The work-life balance is not a myth
THERE was a recent story about Kuala Lumpur being ranked last in a list of 40 cities surveyed around the world for having the most holistic work-life balance (“KL lowest among 40 cities in terms of work-life balance”, Aug 7, online at bit.ly/star2_work).
The survey also indicated that KL has the second highest number of people (22%) working 48 hours or more per week.
Workaholism is worn like a badge of honour by many white collar workers here but the truth is that, in the long run, being a workaholic does not help anyone. Working long hours or to a rigid schedule and sacrificing one’s personal life is not good for business.
Researchers argue that flexible working practices facilitate work-life balance and increase employees’ productivity and organisation profitability. Reduced stress and increased employee wellbeing are outcomes of maintaining a healthy work-life balance.
This is why flexible work arrangements (FWAS) among employees has increased substantially over the years across most industrialised countries.
With the advent of Industry 4.0 and today’s multigenerational workforce demanding flexibility, one of the biggest perks an organisation can offer is FWAS that allow employees to plug-in and work from anywhere.
In fact, FWAS have taken the world by storm. According to a Vodafone Global Survey, 75% of companies globally have introduced FWAS to enable employees to vary their hours and use the latest technology to work remotely. The 2016 study also indicated that 58% of the organisations that introduced FWAS have seen their profits increase.
Despite these positive results, FWAS have yet to be truly embraced by Malaysian employers.
In a 2015 “Diversity in the Workplace Study” published by Talentcorp, less than 35% of the 130 organisations surveyed offered any form of FWAS, while only 10% of them planned to enhance or implement FWAS within the next year.
In my experience, there are some Malaysian employers who think they will lose money because flexible hours would cause productivity to drop, but their fears are baseless, as FWAS do not mean fewer working hours and reduced productivity.
In fact, FWAS are key in retaining more women, senior talent (retired professionals aged 60 and above) and young talent (think: gig economy), as they would be unlikely to resign for reasons such as family commitments and the high cost of commuting to work (imagine what you can do in those two to three hours stuck in a horrible traffic jam!).
Work flexibility implies not only variation in the time and place of the job, but also sharing the job and career breaks (maternity/paternity leave).
As varied as FWAS are, they all share these things in common: they are centred on performance and productivity, and ultimately build trust between employers and employees, keeping the interests and wellbeing of both parties aligned.
This is why leading companies all over the world are embracing FWAS.
A survey conducted of 200 Fortune 100 companies globally showed that participation in some form of FWAS – specifically, telecommuting – yielded positive employee productivity results. This positive effect may be attributed to the fact that strict working hours induce stress among employees, which affects creativity and productivity.
Another reason for the positive effect on productivity may be that employees with FWAS are less distracted and take fewer breaks.
Ultimately, when an employer’s focus shifts from a rigid schedule being adhered to, to work being done, employees can focus on meeting deadlines and delivering high quality work, and not on waiting for that clock to read 5pm or 6pm.
When flexibility correlates with productivity at work, nonbelievers of a healthy work-life balance will become believers in not forcing employees to choose one part of their lives over another.