. Isn’t it interesting how different labor cost savings strategies sound when referred to as “forced time off” as opposed to to “flexible alternatives to layoffs.” The concept of fairness also rests in whether or not you see reduction in your salary, unpaid vacation days, or a furlough, as something “forced” to be resisted, or something “flexible” that makes sense for a period of time given prevailing business realities.
Here’s something to consider…I agree with experts like John Kotter who say that we are in an era where rapid change, whether positive or negative, is going to be the norm not the exception. This will require more flexibility on the part of businesses to nimbly manage costs and resources. And people who work for these organizations will also need to be more flexible in how they manage their careers, work schedules, and pay. Perhaps in this environment the mindset that expects wage consistency all of the time, forever needs to shift. Periodic, hopefully temporary, “hair cuts,” as Professor Davenport calls them, may be necessary.
Finally, having a back-up or secondary source of income might not be such a bad idea
If indeed we are in a period where change is a constant, perhaps it is wise to consider developing a secondary source of income. Professor Davenport raises concerns that employees who “freelance, e-lance or moonlight to replace lost income” could find this other career more appealing, or do this other work during business hours. As workplace expert and author Marci Alboher, advises having a “/” career or one that has many facets might be a smart strategy in today’s world. It allows you to flexibly work with your employer while giving you an extra source of income.
So, while I appreciate that Professor Davenport raises red flags to consider, flexible alternatives to layoffs that lower labor costs while minimizing job cuts aren’t just a matter of fairness. They are a matter of creative survival not only in this recession, but in responding to future business challenges and opportunities that will require a flexible, rapid response by employers and employees.
What do you think? What role should the issue of “fairness” play in pursuing flexible alternatives to layoffs?
Since February, 2008 when I first encouraged companies to consider using flexibility—reduced schedules, furloughs, sabbaticals, additional unpaid vacation days, job sharing and contract-based work—as an alternative to layoffs, I’ve gotten the same response from managers, “That’s great, but what about the health benefits I still pay for if I use flexibility?” It’s the fly in the ointment of an otherwise straightforward business case in favor of using flexible alternatives to reduce labor costs while minimizing job cuts. So what’s the answer?
However, as I outlined last week, the cost/benefit argument shifts dramatically in favor of flexible alternatives when you pull back the lens and add in all of the direct and indirect costs incurred from layoffs (see table below), which can range from 150% to 250% of an employee’s compensation. In other words, laying someone off who makes $50,000, actually costs $75,000 to $125,000, especially since the research shows that many organizations continue to hire or rehire during and after job cuts.
Bottom line: By using flexible alternatives to reduce labor costs, you still have the expense of health benefits, but you avoid incurring the costs related to job cuts that a far greater. For inspiration about how flexibility can minimize layoffs, check out the updated Downsizing Flexibility Champions list, and for "how to" steps to get started go to worklifefit.com/blog.
