Flexible Work Still Needs Structure
Notes on Flexible Work
Deep Life Notes | Flexible Work
Flexible work has loosened the old rules, but people still need signposts, the right tools, and permission to switch off.
Earlier this month, I learned something interesting about every person in my team at work. One was related to Che Guevara, another was a former cast member at Disney, and one could still do the splits.
These personal insights came from a ‘getting-to-know you’ session which opened the first physical team meeting we’ve had in over two years. In fact, it was our first ever physical team meeting; the team forming only two years ago.
Lack of bonding with co-workers has been costly
Research has shown that work friendships increase employee engagement, which is associated with both happiness and productivity for workers. The move to remote working for many people during the pandemic has brought benefits, but also come at a cost. One of those costs is the lack of bonding with co-workers, lowering the true value of work for millions. Organisations recognise this.
Much has already been written about ‘The Great Resignation’, or its evolution by some into the more positively framed ‘The Great Reset.’
What we know from research is that a significant proportion of employees worldwide are thinking of leaving their current jobs. As high as 41% according to the Microsoft Work Trend Index. Many already have. The top reason given is a deterioration in work-life balance (34%).
Companies are struggling to get people back into offices
Now, as organisations call for people to embrace a mix of working from home and working from the office, in order to realise the benefits of both, we enter flexible or hybrid working.
But there’s two problems here:
Companies are struggling to get people back into offices, meaning co-workers are missing out on critical bonding with colleagues
Employees are struggling to have a work-life balance because the rules of working have become distorted.
It’s a paradox that more flexibility requires more structure.
Too much flexibility creates confusion and a fear of missing out
Flexibility with work hours and location is a positive change. But too much flexibility creates confusion and a fear of missing out in the office, especially for younger people or new joiners who crave building relationships to help them succeed in their role.
37% of people overall and 53% of Gen Z workers say they don’t have a clear start time or finish time to their workday according to the Anatomy of Work Global Index Study. This leads to the blurring of lines between ‘work time’ and ‘personal time’ and can be a cause of burnout.
Added to this is the incessant ping of multiple communication channels and tools, all demanding constant attention and reaction. This creates ‘context-shifting’, where we jump from one task to the other, resulting in an overall drop in quality.
Flexible work needs clearer signposts
In a disrupted world, employees have lost the signposts and expectations on working norms. This is where organisations have a larger role to play: providing more structure and clarity, helping their employees get the best from both remote and office working, as well as giving them the tools—and approval—to better separate their professional and personal lives.
Despite what we’ve been told, productivity isn’t only personal. It’s also systematic, which means organisations have to think about it collectively, enabling their leaders to have these conversations and set the example themselves.
Her are five strategies worth considering:
Fixed hours can provide useful boundaries.
One useful starting point is choosing a schedule of work hours you think provides the ideal balance of work/effort and relaxation/rest. Work hard to protect it because there will always be something or someone that wants your attention. Without some stake in the ground, work can easily expand until all available space is gone.Adopting the Always Be Working (ABW) attitude as a status symbol is not a proxy for achievement. Rather, it’s likely to harm your long-term chances of success and happiness. Instead, it’s the quality of hours and the accomplishments that count. So fix the schedule you want. Then make everything else fit around your needs. This allows flexibility to work properly.
A shutdown routine can give the day closure.
Having a shutdown routine gives your day closure. A line has to be drawn somewhere if the next day is going to begin with any freshness. Shutdown routines only take a few minutes and ideally should be the same time each day. For example, 6pm.My routine involves a quick review of my open tasks, making sure I have nothing urgent outstanding, before logging off my laptop and all messenger tools. I do not log back on to look at email that evening. There are times, of course, when I choose to be on a later call or need to complete something important, but these are exceptions.
A simple time management system can make a noticeable difference.
Central to the success of the first two strategies is a time management system. There are three components:
Capture—get all your ideas, tasks and commitments out of your head and into a trusted system. I use a physical notebook and a simple .txt file on my laptop for digital notes.
Configure—organise and consolidate all this information. Here I used Trello and its excellent Kanban-style boards to organise all my tasks, and a Word document for overall plans.
Control—making more deliberate choices about time, rather than reacting to everything as it arrives. I have a daily, weekly, and quarterly plan. I also time-block my day, every day. Take a look at Cal Newport’s Time-Block Planner to get a better idea.
Together, these practices can make it easier to understand where your time is going and make better decisions about how it is used. Far from making your day more rigid, you’ll likely find you’re more creative, more productive, less stressed and able to take more breaks. Leaders could do worse than model this themselves.Leaders can set weekly schedules and organise physical time in the office
Leaders have an opportunity to be more intentional about time in the office. A weekly schedule for your teams that clearly defines focused time to work at home and time to work in the office together on shared projects can be helpful. Mandating this schedule is probably not the best approach. Instead, explain the benefits and get the collective buy-in before setting any schedule.
Leaders can also set aside Office Hours each week when their teams can approach for open Q&A, physical or virtual. These should be consistent, for example, Wednesday afternoons, 2-4pm. This works best for coordination activities that are both frequent but not urgent.
Leaders can set expectations around communication channels and tools
Leaders can provide guidance on which tools to use and how to use them. By setting clearer expectations on response times, it helps remove the culture of instant replies for non-urgent tasks, which harms productivity and focus because people are switching rapidly from one thing to the next.
It also helps when people know it’s acceptable to switch off tools like Teams or Slack when they are working on cognitively demanding activities. Your example matters. If you don’t want your teams sending emails at the weekend, don’t send them yourself. Be respectful of people’s personal commitments and time zones.
A more deliberate approach, built on education, structure and buy-in
At the heart of these solutions lies a more deliberate approach, built on education, structure and buy-in. Some will require careful implementation, especially for those organisations and people that work across a myriad of cultures and time zones.
People are more likely to support change when they can see the benefits and have a role in the decision-making process. The deeper aim is to connect daily work to the wider purpose of the organisation, so they can see their contribution and feel appreciated.
Work can be a deeply enriching pillar of a life well lived. As work and our approach to it continues to evolve, organisations have to take more responsibility for setting clear expectations on working norms.
It remains a paradox that more flexibility requires more structure.