Working flex time

For some people and some businesses flex time is a wonderful idea. For others it would be an unmitigated disaster.

There is no single organizational structure that will work, much less be optimal, for all work groups. That was the failing of both the Scientific Management School and the Human Relations School back in the 19th and 20th centuries. To get the best out of an organization, its structure has to be properly fitted to its needs.

The business environment is one factor. If a business is producing a simple widget based on proven technology, and in competition with a few other similar businesses, an X structure is almost always more successful. This structure is relatively rigid, with most decisions flowing down through well-defined management levels to the workforce which as relatively little room for innovation. The workers may be doing repetitive work with automation simply turning out the largest number of widgets for the lowest possible price. Workers need little imagination or skill, but they do have to conform closely to company policies. I once had a worker say, "don't ask me to think about a better way to make the product. I come in, do my job and after work have a beer while watching the Lakers trounce the Knicks. You pay, I play". That worker did not want any responsiblities beyond what I told him to do. The business was very successful, in that it turned out fine quality in such large numbers that we could beat the competition in a fierce market. Trying to involve the workers beyond "just following orders" was such a failure that I had to be reassigned. BTW, that experience set me to studying organizational structures. I hate to fail, and after that miserable experience, my success as a manager was almost unbroken.

In another sort of business, that X type of organizational structure is almost certain to fail. If the group product requires creativity, innovative thinking, and highly skilled and educated workers, trying to confine them to tightly defined roles is doomed. This Y type of organization is much "flatter". The distance from the top to the bottom of the organization is short, and communications tend to be informal. Group discussions and consensus produce the edge that the organization needs to compete with other "think tanks". No matter how smart a person might be, they seldom can come up with better solutions than a group of highly motivated individuals working together. The workers in these organizations tend to be individualistic, but very responsible and oriented toward making the whole team a successful.

Of course, these are the two extreme ends of the organizational spectrum. Most organizations fall somewhere in the middle, and have mixed organizational structures. It is always a challenge to management to identify and apply the appropriate structure to attain organizational goals. This causes many problems. Let's say we have a product that can be largely manufactured with automation, but parts of the process involve repetitive unskilled labor. The competition is a killer and their challenge is as much in introducing innovative ideas as it is in beating our prices. Here we need to have a "think-tank" group of creative individuals who work best almost on their own. To bring their ideas to market requires a group consisting of workmen who labor mostly for their salaries, and require well-defined tasks. The product itself has to be efficently made, and that requires automation and sophisticated financial arrangements with outside investors. The workforce that installs, maintains and operates the automation is more sophisticated, able and willing to think beyond what they are told, but will have less discretion than those "Quiz-Kids" up in R&D. The financial people, which includes the sales force, may not even be on the premises and have to operate out in the world with virtually no oversight, direction, or even anyone to consult with on day to day decisions.

Just try using optimum organizational structures for each of these. Almost every organizational policy regarding how the various work groups operate becomes both a problem and opportunity. Not everyone can be a manager, though everyone thinks that's the easiest job of all. Finding really good managers is one of the most difficult things a business has to do to be successful. Flex-time can be great for some, but it can also be a very dangerous policy to adopt in many organizations.

I actually work for a company where some people do work a flexible schedule. The availability and the types of FWA (flexible work arrangements) is dependent of the department you work because of the work flows. For example, one group is dependent on the stock market closing and other financial markets closing as well as other outside sources so a FWA where work earlier hours does not work for this group.

Our group works on longer-term projects so fitting in a FWA is much easier. We have people who work 7 - 4:00; 10:00 to 6:30 or work 40 hours in four days and even so one who gets a lower annual pay who works 30 hours a week. Our group is also cyclical in nature so that during certain months, there is a need to work overtime in order to meet deadlines. These deadlines are set by outside government agencies so they are beyond even the possibility of being flexible.

Another thing to note is that many people did not get paid hourly - they do not qualify for overtime pay. Most professional employees, managers, VPs and higher are paid an annual salary. In other words you are expected to work accordingly to get your work done. If you work 20 hours one week and 80 the next, you get the same paycheck.

Basically what you propose may work in some industries and for certain job tasks, it would not be feasible for others.