Flextime Workplaces: An Update

As has been widely reported over the past couple of years, workplaces, particularly in the knowledge economy, have either undergone or are being pressured to add flexibility features to their operations. The combination of Covid-related adjustments and technical innovations has resulted in a reassessment of what productivity and by extension appropriate workplace agency looks like in the modern workplace. 

A 2021 Ipsos survey revealed that globally 30% of workers would attempt to leave their jobs if required to return to the pre-pandemic office setting. Many of the ever-plugged-in younger cohort of workers see only an upside to having jobs with flextime. Benefits such as managing the complex demands of modern living, taking care of children and elderly parents, reducing commuting time, and functioning when one is most energetic and constructive during the day are among the advantages cited as desirable with pliable scheduling and task requirements. 

Flextime features are now much more present in recruiting job descriptions. Some of this is undoubtedly because of the increased demand for flexibility from a workforce that seems to be sorting itself into those oriented toward results-only vs. traditional workplaces, but also due to the uncertainty of the future. Covid has not completely gone away and with further environmental changes said to be coming from climate change, who knows what is next? Disruption is at least as likely as stability when planning operationally. 

However, workplace changes of the sort being described here need to be assessed and designed thoughtfully. It can be easy to dump on traditional workplaces as having rigid, arbitrary, and ineffectual routines, like for example, habitually scheduled staff meetings laden with fill-in blah, blah, blah. Yet, as resiliency transformations occur it can be useful to see not only what is gained, but also what is lost by such modifications. 

A case could be made that as customary practices dissolve not all the consequences may be necessarily positive. Of key importance is what it means to be professional. Parameters were established over time to separate work life from non-work life. We got used to sliding in and out of work modes with a regularity that brought predictability, certainty, and some semblance of balance. 

One negative element of blurring the distinction between work and leisure time is the always “being on” phenomenon. When flitting in and out of work mode multiple times per day, including answering supervisor emails at 8:30 pm and being ready to respond to the Amsterdam office at 6:30 am, cumulative work time can approach 10-12 hours. It begs the question of who benefits. Probably not the worker. 

Also, professional norms and protocols used in performance reviews and advancement decisions have been based on an in-person work context. Are the expected actions of workers who work from home holding up fairly to legacy achievement standards? Managers still wedded to the notion that time on task always equals productivity may be less inclined to favorably view fragmented work as effective, even if the results are of similar quality or perhaps even better than before. 

This can be especially problematic for new hires onboarded with a company practicing flextime. How well can management really get to know their direct reports when they are working remotely? Perhaps fine — or perhaps not. New workers are motivated to do well at their new jobs and are trying to navigate expectations and learn company culture digitally. Might they be ripe for various types of exploitation, such as working exceptionally long hours or having to face other unreasonable demands from management or co-workers in a flextime environment? The possibility is certainly there. 

Decentralization does have its benefits. But it also could have liabilities. As we redefine what it means to be professional in a flextime world, we need to be mindful of how to achieve efficiency in a way that rewards both management and front-line workers. This challenge is a subset of organizational agility and a crucial one going forward. 

Thoughts on Career-Long Learning

As has been frequently reported, the nature of work is undergoing profound changes due largely to automation, technology, artificial intelligence, and globalization. This exacerbates fears among students and workers of how to succeed in an ever-transformative economy and contributes to the current and expanding situation of a workforce not possessing the skills required by modern and future-oriented employers. 

To keep up with groundbreaking changes in employment requires an educational approach to training and learning that is flexible, relevant, and targeted to the capricious and volatile state of the economy. At present, traditional education institutions of high school and customary higher ed bachelor’s degrees appear to be lagging behind innovative industry methodologies like short-term credentialing and user-responsive professional development. Businesses recognize the value in foresight and pliable learning strategies necessary to uphold a workforce prepared for unpredictability. 

Education systems are not known for their elasticity and capacity to adjust to change. Take a typical public high school curriculum, the stage through which most American workers first pass on their way to employability. Has there been much reorganization in the basic course load or method of earning a diploma since the mid-twentieth century? I think not. This is an area where increased pressure to innovate is warranted. 

Beside a reassessment of curriculum relevance, another key concept we can hope for from high schools is that the message is getting through loud and clear to students that education does not stop with a diploma. The modern world is one in which continuous learning needs to be embraced if there is any hope for enjoying the fruits of professional mastery and robust compensation. Linking the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of learning is a valuable lifelong lesson. 

To this end, workers will benefit from a more accommodating and welcoming world of pathways designed to prepare entry-level professionals, upskill existing workers, and assist career changers in a manner consistent with the metamorphosing economy of work. In addition to an acceptance of the importance of career-long learning is to realize credentials matter. 

From a college degree to a professional license to an industry-specific certification, possessing evidence from a reputable instructional source, in which a worker can demonstrate training and education within an area of expertise is critical to advancing one’s career. The challenge becomes how to best earn pertinent credentials in a time effective and affordable manner. 

Career, employment specialists, and economists are suggesting several practices to ease credential acquisition. Kelsey Berkowitz is a Policy Advisor for Third Way’s Economic Program and has looked closely into this issue. Among the suggestions she makes is to: 

  • Increase the amount of credential stacking that is available. In other words, design short-term credential modules that can be combined into larger certifications or degrees. This could provide highly relevant on-demand training while also providing a means for adult workers to achieve higher education goals in more easily managed steps. 
  • Develop more apprenticeship programs. Evidence exists, particularly in Europe, of the effectiveness of industry-based programs that onboard entry-level workers and within a year or two produce trained and credentialed employees committed to the profession. 
  • Recognize prior experiences related to work by offering credit. It is not unusual for individuals to gain skills and insights applicable to their current jobs from events that occurred before being hired. Examples include acquired knowledge from the military, school programs, previous jobs, or other situations where pertinent learning took place. 
  • Streamline onerous licensing mobility. Twenty-five percent of all workers today are in fields requiring a professional license. However, in too many instances licenses are not reciprocal across state lines, creating burdens to reacquire licenses for those pros relocating to a new state. 

The need for instructional and training flexibility will become increasingly necessary in order to keep a nimble and ready workforce. Let us reform learning to better address this imperative. 

Avoiding Employment Burnout

It is widely agreed that burning out on the job, any job, is anathema to a satisfying professional life. To be clear, by burnout I am not referring to boredom or lack of inspiration with work, but rather the fear-based high anxiety and psychological debilitation that is the result of overly stressful attributes associated with your job. 

There are some broad points to highlight about employment burnout. For starters, it leads to depressed economic activity. Also, it arises following repeatedly demoralizing dynamics that taken together is negative for the individuals involved and for those close to them. Finally, efforts to structure workplaces and assist people in making wise career choices so that burnout does not occur is progressive. 

I suggest approaching the issue by looking at mitigation solutions that can be practiced by both employers and employees. My premise is that employment burnout is transactional, meaning that both parties play significant roles in its emergence, and they can also collaborate to see its demise. 

It is in employers’ interest to not contribute to the burnout of their talent. Employees cost money to recruit, onboard, and train and they provide the productivity skills needed to keep an enterprise profitable. What employees are not is a consumable resource. Yet, this is how they are often treated. Too many workers toil for longer hours with no appreciable boost in compensation. This includes receiving after-hours emails from management. 

A downside for technology is the way it allows for the workday to be extended and therefore the workload to grow. Reasonable limits on work-creep need to be instituted or employers will see their workforce turnover rate increase. 

In addition to management exhausting their labor pool there is the issue of too many employers not showing adequate understanding of what motivates and energizes employees. High compensation and judicious work hours certainly help, but also to be considered are the conditions that feed the career aspirations of workers, and by extension the profits of companies. When management recognizes the synergy between employee career development wishes and how those can best align with company productivity or organizational mission, we create a win/win situation. Such a happy union is not fertile ground for burnout. 

It is easy to pin all the blame on employers for employee burnout. But that is not entirely fair. When a worker goes into a job with their eyes wide open, knows clearly what is required to succeed, and intentionally tries to find the alignment between their own career development needs and employer enrichment they take ownership and responsibility for avoiding their own burnout. 

I recommend that an employee be guided by some fundamental principles when deciding to select and sustain a particular job. One is to always try to put yourself in a context where you are capitalizing on your strengths and managing your weaknesses. Do well what you are best at doing and allocate as little time as possible to handling those aspects of the job you just are not that good at performing. If these priorities are out of balance in your job, burnout is sure to follow. 

Also important is to make sure your job allows for and hopefully encourages you to continually develop your professional skillset; to interact and collaborate with colleagues and partners such that you are contributing optimally given your talent level; and that you leave each work shift feeling as if you are making a significant difference for yourself, your employer, and the world. With these arrangements in place, you are unlikely to feel the drain leading to burnout. 

Jobs, markets, competition, business success, and profitability are all tough to get just right. It can often seem things are beyond our control. But reducing and eradicating employee burnout is a goal employers and employees can achieve together and prosper from mutually. 

Finally! Get Prepared to Be Hired!

This has certainly been a long time in coming. The hiring picture is the brightest it has been since the economy was in danger of “melting down” in the late 2000s. A strong pattern has developed showing robust monthly hiring numbers. Employment has increased by an average of 336,000 jobs per month over the past three months. The national unemployment rate is 5.7%, down from a recession high of 10.0% in October 2009. In New Hampshire, the unemployment rate stands at 4.0% — the lowest rate in New England. Could things be better? Sure. But given what we have collectively gone through, this is news to celebrate. 

So, where is the hiring occurring? In looking at the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Highlights report, gains are being found in retail trade, construction, healthcare, financial activities, manufacturing, professional/business services, and leisure/hospitality. Statewide, according to the New Hampshire Economic & Labor Information Bureau, the strongest hiring is in healthcare, wholesale/retail trade, utilities, transportation, construction, hospitality, manufacturing, and professional/business services. The Society for Human Resource Management sees strong job growth in healthcare and technology. In other words, unless you are in the oil and gas industry, most sectors are looking great indeed. 

There are even signs of mass hiring being planned. Fire example, Home Depot announced on February 10 that they intend to hire 80,000 additional workers for the Spring season. 

However, those of us involved in job transitions need to be aware that the road to the next great gig is not paved with yellow bricks. The conditions of competitiveness that applied during the tooth and nail employment scramble of recent years are still to be put into use today when presenting yourself to potential employers. 

Business leaders will continue to be cautious and strategic about whom they hire. It should be accepted that these executives are clear on how they have or want to achieve and maintain success in the marketplace and that they will want only new hires who fit their profitable paradigm. Therefore, let us view this new boost of hiring from the perspective of the key decision makers as we prepare to introduce ourselves for their consideration. 

I recommend assuming the following: 

Just like any of us who shop for quality we tend to return to those sources that have consistently provided value in the past and that have earned for us a reputation for reliability. Employers are no different. So, think, from where might you be reliably sourced? Perhaps it is your current or former employer, your alma mater, someone “in-house” where you would like to work and who is in your professional network, or possibly a retained or contingency recruiting firm with which you have worked in the past. Aligning yourself with and promoting yourself from an identifiable source is tactically sound. 

A smart employer who does not want to burn through several bad hires (and the expenses associated with them) will take the time to specify key selection criteria for positions to be filled. The more detailed and definitive the job search candidate is about what comprises the value proposition contained in their marketing collateral, i.e., their resume and LinkedIn profile, the more likely a solid match can be established between the position and the candidate. This can save both parties from wasting time on lack of fit. 

Those companies and organizations with a grapevine stature of fair, honest, and dependable lines of communication among all employees, customers, and other stakeholders are also more likely to keep candidates informed throughout the hiring process, compared to those obnoxious firms that never seem to let a post-interviewee know what their status is. (Let’s face it, these outfits that have positions to fill, request applications, conduct interviews, and then leave those who followed the process in limbo should be called out on it.) Assume that if a business has a good reputation for communication, then at least you will know where you stand if you apply for a job with them. 

Times are as good for the job searcher as they have been in a long time. If you have been holding your nose in a less than satisfying job for years, the time has come to take a serious look at transitioning. Just know that planning and implementing a wise approach to this all-important change with an eye to employers’ hiring methodologies is the way to go. 

Is There Really a Talent Shortage?

There are some common claims being tossed around in the national self-diagnosis now occurring of why hiring is not significantly picking up. Declarations such as employers are learning to do more with fewer employees and that there is too much economic uncertainty to risk hiring employees, especially after how bad businesses were hurt at the start of the recession, are two assertions often heard. 

There is another claim that does not get quite as much play but is starting to be heard often enough. It is that employers cannot hire as much as they would like because there is a talent shortage. 

Apparently, the workplace is changing so rapidly that schools and the individuals attending them cannot keep up with newly designed job descriptions, many of which contain specialty requirements. This seems particularly true in industries such as IT and engineering.  

However, the alleged shortage is occurring throughout the workforce — or so many employers tell us. We can easily be left with the impression that growth in innovation is now so exponential that it is the fault of our lagging workforce not preparing themselves briskly enough for the new world order. 

So, is there really a talent shortage? Upon closer examination it may be that employers are unwittingly perpetuating a shortage and dampening hiring as a result. 

Yes, employers do feel there is something wrong with the candidate pool. And that something is that candidates are not qualified enough. If there were more qualified candidates, there would be more hiring. This seems to be their charge. It must be the candidates’ problem, right? 

But let us look at how the employer landscape has changed for potential employees. Employers are extremely cost conscious because of the recession. This has caused them to reduce and consolidate their workforces. Specialty hybrid positions have been created to produce more multiple-skilled positions than existed pre-recession. Therefore, when an opening occurs, a candidate is supposed to be specialized in not just one skill set but in more than one. Obviously, the pool of likely candidates just shrunk a lot. 

Let us dig a little deeper. Among the costs being saved is in reducing or eliminating training and development. Why spend on onboarding when you can hire plug and play defacto independent contractors for specific projects? With no onboarding activities the expectation is that candidates must be ready to produce with little to no ramp-up time. This may discourage candidates from applying or is the cause of early departures once hired.  

Another issue employers must contend with is the huge number of applicants sending in applications. A screening process must be used that selects out all but the “best”. This increasingly means use of applicant tracking system software. Two issues with this type of software. One is that it is not always very nuanced enough or sophisticated. Second, use of even the most effective software requires skillful and dedicated HR use, another area seeing cost cutting. 

Potential talent is being screened out. A related issue for employers is maybe they could at least let applicants know that their application was received and processed, then they wouldn’t be left wondering if their application ever made to you, reducing the number of times they apply for the same position. 

Sure, the workplace is changing, and it is important for candidates to keep skills current and to apply to only those positions for which they are qualified to succeed. But employers also have a responsibility to examine their hiring practices to see if they are contributing to not only their own “talent shortage”, but also to the stubbornly low levels of hiring nationwide.