After considerable debate, the U.S. Congress has finally approved the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. ¹

The Bill, which has passed both the House and the Senate, is now awaiting President Obama’s signature. Once that happens, federal agencies will be required to develop a policy that allows eligible employees to do at least some portion of their work outside of the office, with the aid of electronic communications. Agencies will also be required to incorporate this alternative arrangement into its operational planning for natural and other disasters.

Why it’s a no-brainer
There is an abundance of research data demonstrating the positive effects of teleworking – or telecommuting – on employee well-being and on the employer’s bottom-line. In a “meta-analysis” of 46 studies of telecommuting involving 12,833 employees, Pennsylvania State University psychologists Ravi Gajendran and David A. Harrison found that telecommuting was a win-win for both employees and employers. Telecommuting gives employees a sense of freedom at work, which contributes to job satisfaction. It reduces stress and helps workers balance their work and personal responsibilities. Employees who telecommute maintain and may increase their productivity. Having access to telecommuting increases worker loyalty, and working outside of the office for one or two days per week has no negative effect on employee relations with co-workers or managers.

Gejendran and Harrison’s findings reflect what I learned in a small qualitative study of women telecommuters who were employed in several major American corporations. Despite the dramatic influx of women into the paid labor force in the past few decades, they continue to be the primary caregivers within their families. With inadequate government family policies in the U.S., and a limited response within the private sector to employees’ family concerns, our society is experiencing an enormous care gap. Telecommuting provides women – and increasingly men – with a legitimate avenue to combine and/or accommodate their market work and caregiving responsibilities. The women telecommuters I interviewed claimed that the arrangement improved their work-life balance, allowing them to have more control over when and where they performed their labor. At the same time, telecommuting helped them to maximize their productivity, serving the ultimate objective of employers. One telecommuter I interviewed for the study told me that she was able to maintain her work, despite dealing with a serious health problem:

“I’ve just been diagnosed with breast cancer so about a month ago I had surgery and now I’m getting radiation everyday and in the summer I will start chemotherapy. So, being a telecommuter is enabling me to work from home if I’m not well enough to come into the office.”

And a manager of a customer service department told me that telecommuting, while supporting employees’ needs, also benefited the company’s bottom-line. Describing his rationale for implementing a telecommuting policy in his department, he said,

“People could do the same thing they do in the office at home and save them the wear and tear of coming to work, the wear and tear of a long commute in many instances, maybe tolls . . . schlepping around with the kids trying to go to a child development center. The company benefits to the extent that every time we have a bad weather close down we have people on the phone at home instead of disruption of service. So it’s a win-win on both sides.”

Trial run in the States
Indeed, telecommuting has been instituted in a number of U.S. federal agencies already, as well as in numerous corporations. In a 2004 study of 74 federal agencies, 43% of employees (323,292) reported that they were eligible to telework, compared to 35% of employees (625,313) in 2002, representing a gain of more than 20%. ² And in the overall U.S. labor force – including public and private employers – it’s estimated that more than 33.7 million workers telework at least one day per month.

Moreover, 22 states have already passed telework legislation. A number have implemented these policies to address environmental concerns or traffic congestion; some states encourage private employers to implement telecommuting programs; and others have statutes connecting employee productivity and efficiency to telecommuting, or promoting “a better quality of life.” ³

Historically, many federal policies in the U.S. are first implemented at the state level. This was the case for social security, health care reform, maternity and parental leave, and even civil rights legislation. The federal legislation was the culmination of pressure in smaller policy environments. But having a federal bill can also provide a model for more universal implementation. In addition to creating a mandate for federal agencies, hopefully the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 will provide encouragement for additional states and private sector employers to institute or expand their telecommuting policies.

Making the Bill real
While the effects of telecommuting are positive for employers and employees, it is only workable for certain types of work and with certain employees, and therefore not a universal solution to problems in workplace policy. But it is particularly well-suited for those doing “knowledge work” that can be effectively performed in multiple locations with the help of electronic communications. Even for those who have jobs that are conducive to telecommuting, the face-time culture of most organizations may undercut their utilization. It’s one thing to have a policy, and yet another to have employees use it. The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 requires training for employers and employees, which is a critical element to shift an organization’s culture. In my telecommuting study, I found that even those who felt supported to perform their work at home felt it was a privilege, and in turn, worked additional hours to “prove” their loyalty. But when they did use the policy, it improved their quality of life.

The cost/benefit debate
The sad fact is that Republican opposition to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 is not based on what’s good for employees or employers. It simply affords Republicans another opportunity to say that less government is better. But that argument doesn’t make sense if the policy is administered with care. Representative Virginia Foxx, a Republican legislator from North Carolina, argued that with a high unemployment rate, it is a “travesty” that Democrats are “pushing this initiative to make it easier for federal employees — who already have it much easier than the rest of the country — to avoid the office.”

Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican legislator from California, said that the law adds a layer of bureaucracy into federal agencies, claiming that Americans want less government. Bolstered by recent elections of conservative Republicans to Congress, he says, “This will be the first vote after the American people said no to government waste, fraud and abuse, government growth and government spending.” Issa will undoubtedly try to amend or change this legislation when he begins his role as the new Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the New York Times, Issa’s plans are part of a larger Republican agenda to vastly expand scrutiny of the Obama administration and aggressively push to cut spending and shrink the government, focusing on “excesses and waste”.

Democrats who supported the passage of the telework legislation provided evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill will cost around $30 million over five years, but the return on this investment will pay off over time. Representative Stephen Lynch, a Democratic legislator from Massachusetts and my very own Congressional representative, said the long-term savings will provide an “excellent return” on this initial investment. And indeed the experience of many private companies suggest that he’s right on the money. IBM has saved as much as $56 million annually in reduced office space by allowing employees to telework; Cisco generated an estimated annual savings of $277 million in productivity by allowing employees to telecommute. And IBM Canada currently saves $20 million in operating costs annually and over 500,000 square feet of real estate with its telework program.

Let’s hope that sanity – backed up by plenty of data and experience throughout the U.S. – will prevail once this sensible piece of legislation is signed by the President, and that the resistance will be met with reason.

To contact Dr Mindy Fried go to Arbor Consulting Partners or see her fantastic blog at: Mindysmuses.

_____________________________________
¹ In the U.S., proposed legislation may be called an “Act” and the terms “Act” and “Bill” are often used interchangeably, unlike in Australia where legislation is called a “Bill” until it is passed and then called an “Act”.
² U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2004). The status of telework in the federal government 2004.
³ Sloan Work and Family Research Network

Source: Workplace Flexibility

News out today says that 70,000 Australian mums are locked out of the workforce solely because they cannot get affordable childcare.  Boy this makes me cranky. And it’s not just because I was up half the night showering and changing Master Almost-3 who’s had a recurring gastro for 3 weeks now.  This issue makes me crazy; partly because of the impact it’s having on the career advancement, life choices and personal power of women; but it’s also ludicrous to consider here is a talent pool that wants to work and contribute to the productivity of our nation and its employers, but can’t get over the structural barriers to do so.

Now before you say write this off as a “mummy track” issue… consider the impact it’s having on your business.

The ABS says a further 13 per cent of mothers were either unavailable for work or unable to work more hours because there were no childcare places where they lived.

And yet just last year the Government dropped its plan to build 260 childcare centres – saying figures show there are enough places – and introduced reforms to long day care that will increase the cost of care for pre-school aged kids by up to 15 per cent.

It’s not just because I’m a mum that I’m passionate about this.  We can’t leave employers in a position where they recruit great women, invest in their development, do the right thing in holding jobs open during parental leave… and then ask them to hope for the best in terms of parents finding a childcare place before they can return to the workplace.

 In my last executive role – long before I’d even considered parenthood – I was responsible for a team of around 200 people and the administration of $9billion in assets and reported to the COO.  You might think that would give you a bit of clout when it comes to the onsite childcare wait list.  Think again.

When one of my best team leaders was on parental leave, she was desperate to get back to work.  Her family needed the money. She needed the mental stimulation. And we needed her!  But she had no relatives in Australia to help her and she couldn’t find quality, affordable care.

My star performer was on the waitlist at several local childcare centres, near her home and our offices; and when our own on-site centre told her the wait would be over 12 months for a spot, I just figured this couldn’t be true.  I marched down to that centre “to have a word” with the centre Director who promptly showed me the list – and pointed out that there was nothing I could do to change that.  It was more than 12 months before she found the care she needed; and even then it wasn’t the full time cover she – and I – had hoped for.

If you’re an employer you should know that Australia is way behind the leading nations of the world in terms of the kind of support it provides to working parents. And I’ve already written about why the Government was wrong in reducing the support it offers to Australia’s working parents. The lack of childcare reform in this country is flowing directly onto your business, and I’ll attempt to explain why.

Now we all know that not every woman wants to return to work after having kids; but what I do know for sure is that many certainly do.  And they’re kept out by the structural barriers they encounter.

If you were an employer in Norway, Sweden, France or Germany you would know that childcare doesn’t enter in to the return-to-work considerations: all parents have the peace of mind and the right to a guaranteed publicly-funded childcare place.  But that’s simply not the case here.

So if you think it’s hard for workers to find quality, affordable childcare to match their working hours, you don’t know the half of it. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 15 per cent of all unemployed women say they want to work but can’t, because they’re unable to access affordable care for their children while they work.

And if you want to pay more than just lip service to attracting, developing and retaining women in your business, you need to understand the issues relating to childcare in this country.

 To analyse this further, it’s necessary to split out cost, structure and availability as separate and important issues.

Cost is important to both parents and employers, because many workers fail to return to the workplace because it’s not financially viable to do so.  Commonwealth Bank research shows 1 in 3 families whose parents have returned to work use paid childcare; and of these 1 in 4 works for no financial gain (despite government assistance).  That is to say, the cost of childcare either exceeds what they earn from returning to work, or is at breakeven.

The Government provides a rebate to offset these costs but it’s capped at 50% rebate to a maximum of $7500 per child per year.  In major capital cities, like Sydney or Melbourne, parents will need to pay around $120 per child per day – so for full time care they’ll have to fund the rest of the gap – or around $24,000 – from after tax dollars – and this is big money for the average worker.

That’s why many believe parents would be better off – and encouraged back to work – if childcare costs were tax deductible – and why every business must understand the numbers and join the lobby for these reforms.

Structure is an issue because currently the Government childcare rebate is only available to approved carers, which in almost all cases means long daycare centres. While I’m an advocate for long daycare and it forms part of my own childcare mix, this option simply doesn’t work for all families.  Some parents are reticent about leaving their young babies – with their weak immune systems – in daycare centres.  Some – think shiftworkers like nurses and hospitality professionals – just don’t have access to working days that fit in with the structure of long day-care.  Others need to travel overnight for work, and need someone to stay in home during their absence.  Some just prefer in-home care, which offers more flexibility on timing, choice of carer and coverage when children are sick (and can’t attend daycare).  But if you can’t fit in with the long day-care system you’ll (in general) need to forgo any rebate, which makes the cost of pre-school care even higher. This is simply unfair and the first thing we need from Government is an extension of the rebate to all forms of registered care.

This dependence on the long daycare model has a flow on effect to availability too.  President of the Australian Childcare Alliance, Gwynn Bridge, points out that occupancy levels at childcare centres average about 70 per cent – with many centres having vacancies on “less popular” days like Mondays and Fridays. Telling parents to structure their work days accordingly is a fairly blunt instrument: if parents are in a position to actually choose their work days, it can work – but if not, they’re back to square one and the hunt to find available slots on the days they need.

Together these three factors become “too hard” for parents of pre-school age kids to manage and afford.  And so one of the parents steps out of the workforce – most often the women – and over time it becomes harder and harder to make work work.

But what often goes unnoticed – and what you should know if you’re an employer is that it’s not just the pre-school years that are the problem. I think this is what many employers really struggle with.  What they don’t get is that it’s actually harder for parents and for the workplace when kids reach school age.

Let’s start with flexibility.  Many employers think that once the kids are at school, life resumes normality for the “model worker”.  But it’s actually harder to get what you need in terms of flexible work arrangements once the kids are at school.  The Fair Work Act gives parents the right to request flexibility, but the catch is that right exists only while kids are of pre-school age.  The Act doesn’t apply to parents of school age kids (except children with a disability) so you’re very much on your own after your kid turns 5.

The flipside of this is until kids are of pre-school age, they’ll be able to access care up to 52 weeks of the year, from as long as 7.30am til 6pm.  When school kicks in, your kids are in class around 39 weeks of the year, from around 8am til 3pm give or take, depending on their age and school system.

So employers go from having a shorter-than-ideal but certainly workable presence from working parents, to a very different picture when the kids hit school ages. 

And I’m not sure about you, but no place (outside of the school system itself) has ever offered a standard 13 weeks annual leave a year to fit in with school holiday periods, or promoted a 9-til-3 working day as the status quo.

So what to do for the out of school hours care?  Nannies are an option – again if you can afford it, starting at around $20 per hour so you do the numbers…  After school-hours programs are an option if you can find a spot – and they’re rarer than hen’s teeth so good luck with that.  If you’re lucky enough to have family near by it’s a great option.  But otherwise you’ll need to find a job to accommodate it.

This stuff is a big deal. And it’s almost always left to the women to sort out.  Yes I know some of you have good guys at home, or extended families, or nannies or all of the above.  But how many of you can actually outsource the whole head space of childcare?

We all need to be aware of these issues and the sad thing is many bosses will have not even read this far to understand what’s really going on for the parents they employ.  And until employers do understand this, they’ll just be focused on fixing the women.

Fixing structural barriers and in particular childcare is far more important.  And yes it’s tough.  But the current system is outdated and reflects a bygone era that isn’t real any more for many families.

I think it’s time for reform.  For families, for employers, for the future of Australia and Australians.  If you agree, please say so on the petition at www.makecarefair.com.au

Source:  Spynxx Women Leaders and The She EO Blog

Asking to go part-time can be career suicide or bring balance to the work/life juggle, says a QUT business student who studied the work effects on senior people in accountancy, law, and IT who opted to reduce their working hours.

Natalie Smith from the QUT School of Business studied 16 male and female part-time workers, many of whom had previously worked 60-hour weeks, about their experiences of “going part-time”, and eight of their managers.

She found three main responses to the request to reduce their hours to a part-time schedule.

“One was ‘yes, sure’ and the job didn’t change at all. Half the people in the survey didn’t have their performance measures reduced to a part-time load. These employees ended up with the same workload to do in fewer days for less money,” Ms Smith said.

“A second response was for a part-time arrangement to be easily achieved by reducing the number of clients, the number of subordinates, and the workload.

“Thirdly, some jobs were completely redesigned, even those that were difficult to perform on a part-time basis, to fit the employee’s reduced working week.

“Even the most notoriously difficult role of IT project manager was successfully redesigned by having competent team leaders and delegating work.

“This shows that even complex client-facing roles and managing staff can be accommodated into a part-time schedule so there is no need to ‘demote’ to behind-the-scenes operations, as was evident in some organisations.”

Ms Smith said other research had shown both men and women wanted to work fewer hours, but part-time jobs were usually associated with women.

“The study found the low percentage of successful transitions to part-time work could shed light on why Australia is struggling to get women into leadership positions,” Ms Smith said.

“Many organisations still haven’t reviewed the old standard of one breadwinner who is dedicated to work and has no other interests.

“The fact is there are fewer people in the demographic from the single breadwinner era so firms cannot rely on a never-ending stream of people who are prepared to ‘live to work’.

“It’s a myth that only women are interested in part-time work because men, people close to retirement and many young people want to work fewer hours.”

Ms Smith said the research revealed exciting potential for redesigning jobs with excessive work hours to be attractive to a broader range of people.

She said one example of this was that the organisations reaping the most rewards from part-time work had allowed their staff true autonomy to get the job done – not just flexible hours – to hire and fire the staff they needed and allocate budget and resources.

“The benefits for professional service firms who accommodate part-time requests with meaningful work are that they are able to attract and retain excellent staff other organisations are not interested in,” she said.

“Other benefits include development of younger staff – because part-timers tend to delegate and train more – and in an ageing work population, the organisation can retain vital organisational knowledge capital by designing meaningful part-time roles.”

Source: Queensland University of Technology

We all know the statistics about the proportion of Australian women in senior management, executive and board positions are still depressing. If you’re a working parent of a daughter like I am, you do wonder whether our steps to seniority – which EOWA described as slower than “glacial” a few years ago, will ever speed up.

There are lots of reasons for stalled progress, including the ongoing difficulty many families face with finding reliable childcare. So without companies coming on board and offering flexible work options for both parents, it’s hard to see that pace to the peak quicken without quotas, and our daughters making it more easily to the top, than we have.

Flexibility is not just about offering part-time roles to working parents. It’s about creating satisfying roles that work for the team member, and the business – then marketing these roles to attract the type of people who see the opportunity and say “ah ha, that’s perfect for me – what do I need to do to make it work as well.” On top of that, there are issues around attaching and engaging part time team members, who can typically feel “accommodated,” or even worse – neglected.

Some companies have actually come up with some inspiring and well thought out innovations. We’d like you to meet Olive Taylor HR Manager from Bausch + Lomb. They’ve just introduced a flexible hiring concept which they’ve cleverly called “Bell2Bell/Term2Term” roles. We sent Karalyn to interview Olive to find out more:

KB: How do these roles actually work?

OT: We recently advertised direct sales roles from school bell to school bell – 9.30am to 2.30pm. Essentially so parents can drop children off and pick them up again. We divided sales territories up, to make it so nobody works more than 40 minutes from their first sales call. The roles are for term-time for 40 weeks of the year, hence eliminating the need for childcare during school holidays.

KB: Why did you introduce these roles?

OT: It was partly driven by a business decision. We had a broker team before, which was working well, however we were introducing new products and really saw the benefits of having direct sales team. Our cost-benefit model showed this as a way to differentiate ourselves in the market.

The roles are working with pharmacies. In a practical sense, there tend to be more females in this field. So for our Bell2Bell roles we wanted to tap into the pool of women who had left the workforce because it did not accommodate family needs and who wanted interesting roles.

It’s a totally new concept for us. We have always put our weight behind work life balance, but actions speak louder than words. We advertised these roles internally also, so we were able to attract back two previous employees.

KB: These are part time and out of office roles. It’s easy for people to feel overlooked. How do you integrate these into the workplace so your team feel attached and engaged?

OT: These roles receive the same terms, conditions and benefits as full time roles. We value productivity, not hours.  In onboarding we brought everyone together for induction up front in Sydney. We did need to stress that this was a one-off, for the team who may have worried that this was going to be an ongoing requirement.

KB: With the demand for these types of roles being enormous, how did you manage the recruitment?

OT: We had hundreds of applications. We were stringent in the recruitment requirements and picked people who had direct sales experience. As we made the commitment to not be 40 minutes from the first sales call, geography became a criterion.

Eye care is not the sexiest of products. We decided to take a professional approach and stressed the role was about training the pharmacy assistants, not just about making the product pretty. People we took on needed the capacity to across the technical aspects of the product.

KB: What have been the benefits of doing this?

OT: It’s been really rewarding personally for so many working Mums, to be able to offer them professional roles more in line with their ability and experience. Plus they can collect kids and not be challenged by school holidays.

We’ve seen an amazing appreciation, and we think the ROI will triple because of this effort. We now get lots of referrals. If we do decide to expand team, we don’t think we will have to pay recruitment fees. We will have a database of people readily available.

So the demand is clearly there in the market. And Bausch + Lomb have taken steps that work for the talent pool and work for their company. As more pioneers and prove that it works, hopefully more companies will follow.

From an attachment perspective we often hear of issues around people working part-time feeling less attached due to timing and logistics, so front-loading the on-boarding experience and ensuring the Bell2Bell employees are treated like any other talent, is one way to manage perceptions formed during this stage.

We can put our hands on our hearts and say we’re hugely impressed by this initiative by Bausch + Lomb. In writing this blog we hope to encourage other organisations to look closely at this concept of “Bell2Bell” as a way of securing the enormous talent pool requiring this kind of flexibility.

Congratulations Olive and the Executive team of Bausch + Lomb. We will be keeping an eye on how this initiative unfolds. We would like to encourage other organisations who have innovated and introduced new and creative flexible working initiatives to respond to this blog and share these wonderful initiatives.

Source:  Employee Attachment

What relevance does music have for employers? Certainly at the basic level of demand there is a strong case to be discussed.

Recent research published on Music Works revealed that 71% of people in full-time employment want to be able to listen to music at work. That’s all very well but what value does background music offer an employer in terms of return on investment?

In 1998 Professors North and Hargeaves observed in their study ‘Employee’s Responses to Music in the Workplace’, that playing music that was liked by factory employees resulted in them returning a mood rating that was 20% higher than in a ‘no music’ state and 13% higher than in a ‘neutral music’ state.

The Music Works research conducted in 2009 reported a similar set of conclusions regarding the workplace productivity and found that 74% of workers said they enjoy going to work more when music they like is played. Furthermore, 85% of workers said that listening to music at work makes them much happier

The positive findings from these research studies are however predicated on the assumption that the music is broadly liked by the employees. It is also important in this regard that the music is highly familiar. ‘Music for Business’, a study conducted by Entertainment Media Research in February 2008, found a strong correlation between familiarity and the impact of background music in the workplace.

In the study 1,500 respondents (weighted to be representative of UK demographics) were played 55 songs of varying familiarity. They were then presented with a list of attributes and behaviours relating to the effectiveness of music in the workplace.

The findings (summarised below) firmly indicate that effectiveness is influenced by song familiarity. Employees have a greater love for familiar music, it makes them feel happier, creates a better atmosphere and, crucially, it encourages workplace productivity.

So how best to ensure that the music fits the workforce and generates the desired behaviour? One option is to consider radio. The immediate advantage of radio is that the majority of songs will normally be familiar; radio programmers know that unfamiliar songs can cause up to 30% of their audience to “tune out”. They therefore extensively research every song under consideration to ensure the song is liked by their target audience and is sufficiently familiar before adding it to the playlist.

Source: Music Works

Increasing flexibility options for employees will boost job opportunities in rural areas, a government senator has said.
Senator Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, said that with the introduction of the high-speed broadband network and a shift in employee attitudes towards working remotely, regional areas will benefit from increased job opportunities for high-salary earners.

Speaking at the Cisco “The Changing Nature of Work” debate yesterday (Wednesday 10 March), Lundy said that the growing flexibility of working locations and advancements in technology and infrastructure would present a ‘phenomenal opportunity’ for those not living in metropolitan areas.

“People will have choice in this country about where they work, and how productive that work can be, like no other country. The change would set Australia up to be a fascinating test bed for change in work practice across the world, and lead by example,” she said.

Highlighting the advantages for employers who already implement a more flexible approach to working conditions, Jacob Murray-White, Head of Salmat@Home, said that geographic diversity and ‘working from home’ options could help to draw in employees from untapped talent pools.

“It allows us to reach out to people all over Australia and therefore attract a really high quality of people who really want to work from home,” he said. “So it allows people to make a lifestyle choice about where they want to live and it allows them to work in what is essentially a very nice work environment at home doing a high white collar style job on their own terms – it means that we get some fantastic people who would have no other way of participating in this type of work force.”

Surveying more than 1300 people around the globe, the Cisco survey found that two thirds of participants would rather have flexible working arrangements than a higher salary, while in Australia the figure was even higher at 73 per cent.

Despite this 43 per cent of Australian employees suggested that they needed to physically be ‘in the office’ in order to make decisions more effectively and efficiently, with nothing replacing daily ‘in-person’ interaction.

Fernanda Afonso, organisational development specialist for Freehills and national chair of the Australian Psychology Society, said that while a high proportion of employees would prefer more flexible working conditions, the idea of belonging to something and maintaining human contact was also essential to the good mental health of all employees.

“In order to maintain good mental health, there are two things that human beings need: A sense of autonomy and control, which is where the flexibility of where to work and how to work comes in, and also a sense of being connected to some kind of community,” she said.

“Now the way in which we are doing that is shifting and changing within new generations….when it comes to relationship building and trusting relationships, being a part of the community is still important and it is hard to get away from that.”

And rather than creating a smaller working week for employees, the Cisco figures suggested that the ability to work outside office hours meant that on average, participants said that they worked an extra 2-3 hours per day, while 10 per cent said that they were always online and work through their waking hours.

But Afonso said that the responsibility should lie with employees, who must set strict boundaries for a work/ life balance and communicate what is acceptable for them personally.

“Employees need to ask ‘This is what’s important to me and this is how I choose to work and how I like to work, so how can that be accommodated?’ Sometimes we do expect our managers to second guess what’s going on in our life, so I think it’s important for the individual to communicate that,” she said.

Source: HR Leader

Australian ICT employees are well on their way to achieving a balance between work and social life, according to a survey conducted by one recruitment firm, with the majority of employees noting a flexible employer is key.

Conducted by Hays Recruitment, the survey looked at 1400 employees, 45.8 per cent of which said work/life balance is attainable with flexible work arrangements.

The survey found 36.6 per cent of employees think a work/life balance is in reach, but claim it’s up to them to make it happen. Some 17.5 per cent don’t think it’s attainable at all.

Hays Information Technology regional director, Peter Noblet, said the survey indicated most Australians believe the balance between work and life is attainable provided they find the right employer or “take matters into their own hands”.

“This is good news for job seekers because the recent conversations we’ve had with them shows that work/life balance has shot up their priority list,” Noblet said in a statement. “It’s replaced job security now that we’re seeing such strong jobs numbers.”

“The most common work/life balance approaches we see are compressed working weeks and part-time work,” he said. “Job sharing and working from home are also becoming more common.”

According to Noblet, the main reasons employees are seeking flexible working options are to have more personal time to deal with caring for children or elderly family members.

“Meanwhile, the employers we speak to that have practical and flexible working options in place often say productivity has increased and staff retention and loyalty have improved because their employees’ work/life balance is better,” he said. “Employers that offer flexible working options to support their employees also gain a good reputation in their industry.”

A spokesperson from IBM told Computerworld Australia that a flexible workplace culture is “vital” for employees in order to balance their work and personal needs.

IBM’s efforts include the ability to work from home and compressed or flexible work weeks where a role allows, as well as part-time work and job sharing.

Google has also introduced some flexibility for its employees “designed to give people time back in their lives”.

The search giant offers on-site meals for employees and also allow video chat for employees to keep in touch if they’re at home looking look after a sick child.

“Many of our employees work at times convenient to them,” a Google spokespoerson told Computerworld Australia.”We provide commercial gym subsidies for all our staff and work hard to make being healthy a real option for our staff.”

In addition, Noblet says providing flexible arrangements could mean the difference between retaining or losing staff at a time when employers need them to stay most and that the arrangements must suit the employee.

“A one-size fits-all approach will not work,” he said.

“It’s important for employers to speak to their staff about the options that will allow them to achieve the desired work/life balance.”

Source:  Computer World

The nature of the workforce is changing – quietly but determinedly, employees are making their jobs work for them, and employers are sitting up and taking note. With the ageing of the population and changing labour market conditions, adopting a flexible approach to work helps businesses attract a diverse workforce including mature age workers, those in remote communities, parents and people with disabilities.

Flexible working in Australia and New Zealand is becoming widely accepted and a hot topic.  In business today, flexible working isn’t an option – it’s a necessity.  There are a numbers of employees wanting to work flexibly in order to achieve a work life balance. Apart from your legal obligations, businesses are appreciating more and more how flexible working can benefit their performance through improved staff motivation and productivity. Research shows that implementing flexibility helps improve productivity as employees have increased levels of engagement, job-satisfaction and well-being.

Where once we were told to aim for eight hours of work, eight of play and eight of rest, these days we are realising such a rigid schedule rarely works for the best. Professionals tired of being pressured into taking work home, working longer hours, and facing a grim daily commute are looking outwards for better lifestyle options. They are finding jobs which allow them to work flexibly in a way which allows them to arrange their own timetables, creating more time for family, career development and enjoyment, as well as increased job satisfaction.

Employers are catching on to the fact that they need to offer flexibility to their employees if they are going to hold on to a loyal and productive workforce.

The study, Employment & HR Trends, Engaging & Retaining Talent Within A Complex Employment Landscape, conducted Oct to Dec 2007 by leading integrated recruitment company Hudson, interviewed 7,185 employers across Australia and examined the challenges of engaging and retaining talent in a complex employment. The study found that:

• Flexible work options are the most highly regarded and most commonly used engagement initiative, followed by financial incentives.
• Successfully combat retention problems, organisations must take a holistic and flexible approach to their employee engagement and retention strategy.
• By allowing employees to work from home and taking on flexible work practices – working outside the usual nine to five to allow employees to commute outside of peak hour traffic, for example – employers can guarantee that staff will be happier, more productive, and more likely to stick with them.

Australian data from the 2007 National Work/Life Benchmarking Study conducted by Managing Work|Life Balance International in conjunction with CCH Australia, found that best practice organisations reported the following key benefits from flexible work arrangements:

• 37% stated that their work/life balance strategy contributed to a reduction in absenteeism
• 88% stated that flexible work place practices have helped to manage staff more effectively
• 79% reported a positive impact on work productivity
• 76% stated that flexible workplace practices enabled them to consistently attract and retain the best possible talent
• 54% said that their work/life balance strategies have contributed to a reduction in staff turnover.

The benchmarking study aimed to identify progress made in the implementation of work/life strategies within Australian organisations and compare the responses with those received in previous years, highlighting significant changes, with the results being shown by demographic groups. Feedback from previous users of the data indicates that it helped them to benchmark their initiatives and build the business case for change within their organisation.

For the employees themselves, the gift of time allows them to explore career or education options which can result in them forging ahead in their chosen professions. The extra time to devote to career advancement or increasing qualifications results in more driven, happier workers out there.

The issue of finding and attaining a good balance between work and personal life is a growing trend for job seekers when making career decisions. Balancing work with family and personal responsibilities is a challenge in our busy lives.

The concept of working from home, flexible working and telecommuting has gained momentum over the past few years and is widely becoming accepted, recognized, and formalized across the board. All tiers of Government and private sector companies are recognizing the benefits of work life balance initiatives.

More than 80 per cent of Australian workers say mobile communications technology such as smart phones and laptops have boosted personal productivity and, for many, have transformed their work-life balance, according to the latest findings from an international workplace survey.

The survey, by global workforce solutions leader Kelly Services, finds that 75 per cent of respondents say the ability to work outside the office, yet remain in constant contact, has been a positive development, even though approximately a third are now working longer hours. The Kelly Global Workforce Index, a survey revealing opinions about work and the workplace from generational viewpoints most recent survey of 100,000 people in 34 countries including more than 13,000 in Australia key findings were:

• 88 per cent say that they are ‘greatly attracted’ or ‘somewhat attracted’ by the possibility of telecommuting, working from home or working remotely.
• 36 per cent say they are working longer hours due to new technologies, with Gen X the most affected.
• Gen X are the most attracted to the idea of telecommuting, working from home and working remotely.
• Gen Y are most happy with their work-life balance, and baby boomers the least.

Even though the productivity benefits from new technologies are greatest among younger workers, all generations say that their efficiency has increased. A total of 57 per cent say productivity is ‘much better’, and 25 per cent say it is ‘slightly better’, while four per cent say productivity is lower, and 15 per cent say it makes no difference.

For employees still stuck in an office for ten hours a day and a two hour commute, be assured that there are other choices out there – many companies offer partly or entirely work-from-home positions, flexible timetables and family-friendly employment practices. It is simply a matter of searching for them.

When searching for jobs online, most job seekers prefer niche job boards over general job boards because these sites offer more targeted job search results and a greater variety of relevant job opportunities.

For a good range of flexible jobs, go to www.lifestylecareers.com.au and see what is there for you.

References

Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd
www.kellyservices.com.au

Hudson
www.au.hudson.com/node.asp?kwd=the-hudson-report-hr-insights

Managing Work Life Balance International
http://www.worklifebalance.com.au/research.html

This article was first published and written for the Australian Career Practitioner Magazine – July 2010 http://www.cdaa.org.au/

Workplace flexibility is an essential part of a creating an effective organisation.  This article will briefly define what ‘workplace flexibility’ means for an organisation, managers and employees, and highlight some common types of workplace flexibility arrangements.

In essence, workplace flexibility is about when, where and how people work …

There isn’t just one definition of workplace flexibility, because it means different things to different people.

Basically, flexibility is about an employee and an employer making changes to when, where and how a person will work to better meet individual and business needs.

While the basic concept stays the same, it’s the type of flexibility which makes the difference.

Essentially, flexibility enables both individual and business needs to be met through making changes to the time (when), location (where) and manner (how) in which an employee works.  Flexibility should be mutually beneficial to both the employer and employee and result in superior outcomes.

What are flexible work practices?

There is a range of creative and practical ways to change when, where and how work is organised:

When people work:

• Flexible working hours – altering the start and finish times of a working day, but maintaining the same number of hours worked per week (for example, 8am to 4pm instead of 9am to 5pm).  It can also mean condensing standard hours per week into fewer days (for example, four days per week at ten hours per day).
• Part-time work – generally speaking, working fewer than the standard weekly hours.  For example, two days per week, 10 days over four weeks or two days one week and three days every second week.
• Variable year employment – changing work hours over the month or through the year, depending on the demands of the job (for example working more hours during busy periods and taking time off in quiet times).
• Part year employment – also called purchased leave, this means that an employee can take a longer period of leave (eg a total of 8 weeks per year) by averaging their 48 week salary across 52 weeks.  It’s sometimes called 48/52.
• Leave – varying from leave in single days or leave without pay, to special or extended leave.  For example, parental leave, family/carer’s leave, study leave, cultural leave and career breaks.

Where people work:

• Working from home – also called teleworking, this means working away from the main office (ie at home) either full or part-time, and on a regular or intermittent basis.  For most people, it’s working from home either occasionally or for an agreed number of days each week.
• Working remotely – in some industries people may work at a different office, or in a client’s workplace for some or all of their working hours.

How people work:

• Job-sharing – two people sharing one full-time job on an ongoing basis.  For example, working two and a half days each, a two/three day split or one week on and one week off.
• Phased retirement – reducing a full-time work commitment over a number of years (eg from 4 days to 3 days per week) before moving into retirement.  It can also mean becoming an “alumni”, i.e. that a “retired” employee returns to the workplace to cover peak work periods or to provide specialist knowledge.
• Annualised hours – working a set number of hours per year instead of a number of hours per week.

Interested in trailing an online Workplace Flexibility Tool? Request a free demonstration of flex-e: an on-line workplace flexibility tool for managers.Simply Click here