A couple of weeks ago a CEO named Maynard Webb extolled the virtues of life as an independent contractor in The Huffington Post. He wrote compellingly about the need for a new model of flexible work, saying that:
There is a huge shortage of talent coming…[and] companies will have to better consider the needs and desires of the workforce in order to stay competitive…[they will have to embrace] a new flexible opt-in model that gives individuals the freedoms they demand and ensures companies the services they need right now-and the ability to alter their workforce as they evolve.
There’s a lot about what Webb says that I like, notably that he makes a solid business case for flexible work. But if employees really have so much power, how come the corporate world isn’t jumping to try and meet their needs? How come benefits aren’t better, managers not more skilled in retaining and attracting talent, and worklife solutions not more thoughtfully considered?
I suspect that part of the issue is that the talent shortage is a future problem, and not one that is currently affecting business. In addition, some experts call the talent shortage a “myth,” and I think they may have a point. Even with the baby boomer retirement looming, the population is not significantly declining and workers are actually getting more educated. Why do we think that companies will have trouble hiring?
Folks like Maynard Webb suggest that more employees will become independent contractors — who “can often achieve the best quality of life” according to his piece. I’m not disputing that some independent contractors have been able to leverage their talent to set up great consulting businesses, but they lose a lot too. In fact, I suspect that many independent contractors are working more than their salaried counterparts because they need to take multiple jobs to cover the costs of health insurance, life insurance, retirement savings and other benefits.
In general, independent contracting offers less stability, less security and no welfare benefits that can assure quality of life in older age. And for most US employees, especially if they are the family’s primary breadwinner, it’s simply not an option.
Webb’s proposition is not unlike that of a number of career counselors I’ve heard speak to mothers. They suggest that if you don’t like the corporate world, leave it. Take your skills and find a consulting gig. Open your own small business. Work for yourself. These are good options for people who have resources and are not interested in climbing the corporate ladder. But they do nothing for the significant number of women (and men) who prefer to remain part of a company environment.
As a self-proclaimed “company women,” pieces like Webb’s trouble me. Though I know his intention was the opposite, the glorification of contract workers lets business off the hook on the issue of workplace fexibility; they pay less for talent and still don’t have to make any systemic changes to meet the needs of workers. In practice I see the possibility of a workforce that earns less, has fewer benefits, but is equally tethered to their jobs. (How many contractors can afford to say no to a job?) Sure, we may get slightly more flexibility, but must we pay such a high price?
We need to advocate for flexible scheduling as part of day to day business in the corporate world for all employees. And the reasoning can’t just be because workers are going to flee in droves, because that’s not very likely. What leverage does Gen Y really have? Eventually they have to find jobs in the same corporate cultures as their predecessors. It also can’t be because workers are going to become contractors, because the only people who really lose in that scenario are the workers.
Instead, we need to look at the cost efficiency of flexible work in the context of real jobs with real benefits. We shouldn’t have to trade our health and security to pick up our kids at school once in a while. And there is a very good business case to be made for folding flexible scheduling into that model.
Related links:
- At Work+Life Fit, Cali Yost writes about business truths that give “work+life flex” credibility in today’s economic environment. Quoting a Fortune 500 exec: “We went from too much capital and not enough workers, to too many workers and not enough capital. And that is going to continue for some time.”
- Penelope Trunk writes about how to find fulfilling, well-paid work with a flexible schedule.
- The Alliance for Work-Life Progress offers a number of white papers and other resources that make a direct business case for workplace flexibility.
- Good resource on flexible scheduling for employees and managers from the Family Resource Center at Michigan State University.
Nice job, TMB…it’s important to remember that Maynard Webb is a savvy businessman with a product to sell. That product will indeed be a very helpful as one part of an organization’s overall flexibility strategy, but it is just one piece.
Where we, and especially new entrants to the work+life debate like Mr. Webb, consistently make the mistake when discussing flexibility is we tend to focus on the individual tactical pieces (e.g. opt-in call center staff; telecommuting; compressed workweek; lactation policy, etc.). And we fail to spend enough time on how it all fits together to achieve specific the business objectives of that particular organization while helping all of the employees optimize their work+life fit. That is not a one-size-fits-all, policy or product-based conversation.
This is where we need to go if real, meaningful, sustainable change in the way organizations flexibly operate is going to occur. Thanks for helping to keep that point front and center.
Very best,
Cali
Go Mama Bee!
Thanks for starting a great conversation. Just posted A Better Balance’s Business Case for Flex on Twitter which the recent White House Economic Report on Flex also cites. http://bit.ly/bJqoGh .
There is without a doubt a compelling and consistent business case for flex. In fact, I haven’t really seen much that contradicts it. Flex has a very high ROI. Flex is not just contract, independent or entrepreneurial work, and it’s not just low wage, part-time gigs either. And, most importantly flex is not just for women. Employers of full-time workers ignore this secret weapon at their own peril because workers are voting with their feet. But many are now flocking to businesses with full-time flex options and staying put.
The goal for all workers is having greater control over our own lives and more options. As you point out contract work is a great choice for some folks but not it’s not really a choice if it’s the only way that a person can get the flex they want or need.
In our consumer focused culture surely there needs to be more than one or two choices on the shelf. Women and men need at least as many choices for work as they have for breakfast in the cereal aisle or for shoes at the shoe wearhouses.
While some of our Flex-Friendly businesses offer work from home options to contract workers (who are thrilled )–the majority of the flex workers we’ve interviewed are very happy, loyal and productive with full-time jobs and benefits. The employers in our growing directory are well aware that giving full-time workers flex is one of the smartest business decisions they’ve made.
Businesses need a light bulb moment at the leadership level, and we think the best argument is showing success with flex –and we hope the companies that have “gotten” it will use their “flexpertise” to help us enlighten other businesses.
The job I had before my current one was a contractor/consultant- but with a firm. So I had a salary and benefits (better than my current benefits, actually- I left to go back into biotech and now work at a small company with no 401k match).
That job also had amazing flexibility. We charged hours, and for the most part, no one cared when or how you worked those hours. It was great when I had a baby. But it was even better before I had kids. I used to front-load my work and set it up so that I could cut out early on a Friday (or just take Friday off) and go for a long weekend- without touching my PTO. Men and women, parents and non-parents all used this flexibility.
I was truly sad to leave that environment, but the projects for me were drying up. At my current company, I’ve been able to make some small technology changes to help people who want more flexibility (e.g., we implemented a better system for remote access to computers), but the policy from the CEO is anti-flex. And you know what? I think they get less work from me because of it.
I have heard a lot of discussions about work/life balance and it seems like the work-from-home, independent contractor, start your own business, or consulting suggestions dominate the proposed solutions. Maybe writers are the ones doing most of the suggesting, and therefore suggest solutions that are adaptable to their profession?
I get frustrated with the discussions because I am a scientist, and I work in a lab (and love it). Unless I decide I don’t want to DO science anymore, none of those things are options for me or other parents with comparable jobs. Also, many folks loathe chemistry or math and claim no aptitude for such subjects, but I feel that way about business and related fields! I can’t stand it and I’m horrible at it and I tremble at the thought of being self-employed. Ugh.
So thank you! Yours is perhaps the only discussion I’ve read that recognizes the fact that some women think working from home would be undesirable, or who have jobs that cannot be done from home (picture me setting up a surgical station and a biohazard area in my garage, and paying for it all myself, ha!).
I once had a job where I made an incredible wage, but the work was sporadic and unpredictable. I hated the instability and took a lower-paying full-time job just to alleviate my anxiety. My husband and I need steady paychecks (we don’t make much though) and benefits so we don’t freak out. We’re just not business minded, like some people don’t fix their own cars or know how their medications work.
We’re both scientists and have very flexible work arrangements, which is the norm in science. That is a huge deal for us and we love it. Maybe there’s a trade-off between flexibility versus level of responsibility in one’s work in general (there’s always a trade-off in evolution). I think you’ve discussed that before? We are expected to get our work done no matter how much overtime we have to put in, but we can do it when it’s most convenient for us. However, even moderately successful scientists are almost always workaholics. I am an average-working scientist and I was in the lab 21hrs on Monday, and I’m about to go back to work at 11pm after putting in a 10hr day. Sometimes I wish I was just a clock puncher!
The flexibility is great, but you have to be self-motivated. When my kid gets sick in the middle of my experiment it can be tough, but I could just cease to show up to work for a few weeks and my boss wouldn’t care one bit (as long as I get the data sometime). And that’s flexibility that I am really lucky to have. Thanks for offering some different perspectives – so refreshing!
I just noticed Cloud is a scientist, cool! It sounds like she doesn’t do lab work though? Biotech startups are probably a whole different type of science environment than what I’m used to (academic), maybe not as flexible. I’d be interested to know.
@Icee- my experiments all run on a computer these days…. I haven’t done bench work since grad school. That was a decision based on the science that interested me, though, and not on the hours.
Also, I am no longer 100% a scientist. My job involves some science, some techie stuff, and some management. It is the perfect mix for me.
The glory of computational work is that as long as I’m willing to schlep my laptop along, it can be done from anywhere with a network connection. But the management part of what I do requires face time at this company, so I pretty much work a standard schedule now.
In general, corporate science is less flexible than academic science, probably because of the greater amount of collaboration- it is rare to have a project that is all yours. But that varies wildly from company to company, and even within a single company.
There are a couple of extremes that are touched on in your post. Whether it is the glorification of contract workers or the argument that being successful mom with a career requires the non-corporate route, we let companies off the hook. And that is completely unacceptable.
The win-win for companies and employees is when flexibility is fully embraced. Keep up the great writing.