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

Findings from the National Work Life Measurement Project

Boston College Center for Work & Family

The authors would like to express their sincereappreciation to the participating sponsors ofthe National Work Life Measurement Project:Amway Corporation, Bristol-Myers SquibbCompany, Honeywell, Kraft Foods, LucentTechnologies, and Motorola, Inc. By openingtheir doors to this study, these companies havenot only contributed to the strategic planningof their own work/life policies and programs,they also have made an enormous contributionto the work/life field. Special thanks for theircontributions to the evolution of this report,feedback on the original research design, andfacilitation of project implementation.

Thanks to our partners whose support, talent,and determination made this research reportpossible. They are: Cindy Leep*,Administrator, Employee Benefits at AmwayCorporation; Stacey Gibson, Director ofWork/Life Diversity at Bristol-Myers Squibb;Susan Hofman, Vice President for GlobalDiversity at Honeywell; Greta Schutt, Directorof Diversity at Kraft Foods; Joan Fronapfel,Staff Manager, Work and Family Programs atLucent Technologies; and Rick Dorazel, VicePresident for Global Rewards at Motorola.

We also want to thank our seven corporatepartners who provided critical financial sup-port to the project without participating inthe data collection. They include MarthaMuldoon* at BankBoston, Toni Dara-Infanteat Goldman Sachs, Kathy Hazzard at JohnHancock, Margaret Kraemer* at Levi-Strauss,Sandra Borders at The New England

Financial, Julie Foshay at Textron Systems,and Aimee O’Donovan at Wainwright Bank.

Special thanks to the Center for Work & Familyresearch team members -- who shared theirextraordinary skills and insights, making thecompletion of this project possible—including:Kathleen Jenkins, Tom Leavitt, and CindyThompson. We are grateful to Ellen Bankert,Brad Googins, and Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes fortheir early work in conceptualizing this projectand helping to get it off the ground.

Thanks also to our colleagues at the Centerwho assisted with the format and productionof this report, including Kathy Lynch, BethFredericks, and Ellen Bankert. We also greatlyappreciate the efforts of the research assistantswho worked on this project: Nicholas Leydon;Elizabeth Lodise; and Stephanie Wade.

We are grateful to Jonathan Brill, Ph.D.,Director of Product Strategy and Researchwith CMP Internet Group, for his editorialguidance and assistance throughout the prepa-ration of this report.

Finally, without the many individual employeesat Amway, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Honeywell,Kraft, Lucent Technologies, and Motorolawhom we interviewed and surveyed, thisreport never could have been written. We areindebted to them for their time and openness,and sincerely hope that the findings presentedin this report will make a positive contributionto enhancing their work/life balance, as well asthe lives of their fellow employees.

Acknowledgments

*Note: these individuals have since left these companies for other positions.

About the Center

The Boston College Center for Work & Family is a research organization within the Carroll Schoolof Management that bridges the academic research community to the workplace. The Center’sguiding vision is to gain increased understanding of the challenges faced by both employees andemployers in meeting the goals of the individual and the enterprise. The Center conducts basic andapplied research studies and analyzes secondary information sources. The Center’s activities focuson research, employer partnerships, and information services.

Contributing StaffAuthors Rachel Pruchno, Ph.D.; Leon Litchfield,

Ph.D.; Mindy Fried, Ph.D.

National Work Life Measurement Project Mindy Fried, Ph.D., Director, and Co-

Principal InvestigatorLeon Litchfield, Ph.D., Co-PrincipalInvestigator

Research Team Kathleen Jenkins, Tom Leavitt, CindyThompson

Marketing and Communications Kathy Lynch

Graphic Design Thomas J. Payne

Table of ContentsSection One Executive Summary 1

Section Two Background and Objectives X

Section Three Characteristics of Users and XNon-users of Flexible Work Arrangements

Section Four Accessing and Using Flexible XWork Arrangements

Section Five Contrasts Between Users and Non-users Xof Flexible Work Arrangements

Section Six Views of Employees Using Flexible XWork Arrangements and Their Managers

Section Seven Views of Employees Who Do Not XUse Flexible Work Arrangements

Section Eight Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements Xon Managers

Section Nine Implications for Employers X

Section Ten Conclusions, Study Limitations, Xand Next Steps

Appendix One Study Design X

Appendix Two About the Companies X

Appendix Three References X

1

People make choices about how to spendtheir time as a function of both their per-sonal and work/life needs. For many

years both business leaders and the public atlarge have heard anecdotal reports thatemployees who are given opportunities towork more flexibly are more dedicated andproductive employees and are better able tomanage their lives outside of work. TheBoston College Center for Work & Family, inpartnership with six major corporations, con-ducted a two-year research project to assessthe impact of workplace flexibility. Resultsfrom this study now make available empirical-ly-based information to support this experi-ence, concluding that in most cases greaterworkplace flexibility is a win-win situation forcompanies and the individuals they employ.

A Closer Look at FlexibilityPrevious studies of the effects of flexible workarrangements typically have not distinguishedthe findings by type of flexible work arrange-ment. Rather, they generally have combinedinformation about employees who use a vari-ety of flexible work arrangements, includingpart-time work, job-sharing, telecommutingand shorter workweeks. In contrast, thisstudy more closely examines and distinguishesthe effects of three forms of flexible workarrangements being used by employees work-ing full time jobs:

The Case for Daily Flextime Results reveal that the most promising form offlexibility is daily flextime. While there is still aplace for more traditional forms of flexiblework arrangements, companies can be even

Executive Summary

1S E C T I O N

2

more successful by embracing a broader com-mitment to flexibility. The same dynamics thatare requiring companies to be more nimble inthe marketplace hold true for today’s work-force. The world is more complicated, thepace of life has dramatically quickened, anddemands on time are greater. Companieshave found they need to be much betterequipped to adapt quickly to this changingworld and employees are coming to the sameconclusion.

Companies that create work environmentsallowing for this daily flexibility are findingthat their commitment is paying off.Employees using daily flextime are more likelyto say that this flexibility has a positive impacton their productivity, quality of work, andtheir plans to stay with the company. Forindividuals, the findings are equally exciting.Employees working flexibly are more satisfiedwith their jobs, more satisfied with their lives,and experience better work/family balance.

The Challenges of Telecommuting Experts in the area of telecommuting havelong warned of the potential problems withtelecommuting, if not managed appropriately.The data gathered through this study confirm

■ Traditional flextime, defined as working aschedule that has start and end times thatthe employee has chosen and includes cer-tain core hours determined by the supervi-sor or organization.

■ Daily flextime, in which employees work aschedule enabling them to vary their workhours on a daily basis.

■ Telecommuting, in which employees conducttheir work off-site for some portion of their coreworking hours. The location of work may bethe employee's home or satellite office.

that telecommuting arrangements, as they aretypically construed, pose the greatest numberof problems for employees relative to otherforms of flexible work arrangements.Compared with both daily flextime and tradi-tional flextime users, telecommuters workmore often while on vacation, rate theirwork/life balance and life satisfaction signifi-cantly lower, believe they have more negativerelationships with their managers and co-work-ers, and are less committed to their jobs.Employees who telecommute are less likely toreport that telecommuters are viewed as com-mitted to their jobs, and are more likely tobelieve that telecommuters do not get thesame challenging assignments than are man-agers who supervise employees who telecom-mute. Managers who supervise employeeswho telecommute are more likely to believethat telecommuting has negative effects onemployee-supervisor relationships and are lesslikely to feel that telecommuters get the samepromotions and performance reviews as otheremployees than are employees who usetelecommuting.

Project BackgroundThe Boston College Center for Work & Family conducted this research in collabo-ration with six companies, including:

■ 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, the project providesfirst-of-its-kind comparative data about theimpact of flexible work practices in differentindustries. Second, by including information

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

3

from both users and non-users of flexible workarrangements, the study is uniquely positionedto examine perspectives of diverse team mem-bers. Third, because the study includedreports from managers as well as employeesusing flexible work arrangements, it providesthe opportunity to examine the more far-reaching effects of flexible work arrangements.Data for the study were collected using sur-veys, in-depth personal interviews, and focusgroups, allowing for meaningful analysis ofboth quantitative and qualitative responses.

STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

Impact on CompaniesAccording to both users of flexibility and theirmanagers, there are several business-relatedadvantages of flexible work practices, mostnotably in the areas of productivity, quality ofwork and retention.

Productivity70% of managers and 87% of employeesreported that working a flexible arrangementhad a positive or very positive impact on pro-ductivity.

Quality of Work65% of managers and 87% of employeesreported that working a flexible arrangementhad a positive or very positive impact on qual-ity of work.

Retention76% of managers and 80% of employees indi-cated that flexible work arrangements havepositive effects on retention.

Impact on ManagersIn addition to overall positive outcomes forthe companies, the direct managers ofemployees working flexibly reported favorable

results in relation to their own work. 75% ofmanagers reported no change in their ownworkload, while nearly all believe that workgroup productivity and their job performancewas the same or better.

Impact on EmployeesUsers of both daily flextime and traditionalflextime reported many positive outcomes. Inmost instances, employees using daily flextimewere most positively impacted while telecom-muters reported the least positive effects.

Work-Life BalanceUsers of traditional flextime and daily flextimereported better work-life balance than bothnon-users and telecommuters. Daily flextimeusers reported the best scores, with 38% ofthis group indicating that their work/life bal-ance was "good" or "very good," comparedto 31% of traditional flextime users, 26% ofnon-users and 24% of telecommuters.

Life SatisfactionWorkers using daily flextime reported thehighest life satisfaction scores, with 65% ofdaily flextime users saying they were satisfiedor very satisfied, compared to 58% of non-users and 46% of telecommuters.

TelecommutingThere were striking differences in the experi-ences of employees using telecommuting andthose using either daily flextime or traditionalflextime. These include:

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

■ 24% of telecommuters rated their work/lifebalance as "good" or "very good" comparedto 26% of non-users, 38% of daily flextimeusers, and 31% of traditional flextime users.

4

■ 46% of telecommuters said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their lives, compared to 58% of non-users, 65% of daily flextime users, and 61% of tradition-al flextime users.

The statistics above examine the impact oftelecommuting on the lives of employees out-side of work. In terms of career-related issues,there were also some interesting findings, withfrequent differences in perception betweenmanagers and employees.

Managers and employees agree that:

■ Telecommuters are less likely to get the samesalary increases as other employees.

■ Telecommuters are less likely to have positiverelationships with their co-workers.

However, a greater percentage of managerswho supervise employees who telecommutethan employees who use telecommutingbelieve that telecommuters are…

■ More likely to have negative or neutral rela-tionships with their supervisors than otherflextime users.

■ Less likely to get good performance reviews.

■ Less likely to get promotions.

On the other hand, a greater percentage of employees who use telecommuting than managers who supervise employees whotelecommute believe that telecommuters are…

■ Less likely to receive the same challengingassignments as employees not using thesearrangements.

■ Less committed to their jobs.

While these findings highlight the experienceof individual employees, results related to thebusiness impact are considerably more favor-able. There were no significant differences

between telecommuters and other users offlexibility on questions of attachment to thecompany, quality of work, or productivity,with high scores in each of these areas.

Perceptions of Non-UsersWhile most employees who were not usingflexible work arrangements believe thatemployees using flexible arrangements are justas committed to their jobs as other workers,non-users did express some significant con-cerns. For example, 35% of non-users believethat their co-workers who use flexible workarrangements cause resentment among thoseworking on-site, 48% say that it is more diffi-cult to work collaboratively with employeeswho use flexible work arrangements, and 30%believe that it is more difficult for supervisorsto communicate with employees who usethese arrangements.

Implications for CompaniesIn summary, this study presents a "goodnews/bad news" scenario related to workplaceflexibility, with the good news potentially farmore positive than the bad news is negative.We arrive at this conclusion based on the factthat many of the problem areas relate to issuesof perception, either between users and non-users or managers and employees. It followsthat those companies that proactively invest inthe actual management of these work arrange-ments, addressing head-on issues such as com-munication, equity, and clarity of objectiveswill likely reap far better results than compa-nies that fail to attend to these issues. Theseefforts, combined with a company-wide com-mitment to daily flexibility, should havetremendous implications for the long-termsuccess of the flexible workplace.

5

Background and Objectives

During the past decade, technologicaladvances have revolutionized the worldof work, modifying how and where

work is performed. Many employers can nowoffer their employees increased flexibilityabout when and where business is performed.In fact, the 1997 National Study of theChanging Workforce conducted by theFamilies and Work Institute reports that"nearly half of all employees are able tochoose – within some range of hours – whenthey begin and end their days". Yet, changedoes not come easily, as established work cul-tures fueled by a pervasive belief in "face-time" continue to characterize many workenvironments. Employers are now at a criticaljuncture as they weigh the costs and benefitsof these new options in a labor environmentthat has become increasingly competitive for

talented employees. They remain uncertainabout whether flexible work arrangementsaddress their employees’ needs as well as theirserious bottom-line concerns, and they needdata to support their decisions. Providingcritical information about where and whenwork is best completed was the impetus forthis study.

There have been a number of studies of flexi-ble work arrangements, but their results arefar from conclusive. Some researchers havefocused on identifying workers who use thesearrangements. Others have studied the impactof flexible work policies on reducing employeestress and work-family conflict. Finally, anumber of studies have examined the impactof flexible work policies on productivity, quali-ty of work, commitment and labor forceattachment.

2S E C T I O N

6

While these studies provide a foundation ofevidence regarding the impact of flexible workarrangements, major gaps remain. Theseinclude:

■ An incomplete understanding of who uses flexible work arrangements and how employees gain access to thesearrangements;

■ Inadequate differentiation of the effects of different types of flexible work arrangements on outcomes;

■ Limited information from co-workers andmanagers about the effects of flexible work arrangements; and

■ Reliance on information from a single industry.

This project was a two-year, cross-companystudy that focused on the impact of threetypes of flexible work arrangements (tradition-al flextime, daily flextime, and telecommuting)on both employees and managers. Whileemployees were also asked about compressedwork week and job sharing arrangements,these results are not reported here because sofew respondents were using them.

The study aims to provide answers to the fol-lowing questions:

■ What distinguishes employees who use tra-ditional flextime, daily flextime, andtelecommuting from one another as well asfrom employees who do not use these flexi-ble work arrangements?

■ Why don’t all employees use flexible workarrangements?

■ How do employees who use flexible workarrangements gain access to them?

■ Do employees who use traditional flextime,daily flextime, and telecommuting work morehours than employees who do not use them?

■ How does using different types of flexiblework arrangements affect the extent towhich employees experience time crunch,work/life balance, negative spill-over fromwork to family, job satisfaction, life satisfac-tion, and commitment to the workplace?

■ How do employees using flexible workarrangements and their managers assessthe extent to which these flexible arrange-ments affect employee productivity, qualityof work, relationship with supervisor, rela-tionships with co-workers, commitment tojob, and the likelihoods of getting promo-tions, challenging assignments, good per-formance reviews, salary increases, andsupport from co-workers?

■ How do employees who do not use flexiblework arrangements perceive employeeswho do use them?

■ How do flexible work arrangements affectthe manager's job?

Organization of this ReportThis report highlights findings from the study,focusing on issues most important for man-agement to examine as they either introduceor continue to implement flexible workarrangements. Section 3 describes the charac-teristics of people using the various flexiblework arrangements and contrasts them withthose of people not using them. In Section 4,information is provided about the ways inwhich employees using flexible work arrange-ments gained access to them. Issues such asthe extent to which formal company policiesimpact usage of flexible work arrangements,how the arrangements are negotiated withsupervisors, and how they are actually imple-mented are described.

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

7

Section 5 contrasts the experiences of employ-ees who were using different types of flexiblework arrangements (daily flextime, traditionalflextime, and telecommuting) and those notusing any of these arrangements. The reportexamines the extent to which these employees:

■ Work long hours;

■ Have worked during a vacation during thepast year;

■ Experience a "time crunch";

■ Experience negative spillover from work tofamily;

■ Maintain a sense of balance between theirwork and family lives;

■ Feel attached to the companies for whomthey work;

■ Feel satisfied with their jobs; and

■ Feel satisfied with their lives.

Section 6 contrasts views from employeesusing flexible work arrangements and theirmanagers. The report highlights the effects offlexible work arrangements on:

■ Productivity;

■ Quality of work;

■ Relationships between supervisor andemployee;

■ Relationships between co-workers;

■ Plans to stay with the company;

■ Commitment to job;

■ Likelihood of being promoted;

■ Likelihood of getting challenging assign-ments;

■ Likelihood of getting good performancereviews;

■ Likelihood of getting the same salaryincreases as those not using flexible workarrangements; and

■ Likelihood of getting job-related supportfrom co-workers.

Section 7 describes the feelings that employeeswho are not using flexible work arrangementshave about employees who do use thesearrangements, while Section 8 examines theviews that managers have about the effects ofsupervising employees who use flexible workarrangements on their own jobs. Section 9identifies issues important for employers toconsider as they introduce and integrate flexi-ble work arrangements in the workplace.Finally, Section 10 presents study conclusionsand limitations and identifies critical nextresearch steps.

Appendix One describes the study design andpresents information about the people partici-pating in the survey and the companies forwhom they worked. It is important to under-stand these characteristics, as they have signifi-cant implications for the extent to whichresults can be generalized to employees work-ing for other companies.

Appendix Two provides background informa-tion about the companies participating in theproject, and provides, in the words of compa-ny representatives, the reasons their companieschose to participate in the study.

Throughout the report, contrasts reportedbetween groups are those that are statisticallysignificantly different from one another at the95% confidence level (i.e., differences betweengroups that are greater than we would expectjust due to chance alone).

Characteristics of Users and Non-usersof Flexible Work Arrangements

9

The majority of employees responding to thesurvey (65.3%) were not currently using aflexible work arrangement. They are referredto as "non-users" in the remainder of thisreport. Traditional flextime was used by14.1% of respondents, daily flextime by11.5%, and telecommuting by 9.1%. Mostemployees using telecommuting reporteddoing so only one (26.0%) or two (15.4%)days each week. An additional 17.1% report-ed that they telecommuted less than one dayper week.

Employees using daily flextime, traditionalflextime, and telecommuting were comparedwith those not using these types of arrange-ments. 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 arrangements andusers of traditional flextime were more likely tobe female, while users of daily flextime andtelecommuting were more likely to be male.

3S E C T I O N

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chart 2: Elder Care Responsibilities

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Per

cent

■ People most likely to be involved in provid-ing care to a dependent elder weretelecommuters.

■ Telecommuters earned the highest incomes.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Per

cent

0

5

10

15

20

Chart 4: Commute Time > 1 Hour

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Per

cent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Chart 5: Education Level

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

(High School or Less)

Per

cent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chart 6: Professional Position

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Per

cent

■ Telecommuters had the longest commute times.

■ Non-users had the lowest levels of education.

■ Non-users were least likely to hold profes-sional positions in their companies.

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

11

Among employees completing the survey, theimportance of position as a characteristicenabling employees to use flexible workarrangements was clear. It was widely recog-nized that some jobs, both lower level andhigher level positions, simply do not lendthemselves to flexible work arrangements.

The groups did not differ from one another interms of age, marital status, and likelihood ofhaving children under 19 living at home.

Several factors -- including a supportivedepartment where the employee works, a sym-pathetic manager, a job with specific character-istics, and the skill level and perceived qualitiesof the employee, particularly the ability towork independently and responsibly with a his-tory of being a high performer -- determinewhich employees get access to flexible workarrangements. Most readily acknowledge theimportance of the nature of job responsibilitiesas a determinant of whether flexible workarrangements are possible.

"The lower levels probably have more rigid

jobs. You know, the factory stuff, secretarial

work. Most of the time these girls need to be

sitting at their desks, covering the phones.

It’s harder to do that from home. And I

think that as you get up to higher levels in the

corporation, your time is not your own, and

it’s harder to work [flexibly]. You can still

work some flextime, work home here or there.

But you tend to work so many more hours

that it’s kind of hard."

"I think I’m probably in the level [where

telecommuting] is easier to happen. In the

technical work…measurements are like

deadlines that are two or three months. So I

think it’s probably easier. Where for a secre-

tary, the managers and other team members

who depend on a secretary depend on the per-

son five days a week or five hours a day."

In addition to these demographic characteris-tics that distinguish employees using differentflexible work arrangements from those notusing them, users recognize that individualcharacteristics, particularly their ability towork independently and trust earned througha history of being a high performer, also areimportant.

"The management team trusts me. They

know what kind of budget I can hold.

They’ve seen what I’ve done. They know that

I’ll get the job [done], …that deadlines are

met. And they just give me the resources I

need. They’ve never questioned me…Now

there are people in my group, who for some

reason have the same managers, where they

don’t get approved."

WHAT DISTINGUISHES EMPLOYEES WHO

USE TRADITIONAL FLEXTIME, DAILY

FLEXTIME, AND TELECOMMUTING FROM

ONE ANOTHER AS WELL AS FROM

EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT USE THESE

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS?

12

Reasons Employees Are Not UsingFlexible Work Arrangements Among employees who do not use flexiblework arrangements, 54.0% reported that dailyflextime or traditional flextime benefits werenot available to them, while 72.1% said thattelecommuting was not an option for them.Employees who were not using flexible workarrangements said that they did not use themfor the following reasons:

■ The nature of the job responsibilitiesrequires regular contact with workers whodo not use alternative work arrangements(25.4%).

"I need a lot of personal interaction with

people. I just don't see how it [telecommut-

ing] could ever work in this job. I might

need my co-worker...and you need to talk to

them and be there and exchange informa-

tion constantly. I think your being [based]

out of the house would just take too much

time to do the job. I'm one for flexible work

hours and I'm one for arrangements where

you can work at home but I just don't see it

in our job."

■ A more traditional work schedule bettermeets their needs (20.4%). Such need mayinclude access to equipment and otherresources necessary to produce work.

"I have too much stuff in the office. I need

to meet with people. I need to get a good

printer. I don’t have one. In most cases,

though, it is better to be in the office because

you can answer the phone instead of answer-

ing voice mail."

"I've worked with different departments

and you need everything that's here. You

rely on different resources from different

employees so you can't really telecommute in

all departments."

■ Their job would be difficult or impossible todo using these arrangements (16.3%).Some jobs are simply not considered "goodfits" for working flexibly. When there is aperception that the work requires "facetime", either because it is necessary toaccomplish the work itself or to contribute tothe morale of the workplace, there is a neg-ative attitude toward flexible work arrange-ments.

"If it's the kind of job that needs to interact

with people, it doesn't work. Or if you need

to be there to give them an assignment, it

doesn't work."

"The nature of our business doesn’t allow it. .

. if you start taking things home and some-

thing happens, we don’t have that informa-

tion. . So we have to have everything there

where we can get to it immediately, so we

can’t do teleworking".

WHY DON’T ALL EMPLOYEES USE

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS?

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

13

"I don't want to work at home. I don' think

you could do our job at home. You need the

interaction, meeting time, and getting infor-

mation from various depts. You just could not

do it from the home I don't think. Certain

aspects maybe, but most area I'd say no."

■ They felt that using an alternative workarrangement would not be good for theircareers (14.1%).

"I felt at my level,. . . telecommuting, that's

okay for an hourly employee or that's okay for

a secretary. But if you're a Director, and

you're serious about your career, people

wouldn't take you as seriously. ...You become

lumped with a group of part-time people who

are here just because they want to pick up a

paycheck, not because they're serious about

their careers here. And that couldn't be fur-

ther from the truth."

■ They felt that supervisors look down onworkers who use alternative work arrange-ments (12.0%).

"As far as moving forward, if you wanted to,

as far as promotions down the road, I think

the perception was that you had to be the

'player' and be there when they needed you.

That was the pressure I was looking at in try-

ing to negotiate a flexible work schedule."

Accessing and Using Flexible Work Arrangements

15

Employees using flexible work arrangementswere asked about the process by which theygained access to them. Across all users of flex-ible work arrangements, 33.1% reported thatthey were able to use these benefits because ofa written company policy; 42.2% explainedthat it was "accepted company practice", and24.7% reported that they individually negoti-ated the arrangement with their manager.

There are differences, however, in the waysthat the three groups of people using flexiblework arrangements gain access to these bene-

fits, with users of traditional flextime mostlikely to gain access through written policiesand least likely to gain access because ofaccepted company practice. Telecommutersare most likely to gain access by negotiatingindividually with their manager.

Whose Choice are Flexible WorkArrangements?The majority of all flexible work arrangementusers (59.0%) indicate that use of these arrange-ments was their choice; 8.2% indicate that itwas the company's choice; and 32.9% reportthat it was a mutual choice made by themselvesand their company. Users of daily flextime weremost likely (70.1%) to indicate that using thisflexible work arrangement was their choice;users of traditional flextime typically reportedthat the decision was mutual (41.9%).

HOW DO EMPLOYEES WHO USE

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

GAIN ACCESS TO THEM?

4S E C T I O N

16

A Privilege, Not an EntitlementMost employees said that flexible workarrangements are a privilege or luxury, and notan entitlement. For many employees, the abili-ty to use flexible work arrangements came onlyafter they had developed their manager’s trust.

"I have a track record. I have proven myself.

There's never any doubt that I'm going to get

my stuff done and probably work extra...but

there is that whole level of trust that it takes

time to develop."

"Right now telecommuting is considered a

reward, not an entitlement. It's an excep-

tion. It's a reward. It is something special

for somebody special, not an entitlement."

Since the opportunity to use flexible workarrangements is viewed as a privilege, manyemployees feel that they owe something backto management for permitting it.

"You kind of have that expectation since they

are allowing you this tremendous benefit,

that you should deliver something a little over

and above what other people who don’t have

the same benefit."

Indeed the idea of flexible work arrangementsbeing a privilege was so pervasive that manyexpressed feelings of insecurity about the likeli-hood of continuing to have the opportunity towork flexibly should managers or jobs change.

"It still is a feeling like this could be taken

away from you at any moment".

The Role of ManagerNot surprisingly, managers were very carefulabout deciding whether a particular employeecould use a flexible work arrangement. Withthe pressure to perform, managers are shoul-dered with the responsibility of identifyingemployees who will be productive while usingflexible work arrangements. One of the great-est concerns expressed by managers is theemployee’s ability to work independently,which reflects both the nature of the job andthe qualities of the individual employee.

"I think the person’s character and job per-

formance has everything to do with it."

"The employees I approve [to work flexibly]

are people who get the job done. They work

faster. They take initiative. They are the

conscientious employees."

Managers look most favorably on employeeswho are high performers because they trustthat these employees will continue to do whatit takes to maintain high levels of productivity.

Managers said they carefully assess an employ-ee's ability to work flexibly, as well as whetherthe job can be performed with a flexible workschedule while maintaining productivity.According to managers:

"If you trust the person. You have to have a

level of trust there when they are at home

[working], they won't be cooking dinner, or

doing their dinner, washing dishes..."

"I know she's a great worker...I see the pro-

ductivity...I think if people have track records

-- if they report to you, you know they always

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

17

put in that extra time, very devoted and

committed to their job -- you never worry

about that."

"If I feel they have integrity and they're

going to say 'I'm going to work at home

today.' Great! I know you're going to do

it...on the other hand, if there's somebody who

I've observed in the office and I don't have

that same feeling of integrity with them, p

admit, I'm less comfortable doing it."

Employees using flexible work arrangementsare very aware that not all employees are ableto use them.

"My manager had another person who was

requesting a flexible work arrangement. . .

and, because of her background and the expe-

rience that the manager had with her, she

did not give them to her."

Employees also were aware of the importanceof the precedent they were setting in theirdepartment.

"I always felt pressure on me to make sure

that this was successful because someone else

may want to do it."

Negotiating Flexible WorkArrangementsThe typical negotiation process described byemployees involves the employee pleadingher/his case, the manager determining if thisparticular candidate is capable of being a highperformer under these circumstances, andoften a trial period. The fact that using flexi-

ble work arrangements is not a right or enti-tlement lays the foundation for the negotia-tion process. In this process, the businessobjectives of the company are foremost andapproval to work flexibly must coincide withthese business objectives. This means that themanager needs to believe that the employeewill be equally or more productive using flexi-ble work arrangements than operating withoutthem.

There was tremendous variation regarding theamount of time it took for employees to getapprovals to use flexible work arrangements.Some spoke of days, while others spoke ofmonths, as they waited to hear whether theywould be approved.

"I explained to [my manager] why I wanted

to use a flexible work arrangement. He

wanted me to talk to [HR] to find out how

it was going to work as far as the hours were

concerned. And I did all that. And I think

we must have started in January and it was

just on a trial basis for a month …and then

after the month, he saw that everything was

working okay. It was okay for me too and we

just continued throughout the year. But to

me, it's been a long process."

With no written process in place, employeesoften created their own process to convincemanagers they would be good candidates towork flexibly.

"I laid out a proposal with three options or

scenarios. It was a detailed proposal where I

outlined all financial implications…I sold

them the idea."

"I worked the back room. I went to people that

I trusted and said, 'how do I approach [my

manager] so that this request is positive.' "

Employees noted that getting approval to workflexibly is largely dependent on the manager.Some managers embrace the idea, while othersapproach it cautiously or even negatively.

"You don't know what you are walking

into…when they move on [to another depart-

ment]. [It’s] like, 'Oh my God, who is my

next boss going to be?!"

For newly hired employees, the process waseven more tentative.

"You have to wait until the offer comes and

bring it up later as a bonus. You have to

negotiate it. And then you don’t know if

once you get into the environment, if they

really believe in flexibility in the first place."

In some cases, the manager’s decision toenable an employee to use a flexible workarrangement is motivated by the opportunityto reduce cost and save the company money.By reducing downtime and travel time, somemanagers feel that they can increase employeemorale and commitment, thereby increasingproductivity.

After the Negotiation The implementation of flexible work arrange-ments also varied across the companies. Insome of the companies, employees describedthe strategies they developed that enabledthem to remain in constant communicationwith their co-workers and managers.

"I always change my message on my answer-

ing system so they know when I’m not in the

office and they know if I’m working at home.

I always have my pager. So I tell people,

‘leave a message. If it’s an emergency, call

my pager.’ It works fine."

Another employee who provides technicalsupport to others, said:

"If I’m at home, and they called me a few

minutes ago--say I stepped out to go to lunch

or something like that...they do get my home

business line...it rolls into this line here.

After three rings, it rolls automatically to the

phone line here and then I can back it up

with Audix. So either way I get it, no mat-

ter where I’m at."

In some of the companies, employees usingflexible work arrangements tried to create an"invisible wall," doing everything within theirpowers to create the illusion that they were notusing these arrangements and making it impos-sible for clients and co-workers to know thatthey were not in the office. Electronic com-munication--voice-mail and e-mail--contributesto the ease of telecommuting and supports theinvisibility of the flexible work arrangement.According to one telecommuter, her co-work-ers didn't realize for two years that she wasworking at home one day per week:

18

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

19

"I don't say I'm out of the office. I mean,

they'll send me e-mail and I'll send them one

right back. It's instantaneous. They call me.

I call them right back.. I'm in the loop, so

they don't know. I just don't schedule meet-

ings on that day."

Managers talked about the importance ofcarefully monitoring employees using flexiblework arrangements.

"You have to start documenting and that’s

what we’ve done. Someone who is constantly

taking and never giving, it gets docked on

your vacation time. I’m willing to be really

flexible. I understand. I’m a mother. I

understand. But, someone who is constantly

taking and never giving, then guess what?

You are going to have to use vacation time."

"I’m monitoring them on a daily basis when-

ever they are home."

Sometimes I t Just Doesn’t WorkWhile most managers were very care-

ful about agreeing to flexible work arrange-ments, employees and managers reported thatthere were times when this flexibility back-fired. One employee who worked in a veryflexible department talked about how theabuse of a flextime schedule for an adjacentdepartment ruined the policy in her owndepartment.

"When [the other department’s] manager

was on vacation for two weeks, they came

and went as they pleased and things didn’t

get covered, and they weren’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

21

Hours WorkedEmployees who returned the survey con-firmed the existence of a ‘long hours’ culture.They reported working an average of 50.6hours per week (range 40 – 96), with only17.0% working a 40-hour week. Over a thirdof employees had worked while on vacationduring the past year. Hours worked areviewed by employees as a measure of theircommitment and productivity. As oneemployee said:

"You do whatever it takes. You stay

overnight."

"I work about 10 hour days [now, but] . . .I

used to get in at 8 or 9 a.m., and I would

fall off the map at 2 a.m."

As seen in Chart 7, non-users reported work-ing significantly more hours than traditionalflextime workers. On the other hand,telecommuters were most likely to report hav-ing spent time working during a vacation.

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Chart 7: Hours Worked

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Hours

5S E C T I O N

Employees are sensitive to the issues of flexiblework arrangements, yet overwhelmed by theamount of work to be done.

"We talk the talk [work/life], but I don't see

a lot happening where the workload is

reduced. You can't continue to do everything

that's expected on a day-to-day basis and

have flexible work arrangements and not

take stuff home or come in on your day off.

You will fall behind and never come from

under."

Time Crunch Employees were asked four questions aboutthe extent to which they feel that they haveenough time for themselves and feel rushed toget everything done each day. By summing

responses to these questions, a measure of"time crunch" was created. Scores on timecrunch ranged from 4 to 20 (mean = 14.2).As seen in Chart 9, employees least likely toexperience time crunches were those usingdaily or traditional flextime.

"It’s really nice. It gives me the opportunity

of balancing both work and family."

In contrast, employees most likely to experi-ence time crunches were those using telecom-muting. As illustrated below, the lines betweenwork and home often blurred so much thatthey were indistinguishable.

"I get up early. PBS has great children’s

shows in the morning. Even when [my

daughter] was one, I could put on Barney or

something, and she would play, or I’d put her

in her high chair and she eats an hour-and-

a-half breakfast. So I can really crank out a

lot of work from like 6:30 ‘til about 10. And

in between time, distracting her here, dis-

tracting her there, we do a lot of coloring

and a lot of painting. She’ll sit great for like

a half-an-hour to an hour just coloring and

painting. So then I would say from 10 to

about noon, there’s not a lot of productive

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

Chart 8: Worked on Vacation – Past Year

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

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

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

DO EMPLOYEES WHO USE

TRADITIONAL FLEXTIME, DAILY

FLEXTIME, AND TELECOMMUTING

WORK MORE HOURS THAN EMPLOYEES

WHO DO NOT USE THEM?

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

23

time. From 10-12 we get on the floor and we

play, unless the phone rings. And then I give

her lunch and then I get back to work again,

and get her down for a nap. I am blessed

with a daughter that is an incredible sleeper,

and she takes three-hour naps sometimes four,

so sometimes, at 5 o’clock she’s still sleeping.

I’ll start working on projects, or I might have

to be tracking people down on the phone,

which I try to do when she’s sleeping, because

I don’t like to have her in the background.

And then she gets up, and we make dinner

and play some more and maybe go outside.

After she goes to bed, which is around 8- ish,

I just check-in [to my voice-mail] one more

time. At the end of the day I say, ‘wow, I’ve

accomplished a lot."

Work/Life BalanceWe asked employees to respond to the ques-tion: "How would you rate your work andfamily balance -- poor, fair, acceptable, good,or very good?" Those employees most likelyto report a good or very good balancebetween their work and family lives were usingflexible schedules, particularly daily flextime .

SpilloverEmployees were asked about the impact orspillover that their work has on their homelife. There were no differences betweenemployees using the various flexible workarrangements and those not using them.27.2% of all employees experienced negativespillover from work to family; 25.1% experi-enced positive spillover, and 47.7% reportedneutral or no spillover.

Job SatisfactionEmployees were asked a series of eight ques-tions about the extent to which they satisfiedwith elements of their jobs, including thenumber of hours they were working and the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chart 10: Work-Life Balance

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Per

cent

Good/V

ery G

ood

26.5

27.0

27.5

28.0

28.5

29.0

29.5

30.0

Chart 11: Job Satisfaction

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Score

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?

advancement opportunities available to them.By summing responses to these questions (i.e.,"1" =very dissatisfied to "5" = very satisfied),a measure of "job satisfaction" was created.Scores on job satisfaction ranged from 8 to 40(mean = 28.2). Users of both daily flextimeand traditional flextime were more satisfiedwith their jobs than non-users and telecom-muters.

Life SatisfactionEmployees rated the extent to which they feltsatisfied with their life. While not statisticallysignificant, there was a tendency for telecom-muters to report the lowest levels of life satis-faction and for users of daily flextime to reportthe highest levels of life satisfaction.

Attachment to CompanyThe extent to which employees felt attachedto their company was assessed with 18 ques-tions that inquired about company pride andthe likelihood of leaving the company. Bysumming responses to these questions, ameasure of "attachment to company" was cre-ated, with scores ranging from 26 to 90(mean = 57.2). Attachment to company wasnot observed to be related to whetheremployees were using flexible work arrange-ments. Among all employees, 16.7% were

very attached to the company for which theyworked, 60.6% were moderately attached, and22.7% were not attached.

SummaryIn order to account for demographic differ-ences in gender, childcare responsibilities,elder care responsibilities, education, race,income, position, work hours, and commutetime, and to more accurately examine theeffects of flexible work arrangements on out-comes for the four comparison groups (non-users, daily flextime, traditional flextime,telecommuters), a series of analyses was com-pleted in which these demographic differenceswere controlled (i.e., removed) statistically.These analyses revealed that even after thesedifferences were removed, employees usingdaily flextime experienced:

■ Less time crunch;

■ Less negative spill-over between their workand family lives;

■ Better work/family balance;

■ Greater attachment to their company;

■ More job satisfaction; and

■ More life satisfaction.

In contrast, similar analyses, controlling fordemographic differences between the groupsrevealed that using traditional flextimeincreased only the level of job satisfaction.

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Chart 12: Life Satisfaction

Non-user Daily Flex Trad Flex Telecom

Per

cent

Satisf

ied/V

ery S

atisf

ied

Views of Employees Using Flexible WorkArrangements and Their ManagersIn this Section, we contrast the perspectives ofemployees who were using flexible workarrangements with those of their managers.Analyses described in this Section combineinformation from employees using daily flextimewith those of employees using traditional flex-time. This approach is used for two reasons: (1)Preliminary analyses revealed that there were nosubstantive differences between these groups offlexible users; and (2) Information collectedfrom managers did not distinguish the views ofmanagers supervising employees who wereusing traditional flextime and those using dailyflextime. As such, in order to examine parallelviews, the experiences of flextime users (tradi-tional and daily combined) are contrasted withthose of telecommuters.

ProductivityAccording to employees using the variousforms of flexible work arrangements and man-

agers supervising employees using thesearrangements, there were no differences in per-ceptions of productivity. Reports from bothgroups suggest very positive impacts of usingflexible arrangements on productivity, withhigher proportions of employees reporting pos-itive impacts on productivity than managers.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chart 13: Effects on Productivity

Employer Manager

NeutralNegative Positive

Per

cent

6S E C T I O N

25

Quality of Work Employees and managers of employees usingflexible work arrangements reported that anemployee’s quality of work was not affectedby use of either flextime or telecommuting.Reports from both groups indicate very posi-tive impacts on work quality, with a higherpercentage of employees assigning positive rat-ings than managers.

Relationship with Supervisor There was no difference between employeesusing flextime and those using telecommutingregarding the use of these flexible workarrangements and the relationship with theirsupervisor. The majority of employees(58.0%) reported that flexible work arrange-ments had positive effects on their relationship

with their supervisor, 37.0% reported thatthey had neutral effects, and only 5.0% report-ed that they had negative effects. Managers,however, had a very different view of theseeffects. They reported that their telecommut-ing employees were more likely to have nega-tive or neutral relationships with them thanwere employees using flextime.

Relationships with Co-WorkersEmployees and managers agreed that telecom-muting employees are less likely to have posi-tive relationships with their co-workers thanare flextime employees. The theme of feelingleft out was clearly expressed by manytelecommuters.

"The only drawback is when I work more at

home. ..you sort of feel left out a little bit

sometimes, because there’s nobody else to talk

to during the day."

"Out of sight, out of mind."

"I think there’s a certain dynamic of being

in the office that you cannot achieve being at

home. There is certain information that you

glean from being in the office."

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chart 14: Effects on Quality of Work

Employer Manager

Per

cent

NeutralNegative Positive

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Chart 15: Effects on Relationship with Supervisor

Daily/Trad Flex Telecom

(Managers)

Per

cent

Neg

ative

/Neu

tral

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Flex Telecom

Chart 16: Effects on Relationships with Co-workers

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Neg

ative

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

27

"They kind of tend to forget you when you’re

a telecommuter."

RetentionWhen employees and managers of employeesusing flextime and telecommuting were askedabout the impact of using these flexible workarrangements on their plans to stay with thecompany, most (81.3% of employees and76.1% of managers) reported that they hadvery positive effects.

"The flex is why I’m here. . .Flex is making it

a nicer place to work. They are truly making

an effort to help people balance their family

and home issues and recognize that people

have more than their job to do."

"It’s been a retention opportunity . . .a reten-

tion vehicle for me. When I had problems

balancing family and work I was like, ‘I’m

going to stay here’."

"If she [supervised employee] was still under

the manager she was under several years ago,

she probably would have been gone by now

because that manager did not embrace the

concept of telecommuting as much as I do."

"There is no question that, if this telecom-

muting hadn’t been in place,. . .I know that

I would not retain her."

Extent to which Others ViewEmployee as Committed to JobEmployees reported that people who used

telecommuting were viewed as being less com-mitted to their jobs than people who usedflextime. Among managers, however, com-mitment to job was not related to use of flexi-ble work arrangements. The overwhelmingmajority of managers (91.8%) reported thatemployees using flexible work arrangementswere committed to their jobs.

Likelihood of Getting PromotionsAccording to employees, there was no associa-tion between the use of flexible work arrange-ments and the likelihood of getting promo-tions. Most employees (65.1%) reported thatpeople using flexible work arrangements werejust as likely to get the same promotions asemployees not using these arrangements,21.4% reported that there were neutral effects,and only 13.4% reported that users were not

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Flex Telecom

Chart 17: Effects on Retention

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Posi

tive

0

5

10

15

20

All Flex Users Telecom

Chart 18: Job Commitment(Employees)

Per

cent

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e/D

isagre

e

as likely to get the same promotions as non-users. Managers, however, indicated thatemployees using telecommuting were less like-ly to get promotions than were employeesusing flextime.

"I have a person who is working from home

most of the time. She's not learning the new

stuff. Guess what? She doesn't get to work

on the cool new project which, in the future, is

going to make her less marketable."

Likelihood of ReceivingChallenging Work AssignmentsEmployees indicated that using telecommut-ing had a more negative impact on the extentto which they received challenging assign-ments than did employees using flextime.Among managers, however, there was no rela-tionship between using a flexible workarrangement and receiving challenging workassignments. The majority of managers(84.4%) agreed that employees using flexiblework arrangements were just as likely as otheremployees to get challenging assignments;9.6% were neutral about this, and only 5.9%reported that employees using flexible workarrangements were not as likely to get thesame challenging assignments.

"Managers will have weekly status reports,

and I’ll see them say so-and-so’s doing this

and so-and-so’s doing that, and I’ll think,

well, those are really interesting projects and

I had no idea that was even going on! And

I would have maybe been interested in doing

that, and I’m not getting the good cookies

thrown at me."

Likelihood of Getting GoodPerformance ReviewsEmployees indicated that there was no associa-tion between the use of flexible work arrange-ments and likelihood of getting good perform-ance reviews. The majority of employees(78.2%) reported that people using flexiblework arrangements were likely to get goodperformance reviews, while 14.5% were neutral

28

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

All Flex Users Telecom

Chart 19: Likelihood of Getting Promotions(Managers)

Per

cent

Stro

ngly

Dis

agre

e/D

isagre

e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

All Flex Users Telecom

Chart 20: Likelihood of Getting Challenging Assignments

(Employees)

Disagree Strongly Agree

Per

cent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

All Flex Users Telecom

Chart 21: Likelihood of Getting Good Performance Reviews

(Managers)

Per

cent

Dis

agre

e

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

29

about this, and only 7.3% reported that peoplewho were using flexible work arrangementswere not as likely to get good performancereviews. Reports from managers, however,indicated that employees using telecommutingwere less likely to get good performancereviews than were employees using flextime.

Likelihood of Receiving SameSalary IncreasesEmployees and managers both reported thattelecommuting employees were less likely to getthe same salary increases as other employees.

Likelihood of Getting Job-RelatedSupport from Co-WorkersEmployees and managers both indicated thattelecommuting employees were less likely toget job-related support from their co-workers.

SummaryEmployees and managers agree that usingflexible work arrangements have positiveimpacts on productivity and quality of work,regardless of the type of flexible work arrange-ment used. They also agree that employeesusing telecommuting are more likely to havepoor relationships with co-workers, less likelyto get the same salary increases, and less likelyto get co-worker support than employeesusing flextime. Employees and managers dif-fer on their perceptions of some of the effectsof flexible work arrangements. Employees areless likely to view telecommuters as committedto their jobs and are more likely to believethat telecommuters do not get the same chal-lenging assignments than managers supervis-ing such employees. Managers, on the otherhand, are more likely than telecommutingemployees to believe that telecommuting hasnegative effects on employee-supervisor rela-tionships and are less likely to feel thattelecommuters get the same promotions andperformance reviews as other employees.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

All Flex Users Telecom

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

All Flex Users Telecom

Chart 23: Likelihood of Getting Same Co-worker Support

Employees Managers

Per

cent

Agre

e/St

rongly

Agre

e

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?

Views of Employees Who Do Not Use Flexible Work Arrangements

31

The previous section examined the effect offlexible work arrangements from the perspec-tive of the users of these arrangements andmanagers who supervise users. In order togain a more complete appreciation of theeffects of flexible work arrangements, it isequally important to understand how theyaffect the employees within a work group whoare not using them. This Section discusses theviews of employees who do not use flexiblework arrangements.

As indicated in Chart 24, most employeeswho do not use flexible work arrangementsbelieve that employees using these arrange-ments are just as committed to their jobs asother workers.

However, non-users expressed some seriousconcerns about flexible work arrangements.For example:

■ 39.2% indicate that employees who useflexible work arrangements are not as likelyto get the same promotions 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

■ 30.3% report that employees who use flexi-ble work arrangements are not as likely toget challenging work assignments as otherworkers; and

■ 34.8% report that users of flexible workarrangements cause resentment amongthose working on-site.

Resentment may arise for a variety of reasons.Lack of equity in terms of privilege or in termsof perceived effort were common:

"If two people have the same job, that's not fair

if one person [gets to work at home]... you

know? The jobs are the same, and it's like if

Mary Smith is doing the same thing as me,

same job, just different plans, she gets to work

from home and I can't, that definitely would I

think develop some unhappiness, some tension."

"With the ones who are on these flexible sched-

ules, with the kids, working at home, we find

that very difficult [to believe] that they really

put in 8 hours… But then that's just us,

because probably because we are jealous. I mean

you know when you have your kids there [at

home], you're gonna stop and you're gonna do

things. You are going to do the wash and throw

a load in. You know you are going to do stuff.

My husband works at home. I know. And he

doesn't have little kids. I mean you know he'll

stop to do something. So I know. I see it."

In addition, flexible work arrangements mayonly widen the division between hourlyemployees whose jobs require set hours andsalaried employees whose jobs permit greateropportunities for flexible schedules.

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Disagree Neutral Agree

Chart 25: Likelihood of Getting Same Promotions

(Non-user View)Per

cent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Disagree Neutral Agree

Chart 26: Likelihood of Getting Challenging Assignments

(Non-user View)

Per

cent

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Disagree Neutral Agree

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

33

"I’m an hourly person; they are salaried, and I

don’t think it’s fair that I don’t get to do it."

■ 48.4% say that it is more difficult to workcollaboratively with employees who useflexible work arrangements.

"It’s harder to maneuver and schedule meet-

ings. It's usually when something is urgent,

like you're trying to schedule a meeting, try-

ing to get a group of people together. I think

[the telecommuter] is only here two or three

days a week. So it's really difficult. And

then she's really busy when she is in. So I guess

it makes things more difficult sometimes."

"You just can't stop your [work] execution on

those two days they’re not there. Life goes on.

I don't know if some people are as good at

doing that. So when they're not, you know,

when they're gone Mondays and Tuesdays,

and then for two days you're waiting,... it

can be inconvenient."

■ 19.7% feel that the productivity of the workgroup suffers when employees use flexiblework arrangements.

■ 30.4% indicate that it is more difficult forsupervisors to communicate with employeeswho use flexible work arrangements.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Disagree Neutral Agree

Chart 28: Difficulty Working Collaboratively

(Non-user View)

Per

cent 0

10

20

30

40

50

Disagree Neutral Agree

Chart 29: Effects on Work Group Productivity

(Non-user View)

Per

cent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Disagree Neutral Agree

Chart 30: Difficulty Communicating With Supervisors

(Non-user View)

Per

cent

Effects of Flexible WorkArrangements on Managers

35

In granting managers the authority to approveor disapprove an employee’s use of flexiblework arrangements, the company providesmanagers with a mechanism to supportemployees’ non-work needs. With the pressureto perform, managers are burdened with theresponsibility of determining which candidateswill provide the necessary productivity out-comes. Each manager is empowered to makedecisions based on his/her perception of whatis best for the work group and the company.

Managers are very much aware that theirchoices will have an impact on their ownworkload. Employees using flexible workarrangements who are not able to meet thework groups' productivity standards put extrapressure on managers, most of whom arealready overburdened in a high pressure, highworkload environment.

Arranging Meeting TimesManagers of telecommuters were more likelyto report that they had trouble finding timesto meet with these supervised employees thanwere managers of employees using flextime.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Flex Telecom

Chart 31: Difficulty Finding Meeting Times

(Non-user 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 and bring the team

together for meetings."

Manager’s Work LoadWhile the majority of managers reported thatsupervising employees who use flexible workarrangements results in no differences inworkload, 22.6% indicated that this causedthem more work. There were no differencesin the reports of managers of employees usingflextime and managers of employees usingtelecommuting regarding the amount of work.

"What also happens is you wind up

having...to pick up the slack and not being as

productive as you'd want to be...If you can

agree to it, whether it be a job share or a

telecommute, you're going to have to pick up

the extra slack at times"

"I think sometimes when you are missing or

you're short handed and all, it's a big [mess],

like gee, not only am I doing my job, I'm

doing somebody else's job too because you just

need to pick up that slack whenever emergen-

cies do evolve."

Job PerformanceWhen managers were asked about the impactthat supervising employees who use flexiblework arrangements has on their own perform-ance, the overwhelming majority of responseswere either neutral (67.7%) or positive (25.6%).There were no differences in the reports ofmanagers of employees using flextime and man-agers of employees using telecommutingregarding the impact on job performance.

Work Group ProductivityManagers were asked how much more or lesswork their work group accomplishes because itincludes employees who use flexible workarrangements. The majority of managers (61.2%)indicated that there were no effects on workgroup productivity. However, approximatelyone-third of managers indicated that their workgroup was more productive because it includedemployees who used flexible work arrangements.There were no differences in the reports of man-agers of employees using flextime and managersof employees using telecommuting regarding theimpact on work group productivity.

36

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

Less Same More

Chart 33: Work Group Productivity(Manager View)

Per

cent

HOW DOE 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

37

It seems that some feel that while productivityof employees using flexible work arrangementsmight be compromised in an absolute sense,the loss is compensated by the positive moraleand the willingness to put in the time requiredto accomplish tasks and goals.

"At the same time, there are a number of

productivity initiatives at work...We have a

very, very, very lean staff working and those

who take advantage of the telecommuting,

the job sharing, etc. make it a little bit leaner

and make the productivity issue a little bit

tougher to deal with. It’s two things pulling

-- the very open, very helpful attitude in

encouraging people to take advantage, but at

the same time, striving for great levels of pro-

ductivity and efficiency. It's a dilemma."

Tension Between AssistingEmployees to Balance Their Workand Family Responsibilities andMeeting Business Goals Managers were asked about the extent to whichthey felt a tension between assisting theiremployees with balancing their work and familyresponsibilities and meeting the business goalsof their work group. Most managers (93.6%)reported at least some degree of tensionbetween these objectives. There were no differ-ences in the reports of managers of employeesusing flextime and managers of employeesusing telecommuting regarding this tension.

"I think upper management supports

work/life balance, but I don’t think there’s

any leeway for not completing the work that

has to be completed. I think all of our com-

pany believes in work/life balance and thinks

it’s the right thing. But I also think that

when some Senior Vice-President wants some-

thing, he doesn’t care whether somebody is not

here today because they’re telecommuting.

It’s got to get done."

Implications for Employers

39

The findings from this study suggest a numberof important implications for employers asthey integrate flexible work arrangements inthe work place. Results clearly indicate thatencouraging the use of daily flextime has thepotential to make employees experience betterbalance between their work and family lives, aswell as greater job and life satisfaction. It alsohas positive effects on employee productivity,work quality, and retention.

The notion of "daily flextime" as the mostpositive form of flexibility is a key headlinefrom this research, with important implica-tions for companies striving to be leaders ininnovative workplace practices. Employeeswho have access to daily flextime report morepositive impacts on productivity and the quali-ty of their work, and are more likely to staywith their company. These findings shouldnot come as a surprise to most readers of thisreport, who probably can attest from their

own experience that the ability to juggle thedifferent demands in our lives when needed iscritical. It is therefore quite understandablethat when employees are given some latitudein arranging their time as they see fit, they arelikely to respond by "going the extra mile" toget the job done well.

The issue, for companies then, is how to bestsupport a company-wide commitment toeveryday flexibility. Our experience has shownthat strong statements of support from keybusiness leaders combined with both rolemodeling and recognition of key individualsor workgroups is critical. In the best situa-tion, this comes from the highest ranks of thecompany and is integrated throughout theorganization. But there are many more exam-ples of companies in which enlightened busi-ness leaders within certain pockets of the com-pany embrace this commitment and make itwork within their own organizations. These

9S E C T I O N

success stories typically serve as a catalyst forchange within other parts of the company.

The good news is that the concept of dailyflextime does not require extensive discussionand development of new company policies.What may be most effective, this study shows,is to broadcast the "business case" benefits ofdaily flextime and work with individual man-agers to create their own work environmentthat supports this broader commitment toflexibility.

Equally important to the finding that dailyflextime has positive effects is the data thatemerged associated with telecommuting.Telecommuting, while enjoyed by many of theemployees who use it, is a much more com-plex issue. The picture that emerges from thisstudy is that:

■ Employees who use telecommuting haveless clear demarcations between their workand family lives (e.g., are more likely towork during a vacation, experience greatertime crunch in their lives, and less positivework/life balance).

■ Employees who use telecommuting are lesssatisfied with their jobs and with their livesthan are other flexible work users.

■ Managers feel that they have poorer rela-tionships with their telecommuting employ-ees, and indicate that telecommuters are notlikely to get the same promotions and goodperformance reviews as other employees.They also have a difficult time schedulingmeetings.

■ Employees as well as managers believe thatco-worker relationships are more strainedfor telecommuters, and that telecommutersare not as likely to get the same salaryincreases as other employees.

■ Telecommuters perceive that others viewthem as less committed to their jobs, andreport that they are not as likely to get chal-lenging assignments as others.

On the other hand, telecommuting does offertwo important benefits:

■ It allows companies to retain high perform-ing or otherwise valuable employees; and

■ It does not decrease productivity.

As such, greater caution is advised whentelecommuting is integrated in the work place.Advice offered by participants of our focusgroups included the importance of notenabling an employee to telecommute formore than two days per week, and notenabling employees to telecommute two daysin a row. When telecommuting is used, theimportance of being available to managers andco-workers was highlighted. For telecom-muters themselves, our data suggest the impor-tance of distinguishing between work time andnon-work time. The fluid boundaries betweenwork and family that develop when an employ-ee works out of the home can have positive aswell as negative consequences. Programs thatinstruct telecommuters on how to create sepa-rate physical spaces within their home for workand family time are important. In addition,creating concrete transitions between worktime and family time are critical.

We encourage companies to use the findingsfrom this study to help understand the specificchallenges and opportunities within their ownorganizations. Clearly, the results from thisstudy are not reflective of every company oreach individual working a flexible schedule.What is important is that flexibility can be awin-win situation for companies and employ-ees. Data from this study highlight the bene-fits that ensue when employers can trust theiremployees to make decisions about how theirtime is spent so that they are as productive aspossible at work and as close to home as theyneed to be.

40

Conclusions, Study Limitations, and Next Steps

41

ConclusionsThis study is significant for several reasons.First, the inclusion of information from peopleworking in a variety of industries enables find-ings to be generalized to a variety of workenvironments. Second, by making the distinc-tion between different kinds of flexible workarrangements -- daily flextime, traditional flex-time, and telecommuting -- this study enablesa closer examination of the effects of differenttypes of arrangements on various workplaceoutcomes. Third, a more complete picture ofthe effects of flexible work arrangementsemerges by including the perspectives ofemployees who use the various flexible workarrangements, their managers, and employeeswho do not use flexible work arrangements.

Results highlight the complexities associatedwith flexible work arrangements.

■ Employees using flexible work arrangementswere more satisfied with their jobs than non-

users.

■ Use of daily flextime is especially likely toreduce the extent to which employees expe-rience time crunch and to increase positivework/family balance, job satisfaction, andlife satisfaction. Employees who have theability to structure their days so that theycan meet their personal and work obliga-tions have the best of all possible situations.

■ However, the experiences of telecommutersare more troubling. Employees whotelecommute have less clear work/familydemarcations in their lives. They were morelikely to report working during vacations,experience greater time crunches, poorerwork/family balance, and less life satisfac-tion. These data suggest that telecommutingmay actually add to the stress experiencedby employees who are unable to separatetheir work selves from their family selves.As one telecommuter explained, having tobalance the demands of her young childwith those of her work all day, every dayresulted in a feeling of exhaustion. The

10S E C T I O N

additional strain of poor co-worker relation-ships and threats to salary increases make itclear that telecommuting, while potentially apositive experience from a retention andemployee productivity perspective, canhave negative effects.

■ Employees who were not using flexiblework arrangements identified a significantnumber of problems with them. Theseincluded resentment of employees usingflexible work arrangements, problems work-ing collaboratively, and negative effects offlexible work arrangements on work groupproductivity. As such, these results highlightthe importance of allowing the opinions ofall employees in a work group to be evalu-ated when flexible work arrangements arebeing considered.

■ Finally, for many managers, flexible workarrangements served to increase workload.Yet, such managers often reported positiveeffects on their job performance and on theproductivity of the work group.

Study LimitationsWhile the results from this study are intrigu-ing, the reader is cautioned about generalizingfindings for the following reasons:

■ The six companies in which the study wasconducted are all "best practice work/life"companies. It remains unclear whether resultscan be generalized to companies that do nothave such excellent work/life programs.

■ The number of employees using telecommut-ing was small.

■ The study was only conducted in certainbusiness units within the companies, so it isunclear to what extent the respondents rep-resent the views of all employees in thecompanies.

■ Data were not collected in a way that theemployee survey data could be linkeddirectly with the manager survey data (i.e.,we have no way of knowing whether thosewho completed the employee surveys arebeing supervised by the managers whocompleted the manager survey).

■ Data were collected in a way that reportsfrom non-users confound whether they arereferring to employees who use traditionalflextime, daily flextime, or telecommuting.

■ Although information was collected at com-panies representing diverse industries,because the number of employees and man-agers participating in the study from eachindustry was relatively small, it was not pos-sible to examine the role played by industry.

■ Employees selected for survey participationwere not selected in an unbiased, randomfashion.

Next StepsMany of the findings from this study beg forgreater attention and indicate the need for thefollowing studies:

■ Replication of this study in companies thatinclude those that are "new economy,"those that are just beginning to considerenabling employees to use flexible workarrangements, and those that are small tomedium in size.

■ An in-depth study focusing on telecom-muters. Better understanding of the costsand benefits of this arrangement will aidmanagement in making decisions aboutwhen and by whom it should be used.

■ Closer examination of other flexible workarrangements, including part-time work, job-sharing, and compressed workweek.

■ Return on investment studies in which thebottom line costs to companies of enablingemployees to use flexible work arrange-ments are assessed in terms of attrition,training, and retention, with translation intoreal dollar costs.

42

Study Design

43

Data were collected using a combination ofin-depth personal interviews, focus groups,and self-administered surveys.

A total of 59 personal interviews was conduct-ed with a variety of workers in each company,including employees using flexible workarrangements (21), co-workers who were notusing flexible work arrangements (13), newemployees (13) and exited employees (11).In addition, a personal interview was heldwith the director of a department in one ofthe companies that had implemented a suc-cessful flexible work arrangement (compressedworkweek and telecommuting). The main cri-terion for new hires was that they had somefamily responsibilities, and the focus of theinterview was on the extent to which flexibili-ty was an attraction to the company.Interviews with exited employees focused onthe factors that contributed to their leaving,including the role of flexibility, both for the

company they left and for the choice they pur-sued after leaving the company.

Focus groups were conducted with flexiblework arrangement users and managers ofusers. A total of 12 focus groups was con-ducted, six with employees and six with man-agers. These focus groups included 42employees and 36 managers. Of the employ-ees participating in the focus groups, 34 werewomen; of the managers participating in thefocus groups, 26 were women.

The interviews and focus groups were bothconducted in Spring, 1999. Employees wereselected to participate in interviews or focusgroups by company representatives. Companyrepresentatives who invited employees to jointhe study intentionally sought those employ-ees who were affected by flexible workarrangements, either because they used themor their co-workers used them. Managerswho participated in focus groups represented a

1A P P E N D I X

mix of individuals, some who supervised flexi-ble work arrangement users and others whodid not.

The survey data were collected from employ-ees who reported on their own experienceswith flexible work arrangements and frommanagers who reported on their experiencessupervising employees using flexible workarrangements. Surveys were distributed to3,900 employees and 600 managers. Since theintention of the study was to understand theways in which flexible work arrangementsimpacted the lives of the people using them,their co-workers, and their managers, thequestionnaires were not randomly distributedthroughout the companies. Rather, they werepurposely distributed to employees who wereknown to be using flexible work arrange-ments, their co-workers, and their managers.In five of the companies, surveys were sent toemployees in a single business unit, and in onecompany, the survey was sent to one geo-graphic location (which included more thanone business unit). The criterion for selectionwas that the unit/location needed to includeemployees who used flexible work arrange-ments. In all cases, survey data were collectedin the same location where interviews andfocus groups had been conducted.

Surveys were distributed at the workplacealong with a cover letter explaining the study.These letters were co-signed by representativesof the relevant company and the BostonCollege Center for Work & Family’s Directorof Research. Employees returned the com-pleted surveys to the Center for Work &Family using postage paid by the company.Data from employees were collected duringFall, 1999; data from managers were gatheredduring Winter, 2000. A total of 1,511employees (38.7% response rate) and 256managers (42.6% response rate) completed the

surveys. Due to the small number of surveysreturned from employees working part-time,working compressed workweeks, or participat-ing in job sharing arrangements, these surveyswere deleted from the analyses that follow,resulting in a total of 1,353. While the sur-veys were returned from both managers whowere currently supervising employees usingflexible work assignments and those who werenot, the analyses highlight the experiences ofthe 151 managers who were currently super-vising employees using these arrangements.

Due to the voluntary nature of survey comple-tion and the convenience sampling strategyused, we cannot be sure that the data representeither the companies participating in the studyor the individual units where the data werecollected. Furthermore, it should be notedthat information provided in this report cannotbe used to estimate the prevalence with whichflexible work arrangements are used, either inthe companies participating or generally.

The data collected via surveys, in-depth per-sonal interviews, and focus groups comple-ment one another. While the survey data pro-vide important quantitative information aboutthe employees and managers who participatedin the project, the interview and focus groupdata provide rich details and more in-depthunderstanding of their experiences.

Characteristics of SurveyParticipantsTable 1 presents demographic informationabout the 1353 employees participating in thesurvey. Employees ranged in age from under25 to over 65. The overwhelming majoritywas White, and most had at least a collegedegree. Close to half of the respondents hada child under age 19 living in their household;15.8% were responsible for elder care. One-way commute times ranged from under 15

44

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

45

minutes to more than an hour, with themajority of respondents spending between 16and 44 minutes commuting to work.

Participants reported working a mean of 50.6hours per week, with hours worked per weekranging from 40 to 96.

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 work/week (mean) 50.6

TABLE 1 . — CHAR AC TERIS T ICS OF EMPLOYEES

(N=1353) (N=1353)

Table 2 depicts characteristics about partici-pating managers. Most were male and rangedin age from 35 to 44. The majority of man-agers had earned advanced degrees and hadbeen working for their company for morethan 10 years. Managers typically had been in

their current jobs 3 to 5 years. Most charac-terized themselves as middle management.The managers supervised an average of 3.2employees using daily flextime, 5.0 employeesusing traditional flextime, and 1.2 employeesusing telecommuting.

Characteristics of the CompaniesThe companies participating in the study pro-vided their employees with a wide range ofwork-life benefits. All provided employeeswith work-life resource and referral services,and all had either on-site fitness rooms ornearby facilities. Most provided a lactationroom and financial aid for adoption. Three ofthe companies provided on-site childcare.

At the time that data were collected, none ofthe participating companies had a universalflexible work policy. Some of the companieswere in the process of developing policies and

documenting the procedures that would beused to enable employees to use flexible workarrangements. One of the companies offereda "flexible work arrangement proposal kit" toaid employees in putting together a proposaland to guide negotiations. However, aware-ness of this kit was limited among employees.While some of the companies were openlysupportive of employees using flexible workarrangements, others permitted only someemployees to use them and discouraged theirusage from becoming common knowledgeamong other employees.

46

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) 86.8%

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)

About the Companies

47

The Participating Sponsors of this studyjoined the project for a range of reasons,including the need for benchmarking data,information about the barriers to implementa-tion of flexible work arrangements, informa-tion about how flexible work arrangementscan be used to attract and retain valuableemployees, and data to help them strategizeabout program institutionalization.

The National Work Life Measurement Project,a first-of-its-kind cross-company study owes itssuccess to the willingness of these six organi-zations to open their doors to the BostonCollege Center for Work & Family.

AMWAY CORPORATION Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, con-sectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diamnonummy nibh euismod tincidunt

ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud

exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nislut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendreritin vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, velillum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at veroeros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim quiblandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augueduis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Loremipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscingelit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tin-cidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam eratvolutpat.

With today’s rapidly evolving work environ-ment, Amway Corporation is taking proactivesteps to create effective work/life policies.Our company’s goal is to create a work envi-ronment that supports our business strategyand enables our employees to maintain a bal-ance between their work responsibilities andpersonal lives. The National Work LifeMeasurement Project provided us in-depth

2A P P E N D I X

and objective feedback based on benchmarksamong other leading US corporations.

Amway has always been proud of its history asan employer of choice. However, as AmwayChairman Steve Van Andel stated: "It’s notsufficient to be on a list that says we are oneof the best place to work. It’s more impor-tant that our employees believe that Amway isthe best place to work."

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANYLorem ipsum dolor sit amet,consectetuer adipiscing elit,sed diam nonummy nibheuismod tincidunt ut laoreet

dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisienim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl utaliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendreritin vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, velillum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at veroeros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim quiblandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augueduis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Loremipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscingelit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tin-cidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam eratvolutpat.

HONEYWELL Honeywell is a US $24-billion diversified tech-

nology and manufacturing leader serving cus-tomers worldwide, employing approximately120,000 people in 95 countries. The compa-ny was formed in December 1999 with themerger of two global leaders, AlliedSignal andHoneywell, Inc.

You can’t see most of our products, but youcan count on them. Your safe flight mightdepend on our collision avoidance and traffic

control systems, wing ice and wind shear sen-sors, autopilots and landing systems. Ourcontrol systems keep your home and office atjust the right temperature. Our chemicals forpharmaceuticals help safeguard your health.Our space age fibers make body armor bullet-resistant. And, as leading makers of safer sub-stitutes for CFC’s, we help protect the earth’sozone layer.

To better integrate business goals withemployee goals, we set out about three yearsago to find the "employee win." One of themost powerful things we heard from employ-ees is that the way a supervisor or managerinteracts with the employees on his or herteam is the most important factor in anemployee's experience of the company. All theprograms and policies in the world won'tmake a difference if you don't have a supervi-sor who creates an environment where there istrust and employees feel respected and canaccess the information and resources that areright for them - - when they need it.

We wanted employees to feel that what theyget from their association with Honeywellcan't be matched by any other company. Weneed to deliver more value to our people foreach dollar we spend. And we don't want tospend more. We focused our programsaround the kinds of help that fit our peopleand our environment. What we embarked onwas not a quick fix--it was a long-term strate-gy.

Honeywell participated in the National WorkLife Measurement project because we wantedto measure two things:1) the impact on pro-ductivity that supervisor's relationship haswith an employee and,2) the value ouremployees put on several program enhance-ments we put in place three years earlierthrough an initiative called "Total Value."

48

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

49

We rate our improvement through employeesatisfaction results, surveys such as thework/life measurement project, markedimprovements in our retention rates, andthrough better customer satisfaction and laborproductivity. The Boston College NationalWork Life Measurement Project helped us tobetter understand our people's challenges andto measure the impact that our initiatives haveon their work and personal lives.

KRAFT FOODS, Inc. Kraft Foods, Inc. is theNorth American foodbusiness of Philip

Morris Companies Inc. It traces its history tothree of the most successful food entrepre-neurs of the late 19th and early 20th cen-turies: J.L. Kraft, Oscar Mayer, and C.W. Post.Today, Kraft Foods is the largest U.S. basedpackaged food company in the world withsome of America’s best-loved brands such asKraft cheeses, dinners and salad dressings,Oscar Mayer meats, Maxwell House coffees,Post ready-to-eat cereals, Jell-O desserts,Kool-Aid beverages, Philadelphia creamcheese, Tombstone pizza, Stove Top stuffingmixes, and Miracle Whip salad dressing.

To reach Kraft’s goal of UndisputedLeadership in the Food Industry, Kraft mustbe considered by its employees to be the"employer of choice". To reach that goal,Kraft Foods is focusing on improving employ-ees’ satisfaction with their work and life.

As a result of a recent Philip MorrisWorldwide employee survey, indicating thatwork life was an area about which Kraft Foodsemployees were most concerned, Kraft is con-centrating efforts on work life in much thesame way the company focused on diversityseveral years ago. Some of the key issues thatKraft Foods is struggling with are how to get

employees to take advantage of work life poli-cies and programs currently in place and howto create a culture that is more accepting ofusing these policies.

The National Work Life Measurement projectis a tool to understand the impact of work lifeprograms on employees satisfaction with worklife, as well as a manual that will provide ablueprint for implementing measurements ofwork life satisfaction at Kraft Foods. Thisproject provided Kraft Foods with threeimportant outcomes: 1) Provide direction forfuture Work Life programs 2) Gain a betterunderstanding of the barriers that slow or pre-vent work life initiatives from being successful.3) Develop and implement ongoing measuresto ensure we meet employees needs.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES Lucent Technologies,headquartered inMurray Hill, N.J.,

USA, designs and delivers the systems, soft-ware, silicon and services for next-generationcommunications networks for serviceproviders and enterprises. Backed by theresearch and development of Bell Labs,Lucent focuses on high-growth areas such asoptical and wireless networks; Internet infra-structure; communications software; commu-nications semiconductors and optoelectronics;Web-based enterprise solutions that link pri-vate and public networks; and professionalnetwork design and consulting services. Formore information on Lucent Technologies,visit its Web site at http://www.lucent.com.

Lucent has created a high performance workenvironment, where employees embody thecompany to customers. We recognize that animportant component of such an environmentis to have a workplace that is open, supportiveand diverse. To that end, we survey all

employees annually to better understand howemployees experience and perceive the workenvironment. In the National Work/LifeMeasurement Project, we saw the opportunityto take a closer look at how specific work/lifeprograms are viewed by employees, and theextent to which such programs increaseemployee commitment. Participating in theproject provided a unique way to simultane-ously obtain internal, company specific infor-mation and external benchmark data, all col-lected within the same framework. The studywill also give us, and the business world atlarge, concrete evidence of the importance ofsupportive management and the benefits thata company can reap. We plan to use theresults of the study and the tools developed inthe process to educate Lucent managers of theintrinsic value of programs that supportwork/life issues and to encourage all Lucentcolleagues to adopt practices that contributeto the success of our employees and, there-fore, our company.

Lucent Technologies designs and delivers thesystems, software, silicon, and services fornext-generation communications networks forservice providers and enterprises. Backed bythe research and development of Bell Labs,Lucent focuses on high-growth areas such asoptical and wireless networks, Internet infra-structure, communications software, commu-nications semiconductors and optoelectronics,Web-based enterprise solutions that link pri-vate and public networks; and professionalnetwork design and consulting services.

Lucent has created a high performance workenvironment where employees embody thecompany to customers. We recognize that animportant component of such an environmentis to have a workplace that is open, support-ive, and diverse. To that end, we survey allemployees annually to better understand how

employees experience and perceive the workenvironment. In the National Work/LifeMeasurement Project, we saw the opportunityto take a closer look at how specific work/lifeprograms are viewed by employees and theextent to which such programs increaseemployee commitment. Participating in theproject provided a unique way to simultane-ously obtain internal, company-specific infor-mation and external benchmark data -- all col-lected within the same framework. The studywill also give us, and the business world atlarge, concrete evidence of the importance ofsupportive management and the benefits thata company can reap. We plan to use theresults of the study and the tools developed inthe process to educate Lucent managers of theintrinsic value of programs that supportwork/life issues and to encourage all Lucentcolleagues to adopt practices that contributeto the success of our employees and, there-fore, our company.

MOTOROLA, INC . Motorola is extend-ing human capabili-ties by providing

integrated wireless communication andembedded electronic solutions for the individ-ual, the work-team, the vehicle, and thehome. The new Motorola develops and deliv-ers new ways to meet people’s insatiable desireto communicate. We are one of the leadingarchitects of a world without wires, withoutborders, without limitations.

In a world where wireless is pervasive, thewireless Internet offers a new world of person-al networking. For business enterprises andgovernment agencies, it offers flexibility tobetter manage their communications systems.With the convergence of voice, video, anddata, Motorola is focusing on broadband solu-

50

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

51

tions that deliver interactive television,Internet, and telephone services. In a worldwhere embedded systems are proliferating, wemake things smarter, simpler, safer, and moresynchronized. Motorola is committed tobeing the link between people’s dreams andtechnology’s promise.

Motorola is committed to providing work/lifepolicies and programs that will increaseemployee productivity, attract and retain keytalent, and help employees balance their pro-fessional and personal lives. We are aware ofthe necessity to provide quantitative measura-ble data to substantiate that these programsand policies are indeed value added.

References

53

Flexibility Study ReferencesBond, James T., Galinsky, Ellen, & Swanberg,

Jennifer E. (1997). The 1997 National Studyof the Changing Workforce. Families and WorkInstitute: New York, NY.

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

Dalton, Dan R. & Mesch, Debra J. (1990). Theimpact of flexible scheduling on employee atten-dance and turnover. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35, 370-387.

Galinsky, Ellen, Bond, James T., & Friedman, DanaE./ Families and Work Institute. (1996). Therole of employers in addressing the needs ofemployed parents. Journal of Social Issues,52(3), 111-136.

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

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

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

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

Shepard, Edward M., Clifton, Thomas J. & Kruse,Douglas. (1996). Flexible work hours and pro-ductivity: Some evidence from the pharmaceuticalindustry. Industrial Relations, 35(1), 123-139.

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.

Thomas, Linda T. & Ganster, Daniel C. (1995).Impact of family-supportive work variables onwork-family conflict and strain: A control perspec-tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15.

3A P P E N D I X