ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

Does workplace flexibility and, specifically, working from home support workers’ wellbeing and facilitate work-family reconciliation? Or do those practices create overload, increase stress, and amplify gender inequality? Erin Kelly, Professor of Work and Organization Studies at MIT) has recently been in touch with Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��'s Future of Work hub (of Institutions for Open Societies) and shares her findings and thoughts on the topic.

Prof. Kelly is one of the authors of the book (co-authored with Phyllis Moen, Princeton ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� Press, 2021). Kelly and colleagues conducted a field experiment in a US Fortune 500 firm to evaluate a “work redesign” approach to flexibility, in contrast to the “accommodation” approach prevalent in the U.S. before the COVID-19 pandemic. This strategy increased remote work, with many pursuing what we now call hybrid work models, with benefits for employees, their adolescent children, and the firm.

She also has been studying German data on the relationship between working from home and work-family conflicts, wellbeing, job satisfaction, engagement and turnover intentions. Prof. Kelly and co-authors demonstrate the importance of distinguishing “replacement work-from-home” and “extension work-from-home,” showing that a more nuanced operationalization of working from home practices reconciles puzzles from previous research.

1.    What kind of practices typically create an overload? 

In our book, my co-author Phyllis Moen and I describe overload as the subjective sense that there is too much to do at work given the resources (such as your own time or other staff) available. Overload is evidence of high work demands but we describe a few practices or behaviors that often create this sense that work is spinning out of control. Those are working long hours, being available to respond to work questions or tasks at any time (“always on”), and multi-tasking or splitting your attention across work tasks. In some workplaces, people feel pressure to do all of that and also feel pressure for “face time” or being in the office certain hours.

2.    What is a major difference in work flexibility before and after the COVID-19 pandemic?

We will have to wait and see. Certainly, we have had the opportunity to see that many jobs can be performed at home. I believe that research suggests that what we now call “hybrid” work is likely most effective for both employees and for organizations. Our pre-COVID study showed that giving employees the opportunity to choose their work practices, in the context of team discussions about when, where, and how people work, is beneficial to both employees and their company. That suggests that the “hybrid” model that we build now should incorporate both latitude or control on workers’ part and explicit coordination within teams. Research also points to a real risk that those who work from home most will pay a price in terms of career advancement, so we need to actively monitor to be sure that isn’t happening particularly because women may seek out flexibility more often and so there’s a risk of reinforcing gender inequality.

3.    Can you highlight one distinction that is very important between replacement work-from-home and extension work-form-home? 

The key distinction is whether someone is doing work at home during their regular or contractual hours or whether that work at home is bleeding into time that they would have called personal or leisure time previously. 

4.    Is working-from-home the same in the US as it is in Europe? 

This is a great question and one that we should investigate more, particularly as we move forward with new data capturing the late-pandemic or post-pandemic period. But I see two ways that working from home in the U.S. is perhaps more challenging than the same practices would be in most of Europe. In the U.S. there are fewer employment laws or collective bargaining agreements that address contractual hours or expected hours. Additionally, employees in the U.S. can generally be fired for any reason or for no reason (in a system called “employment at will”). This policy context means that employees do not have standardized schedules, so what we call extension work-from-home is more likely to happen, and they often feel pressured to try to protect their jobs by doing almost anything that is asked of them, including accepting work tasks or meetings at odd times or working long and variable hours. Many American workers (especially in professional and managerial positions) feel pressure to demonstrate their commitment and value by being available almost any time, in order to keep their jobs or have a better chance to move up. 

5.    Is work redesign something we should do as a team? Or in the entire organization? Job requirements might vary a lot?  

The model that I’ve studied in depth was a team model but the process can happen either for a whole organization or for specific departments or teams. It is important to ask when, where, and how work is getting done – so the specifics of what the job tasks are and how coordination needs to happen are considered alongside employees’ preferences for working a certain schedule or at home. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution in a work redesign initiative, but there is a standardized process for having team discussions, setting new norms, and trying things out with the goal of supporting both employees’ lives and strong performance.

Erin L. Kelly and Phyllis Moen
Princeton ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� Press
ISBN: 9780691179179 
First Published: March 17, 2020