I was reading a blog post the other day on flexibility in the workplace and one of the very first comments, as it always seems to be, is that with the new realities of the economy many companies will likely reduce the possibilities for flexibility. So depressing to think of but I just don’t understand WHY that necessarily needs to be the case.
I’m not saying anything new here to point out that everyone, in an age of layoffs, is working much harder. So perhaps on the side you want to start an endeavor that “feeds your soul”. Or perhaps you want to have dinner with your kids and then do 2 hours of work after they’re in bed. If at the end of the day, you are productive, I don’t understand why the economy affects that-because jobs are so few and far between that we should all be happy to have what we have? I really don’t think we’re back at that yet, are we? And are companies so short sighted that they are willing to wring what they can out of people for short term gain?
There are so many people that I meet through the course of Detours&OnRamps who don’t look for new jobs, and stay where they are (perhaps making less) because a company bent over backwards for them when they came back after a maternity leave. Or even because a company met them halfway. You know someone in that situation-perhaps you ARE someone in that situation. Loyalty seems to me to be what companies should strive for? And how many companies can say that a little bit of flexibility yields a LOT of loyalty-and productivity-in return? I’d venture to say ANY company that employs flexibility could say that.
Here’s a great article I just read…and my favorite line from it, is “It will be tough to convince very good people to work for organizations that do not allow flexible work”. Because what is flexible? I don’t think a lot of folks these days are looking for the opportunity to be paid full-time for 8-12 hours of work. The women (and it’s largely women, but men too) that I talk to day-to-day for Detours are working a lot more than 40 hours (and I’m not including all the work of raising kids). In fact, I remember recently sitting at a meeting with a consulting client. They asked how much I wanted to work, and I looked back over recent weeks and (shockingly, even to myself) realized that I’d been working about 65 hours a week (including time after kids were in bed, weekends, etc). I was on my computer ALL DAY for Detours projects, marketing consulting work, this and that. I don’t feel like I am working that much, except for the days that I TOTALLY do. But the point is there’s some flexibility and I make it work-and the productivity is there.
I think another interesting thing in this article is the point that a lot of people hold multiple jobs. I remember the woman that worked for me at my last “real gig” made about $1500 a month selling Arbonne–on top of her Marketing Manager job. My cousin makes if not half, at least a third of her income freelancing art projects on the side. Two examples and I know there’s so many more. (And if playing Rock Band was a job, my husband would have that front and center on his resume). It’s either supplementing a salary, a chance to do what you love, or whatever reason-but points to the fact that companies in some fashion have to adapt-regardless of a bad economy, you can’t “unring the bell” after people get used to doing things on the side (that aren’t a conflict), etc.
Speaking of unring the bell-when the gas prices were so high and companies were encouraging more folks to work from home, and it totally worked, than why would a “bad economy” make telecommuting less viable? I just think it is so old-school-thinking to automatically equate “work from home” with “slacking off”. Telecommuting is completely doable for almost every job. So why such a struggle to make it happen?
At the end of the day this article at least made me feel that there were some other people thinking the same way-and hopefully, even the bad (but improving??) economy won’t negate all the progress we’ve made with work-life balance.
