How to get managers to say yes to flexible work arrangements, according to new research
- Written by: Melissa A. Wheeler, Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University
In the modern workplace, flexible arrangements can be as important as salary for some. For many employees, flexibility is no longer a nice-to-have luxury. It has become a fundamental requirement for staying in the workforce, especially after COVID.
Reports – from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, professional services firm Aon and UNSW – indicate while a substantial number of workers prioritise flexibility, many of their requests are still being declined.
This leaves many employees with a stark choice: either conform to standard, rigid office hours or look for better conditions elsewhere.
The stakes of these negotiations are remarkably high. For the employee, a successful deal can mean the difference between professional growth and total burnout. For the employer, it is a major lever for retaining top talent.
Yet, many employees approach these conversations as simple “asks”, unaware that the success of their requests often hinge on invisible factors that have little to do with their actual job performance.
In our new research, published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, we wanted to provide an evidence base for how to negotiate for flexible work, so both employers and employees can benefit.
Request for approval
To understand why some flexible work requests are approved and others are rejected, we ran two studies with more than 300 participants.
Instead of asking people what they think influences flexible work approvals, we asked them to make real decisions on a series of requests presented to them.
To strengthen our findings, all participants had management experience.
In both studies, participants read short requests from hypothetical employees asking to work flexibly.
Each request was designed to look realistic, but was given a focus on one of four different things:
- caring responsibilities
- improved productivity
- greater wellbeing via work-life integration
- task completion instead of hours worked.
In the second study, we varied both the gender of the requester and how much flexibility they asked for: either two or four days working from home.
What we found
Across both studies, a clear pattern emerged. Requests related to caring responsibilities and improved productivity had the greatest success. Requests which focused on improved personal wellbeing or greater autonomy over their time were less successful.
However, contrary to what we expected, we found men and women were equally likely to be approved for flexible work.
This suggests that, at least at the approval stage, “gendered flexibility stigma”, or bias against workers (usually women) who access flexible work arrangements, may be less pronounced than earlier research has suggested.
Overall, we found managers have a clear preference for fewer days of flexible working. Requests for two days of flexible work were much more likely to be approved than requests for four days.
Some good news for parents
Remote work, normalised in the pandemic, allowed fathers to become more engaged in caring.
Our results indicate fathers won’t be penalised for asking for flexible work to provide care to their children. However, there’s an important caveat. While their requests were just as likely as women’s to be approved, our research cannot speak to the impact on men’s (or any workers’) careers after they take up flexible work.
The stigma against those who cannot be seen in the office or workplace – a perceived lack of commitment, judgements about decreased productivity, reduced likelihood of getting promoted – may still be present.
Other ways to make a strong case
Flexible work debates often focus on and even favour parents. That can leave non-parents with fewer options. Our research provides good news for those without caring responsibilities who still want to embrace the benefits of flexible work.
We found the business case was equally as effective as the child-care argument. Non-carers should strongly consider the mutual benefits to their employers and to themselves and be sure to make a strong case for how the company will reap the rewards.
For example, workers could highlight the possibility for increased productivity or fewer sick days.
Resources and tools are available to help employees construct their business cases, such as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s page on legal requirements in Australia and evidence for a business case.
What the law says
Anyone can ask for flexible working arrangements; your boss might say no, but it’s worth a shot. At a national level, in Australia where this study was conducted, employers cannot unreasonably refuse flexible working arrangements for people in certain circumstances, including those who have worked for the same employer for more than 12 months and who are:
- pregnant
- a person with disability
- have various caring responsibilities
- 55 or older
- experiencing family and domestic violence
- providing care for someone who is experiencing family and domestic violence.
Employers are legally required to respond to such flexible work requests in writing within 21 days, and make their approval decisions based on “reasonable business grounds”.
Room to make things fairer
Together, our findings show that flexible work is still not doled out fairly. Because these negotiations often occur on a one-on-one basis, they are highly susceptible to individual bias, favouritism, and assumptions about who deserves to work flexibly.
One factor outside an employee’s control is their manager’s attitude. Our research found managers who held positive views about flexible work were more likely to approve requests of any kind. Those with negative attitudes were more likely to say no, regardless of how the request was framed.
Ultimately, success depends on how the request is framed, how much flexibility is asked for, and who is making the decision.
Authors: Melissa A. Wheeler, Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University
