Content uploaded by Frank Horwitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frank Horwitz on Apr 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Frank Horwitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frank Horwitz on Apr 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
agework@bc.edu 1
state issue brief 01
flexible work options
june 2009
flexible work options
in state agencies
Melissa Brown, Michelle Wong & Tay McNamara, PhD
http://www.bc.edu/agingandwork
2
state issue brief 01
table of contents
Introduction 3
Why Are Flexible Work Options Important? 3
How Prevalent Are Flexible Work Options in State Agencies? 4
What Motivates Employers to Offer Flexible Work Options? 5
Why Might Employers Be Reluctant to Offer Flexible Work Options? 7
Conclusion 8
This Issue Brief is one of the resources prepared for managers and supervisors as part of the
States as Employers-of-Choice project. Questions about this Issue Brief or the overall project can
be directed to either Tay McNamara at Boston College (mcnamatd@bc.edu) or Bob Davis at the
Twiga Foundation, Inc. (davismcs@msn.com).
Acknowledgments
The Twiga Foundation, Inc., and the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College are appre-
ciative of the support provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for the States as Employers-of-
Choice project as well as other research initiatives of the Sloan Center on Aging & Work.
We would also like to express our appreciation to the representatives of 222 agencies from 22
states who took the time to respond to the survey questions.
States as Employers-of-Choice
A Collaborative Project of the Twiga Foundation, Inc., and the Sloan Center on Aging & Work
Report prepared by Melissa Brown, Michelle Wong & Tay McNamara, PhD.
agework@bc.edu 3
flexible work options
introduction
This rst in a series of Issue Briefs highlighting the ndings from the States as Employ-
ers-of-Choice Survey focuses on exible work options. Flexible work options, also known
as alternative or nonstandard work arrangements, refer to a number of opportunities that
offer choice and control to employees and supervisors about where and how work gets
done. Regardless of place of employment, the vast majority of the workforce reports that
having access to exible work options is “very important” to them.1 Such arrangements
benet not only the employees and their families but employers as well.
This Issue Brief will discuss why exible work options are important to both employees
and employers and provide an overview of exible work options offered by agencies that
participated in the States as Employers-of-Choice Survey. The States as Employers-of-
Choice Survey was conducted in order to assess state agencies’ level of awareness and
understanding of demographic changes, help them evaluate their response to the aging
workforce, and contribute to planning for possible action steps.
As offering exible work options is one possible action step for agencies to consider, this
Issue Brief compares agencies that have made the link between workplace exibility and
overall effectiveness “not at all” or to a “limited” extent to those agencies that report
having made the link to a “moderate” or “great” extent. The results of the workplace
exibility component of the state agency survey, including the types of exible work op-
tions offered to state employees, the factors motivating state agencies to offer exible
work options, and some of the barriers that discourage state agencies from implement-
ing exible work options, are presented by contrasting agencies that have made this
connection with those who have not yet done so.
why are flexible work options important? Â
Research across both the public and private sectors has highlighted the signicance of
exible work options for both employees and employers. A national survey of employees
found that those with access to exible work options reported greater life satisfaction
and better mental health as well as less interference between work and family domains.2
Their employers also beneted: Employees with access to exible work options reported
higher levels of job satisfaction and engagement as well as greater loyalty to their em-
ployers.
Similarly positive outcomes have been found in research that focused on the public
sector. Federal agencies offering exible work options have beneted from improved
employee morale and a reduction in unscheduled absences, whereas employees reported
greater ease in balancing work and family needs.3 Yet, although researchers have gath-
ered substantial information on exible work options in the private sector and the federal
government, such research has not extended to the state level.
Because of the signicant benets to both employees and their agencies, it is important
to understand the prevalence of exible work options in state agencies and the agencies’
perceived motivators and barriers to offering exible work arrangements. The ndings
from the States as Employers-of-Choice Survey can offer these valuable insights.
http://www.bc.edu/agingandwork
4
state issue brief 01
how prevalent are flexible work options in state agencies? Â
Figure 1 shows the most common exible work options offered to “most” or “all” state
employees by the agencies in the States as Employers-of-Choice Survey. The seven most
prevalent exible work options included the following: take an extended leave for care-
giving, request changes in starting/quitting times from time to time, choose a schedule
that varies from the typical schedule (alternative schedule), take paid/unpaid leave for
education or training, transfer to a job with reduced pay and responsibilities, work a com-
pressed workweek, and have input into the amount of overtime worked.
Table 1: Flexible Work Options Included in the
States as Employers-of-Choice Survey
Flexibility in Number of Hours:
Work part-year; Phase into retirement; Provide input into overtime worked; Job •
share
Flexible Schedules:
Request changes in start/quit times occasionally; Request changes in start/quit •
times daily; Choose a work schedule that varies from the typical schedule; Work a
compressed workweek; Choose which shift to work
Flexible Location:
Work off-site (tele-work); Work part of the year at one -site, part at another site •
Options for Time Off:
Take caregiving Lleave; Take a sabbatical; Take education/job training leave •
Other:
Transfer to job with reduced responsibilities/pay; Request changes so job a better •
t; Reduce hours and remain in same position
Figure 1: Most Common Flexible Work Options Offered to “Most” or “All” Employees
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70% 66.2
45.8
41.2 36.9
33.6
29.2
23.8
Caregiving Changes
Start/Quit
Alt. Sch. Ed/Training
Leave
Input
Overtime
Transfer
Jobs
Compress
Workweek
Total Sample
agework@bc.edu 5
flexible work options
Less common exible work options offered to “most” or “all” employees included phasing
into retirement (9.2%), working off-site (8.1%), and job sharing (4.6%). Along with the
variability in the types of exible work options offered to state employees, there was also
variability in the extent to which agencies have made the link between workplace exibility
and overall effectiveness. Just over a third of agencies (35%) report making this connection
to a “moderate” or “great” extent, whereas 65% reported that their agencies have not made
this connection at all or have only done so to a “limited” extent.
Among those that did make the link between workplace exibility and agency effectiveness,
they were signicantly more likely to offer certain types of exible work options. Figure 2
shows the relationship between the extent to which an agency made a link between work-
place exibility and overall agency effectiveness and the extent to which those agencies
offered various exible work options to their employees.
what motivates employers to offer flexible work options? Â
There are many reasons that employers may be motivated to provide exible work
options for their employees. Not only do employees typically benet, but employers
might also nd advantages to offering such alternatives. Many of the reasons state
agencies in the States as Employers-of-Choice Survey acknowledged as motivators
to offering exible work options are supported by ndings from similar studies. For
instance, nearly two-thirds of state agencies (63.2%) stated that they offer exible work
options because they believe it improves employee morale. Other research focusing on
the public sector has substantiated this nding, showing that employers benet from
increased employee morale when they offer alternative work arrangements.4
Figure 2: Flexible Work Options Offered to “All” or “Most” Employees
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
57.1
82.6
35.3
65.2
28.2
65.2
17.9
50.0
16.5
37.8
Caregiving Changes
Start/Quit
Alt. Sch. Compress
Workweek
Input
Overtime
Linked Workplace Flex to Overall Effectiveness “Not at All”/to “Limited” Extent
Linked Workplace Flex to Overall Effectiveness to “Moderate”/“Great” Extent
http://www.bc.edu/agingandwork
6
state issue brief 01
Along with improving morale, other top motivators for offering exible work options
noted by the agencies in the States as Employers-of-Choice Survey included: to help
employees manage work and family life, to retain employees, to manage today’s
workforce effectively, and to increase commitment and job engagement (see Figure 3
below).
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the extent to which an agency made a link be-
tween workplace exibility and overall agency effectiveness and the extent to which those
agencies were motivated by a number of factors.
Figure 3: Top Motivators to Offering Flexible Work Options
Figure 4: Agencies Motivated to Offer Flexible Work Options to a “Moderate” or “Great” Extent
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68% 66.9
62.9 62.4 62.4
60.0
Work-Life Retention
Morale Commitment
Manage
Total Sample
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
56.3
86.4
53.2
80.0
55.0
75.6
53.8
77.8
50.0
77.8
Work-Life Morale Retention Manage Commitment
Linked Workplace Flex to Overall Effectiveness “Not at All”/to “Limited” Extent
Linked Workplace Flex to Overall Effectiveness to “Moderate”/“Great” Extent
agework@bc.edu 7
flexible work options
Notably, barriers to implementing exible work options were more prevalent in agencies
that reported they had “not at all” or to a “limited” extent made the link between exibili-
ty and overall effectiveness, compared with agencies that had made the link to a “moder-
ate” or “great” extent. Such barriers included concerns about the reactions of customers
and clients, viewing exible work options as an accommodation rather than a manage-
ment tool, more pressing issues, and concerns about possible employee complaints or
liability. Figure 6 illustrates some of the perceived barriers broken down by the extent to
which the agency reported making the link between exibility and overall effectiveness.
why might emlpoyers be reluctant to offer flexible Â
work options?
Although exible work options can be a “win-win” for employees and employers, some
workplaces might note actual or perceived difculties in implementing exible work
options. For example, within the federal government, some agencies have reported
a lack of support from management, along with inconsistent implementation across
departments, as barriers to the effective implementation and utilization of exible work
options.5
Agencies in the States as Employers-of Choice Survey also reported barriers to
implementing exible work options. Over half of the agencies surveyed indicated that
difcultly with supervising employees, concerns about treating employees equally, and
concerns about the reactions of clients and customers were barriers to implementing
exible work options to a “moderate” or “great” extent. Some of the most common
barriers are depicted in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Top Barriers to Offering Flexible Work Options
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
50.4
25.8
18.0
Cust. Reaction Liability Other Issue
Total Sample
http://www.bc.edu/agingandwork
8
state issue brief 01
Figure 6: Barriers to Offering Flexible Work Options to a “Moderate” or “Great” Extent
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
59.3
34.1 32.5
13.6
26.6
2.3
Linked Workplace Flex to Overall Effectiveness “Not at All”/to “Limited” Extent
Linked Workplace Flex to Overall Effectiveness to “Moderate”/“Great” Extent
Cust. Reaction Liability Other Issue
conclusion
There are clear differences between agencies that reported making the connection
between workplace exibility and overall effectiveness and agencies that have not yet
made this connection. Most signicantly, a greater proportion of the workforce had
access to a variety of exible work options in agencies that made the connection. This is
not surprising, given that these agencies are also more motivated to offer exible work
options and indicated fewer barriers to doing so.
Agencies making the connection between exibility and overall effectiveness may nd
they are better prepared to respond to the challenges of an aging workforce. Among
older workers in particular, exibility allows individuals the opportunity to work with their
agencies to structure a mutually benecial employment relationship. Offering alternative
arrangements can help state agencies retain the experience and institutional knowledge
of older adults while also providing these employees with the opportunity to meet their
personal and family needs. Missing such opportunities will not only impact efforts to
recruit and retain an engaged workforce but might also exclude an important group from
state agencies’ available labor pool.
Offering a variety of exible work options to employees across the age spectrum can
be a critical component of an effective action plan to meet the challenges of changing
workplace demographics. Although some of the agencies in the States as Employers-
of-Choice Survey had made a connection between workplace exibility and overall
effectiveness to a great extent (11.9%), it would be benecial to for all agencies to make
the connection and realize the benets the come with creating a better t between
employee needs and work options.
agework@bc.edu 9
flexible work options
At a Glance: The States as Employers-of-Choice Study
The States as Employers-of-Choice Project is a collaborative initiative being
implemented by the Twiga Foundation, Inc., and the Sloan Center on Aging
& Work at Boston College. This project is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation. The 2-year project provides resources to HR managers at state
agencies so that they can respond to shifts in the age demographics of the
workforce.
The States as Employers-of-Choice Study is one component of the overall project.
Data collection began in spring 2008 and was concluded in fall 2008.
A total of 222 agencies from 22 states responded to the online survey used to
gather information.
Organizations
The Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College promotes quality of employment
as an imperative for the 21st century multi-generational workforce. We integrate
evidence from research with insights from workplace experiences to inform innovative
organizational decision-making. Collaborating with business leaders and scholars in a
multi-disciplinary dialogue, the Center develops the next generation of knowledge and
talent management.
The Twiga Foundation, Inc., founded in 2005, is a nonprot corporation dedicated to
inspiring, promoting, and maintaining family consciousness at home, in the workplace,
and in the community. Workplace exibility is a key component in addressing the
mismatch between the workplace and family needs. The Twiga Foundation’s efforts are
centered on bringing to light an understanding of workplace exibility as a good business
strategy that, additionally, helps to insure a strong workforce for the future.
Authors
Melissa Brown is a Research Assistant at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work and a
doctoral student in the School of Social Work at Boston College. Her research interests
include the work-eldercare interface and exible work options for workers at all career
stages.
Michelle Wong is a Research Assistant at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work and a law
student at Boston College. Her previous work includes state proles focused on labor
force characteristics.
Tay McNamara, Ph.D., is the Director of Research at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work.
Her research interests focus on quality of employment for older workers both within the
United States and globally.
http://www.bc.edu/agingandwork
10
state issue brief 01
References
1 Rayman, P., Carré, F., Cintron, L., & Quinn, S. (2000). Life’s work: Generational attitudes toward work and life
integration. Cambridge, MA: The Radcliffe Public Policy Center.
2 Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinksy, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the National Study of the Changing
Workforce. Retrieved from http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/summary/nscw2002summ.pdf
3 U.S. General Accounting Ofce (2002). Human capital: Effective use of exibilities can assist agencies in managing
their workforces. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce, p. 15; U.S. Ofce of Personnel Manage-
ment. (2000). Achieving a balance: Meeting work and family obligations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Ofce, p. 6; U.S. Ofce of Personnel Management. (1998). A review of federal family-friendly workplace
arrangements. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce, p. 18; U.S. General Accounting Ofce.
(1994). Alternative work schedules: Many agencies do not allow employees the full exibility permitted by law.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce, p. 4.
4 Facer, R. L., Jr., & Wadsworth, L. (2008). Alternative work schedules and work-family balance: A research note.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 166-177.
5 U.S. Ofce of Personnel Management. (2000). Achieving a balance: Meeting work and family obligations. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce, p. 6.
Additional Publications from the States as Employers-of-Choice Project Include:
State Research Highlight:
States as Employers-of-Choice (March 2009) •
State Issue Briefs:
Flexible Work Options in State Agencies (June 2009) •
C o m p a r i n g t h e P r i o r i t i e s o f S t a t e A g e n c i e s a n d t h e P r i v a t e S e c t o r ( J u n e 2 0 0 9 ) •
State Fact Sheets:
State Population Aged 55+ with College Degree (March 2009) •
State Unemployment Rates for Persons Aged 55+ (January 2009) •
State Unemployment Rates_by Age Group (June 2008) •
State Government Workforce_by Age Group (June 2008) •
