Flexible working and unintended benefits

Fast paced modern life

Back in 2001, I wrote "Time Out: the case for time sovereignty" with Richard Reeves. We argued that organizing work by time rather than task arose from and belonged to the Industrial era. In the past, work was organized by task and we made a case for organizing work in the future in a more flexible way.

There are very good reasons for questioning the time structure and schedule of work. Not least, because it challenges the simple equation of hours in equals productivity. It questions whether there is a linear match between longer hours and more productivity. We all know that there is a point where working more is not the same as working smart or efficiently. In addition, measuring work by hour in rather than output can encourage behaviours like presenteeism. This is when people are present, their bums are in their seats, but they are not actively engaged in their work.

Since 2001, the campaign for work-life balance has raised our awareness of these issues. For the most part, it is well known that the long hours culture of workplaces and nations affects stress, health, even communities as "time-poor" households are absent from social obligations. There seems to be a growing awareness of flexible work options such as organizing hours annually, allowing teams to assign shifts, and of course, working remotely. The point is that more control over time makes workers happier.

Knowing all this, I was pleasantly surprised recently to read an article which argued that these flexible working practices have an unintended green benefit! How great is that - happy workers and a happy planet!

Juliet Schor points out that there is an environmental impact of the long hours culture in terms of commuting and lifestyle choices made by the time-poor. The time-poor eat out more, travel more, and are not involved in communities. Using a case study from Utah, she notes that 17,000 staff were switched to a 10 hour day, 4 day week. This allowed offices to be closed one day a week, commuting to be reduced and as a consequence, a 13 percent reduction in state's energy costs and a decline in greenhouse gas emissions.

And there was reduced absenteeism and overtime and since this is about happy people too, 82% want to keep the compressed work week.

Happy people, happy planet. A great example of what can happen when we start thinking outside the box, such as the standard industrial work day.

--- Judith

back to J2 Research