flexible work as alternatives to layoffs

There is a movement afoot to link organizations’ responses to the economic crisis to larger social goals, like sustainability and work family balance. Anytime we can get two valuable outcomes for one business decision, "that’s a good thing." Often, however, business decisions made for one reason have unintended repercussions.

Take the movement towards alternatives to layoffs, particularly alternatives that include reducing employees’ work hours either across the board or by employee choice. Reducing work hours may have the unintended consequence of reinforcing gender based discrimination in terms of compensation, authority, and career progress. In other words, they can be applied and interpreted in a sexist way. Let me explain:

Connecting to my earlier posts about authentic alternatives to layoffs , whether layoffs are patriotic, and whether layoffs are sensible economic policy, I’ve been learning a bit about some specific alternatives, like "Flexible Downsizing". The leading voice on flexible downsizing, Cali Yost Williams, has been writing about this technique at Fast Company and also at her blog. Last weekend, Yost Williams was quoted in a a New York Times article about how and why employers might downsize employees’ work weeks.

Why might workers want the alternative of reduced work-weeks?

Of the many reasons an organization might try flexible downsizing as a layoff alternative is that there is a silver lining in this option for women, and men, who are parents. Mothers (and fathers) who accept reduced work weeks might find that this change in their work expectations allows them to ‘manage’ work and family fit more effectively. This holds for women who work in hourly jobs, where full-time is 40 hours a week, as well as women who work in salaried and managerial jobs, where full-time can mean up to 55 or 60 hours a week.

One of my mom-blog colleagues, The Mama Bee, raised some concerns about this article. The Mama Bee is concerned that women who chose to accept reduced work weeks will get pigeon-holed in the same way that women who mommy track are pigeonholed and often discriminated against. Pointing out that all of the people quoted and 3 of 4 experts in the NYT article were women, The Mama Bee draws our attention to the implicit expectation that down-timing, as a a layoff alternative, is somehow more relevant or appropriate for women than for men.

The Mama Bee notes:

The article suggests that these new part-time positions might offer good options for working mothers, many of whom are ambivalent about working full-time. I like the idea of women having more choices in the workplace; however, things get dicey when the motive is cost-cutting, rather than a true shift towards better work-life balance for employees. Managers may be more likely to cut back hours for women with children, who they perceive as desiring a less demanding schedule, or who they have already “mommy tracked.” (emphasis mine)

The Mama Bee is absolutely on target with her concerns. The logic that (1) women/mothers are more interested in balancing work and family, (2) that women/mothers are more interested in less than full-time, and (3) that reduced work week schedules are more appropriate for women is quite simply, sexist .  Moreover, research does show how individual women lose when they chose to reduce their work hours from full-time and/or to take a mommy track. There is no question that implicit and explicit sexism plays a part in creating a situation where women who work less than full-time are often less well compensated proportionally, and are assumed to be less than committed to their organization and their careers.

What is different right now?

In this economic environment, where many organizations are seeking to cut costs, down-timing occurs against a different context. Reducing workers hours and salaries to less than full-time is an effort to reduce costs while keep most everyone employed AND making it possible for the organization to gear back up as business improves. Reduced work weeks are a corporate coping mechanism. This corporate coping mechanism affects most/all employees — it is not a "choice" made by an individual woman to make her personal work-life fit more comfortable.

However — The reduced work week alternative is being ’sold’ as an opportunity for women/mothers (and some fathers) to have more time with their families. For employees who see this option as a chance to be with their families more by working fewer hours (and families that can afford it b/c the other partner retains his or her job and associated health benefits), a reduced work week feels like a positive "choice".

The idea that employees would be open to it as a positive choice is fine. In this situation, a reduced work week can be a win-win for organizations and families.

But here’s the challenge:

We know from empirical research that when an individual woman shifts to less than full-time work, her wage rate usually decreases, as does her rate of career advancement. In large part, this is because other people assume that this woman is less committed to her organization and to her job than a woman or man who continues to work full-time. Whether or not these assumptions have been ‘true’ about individual women before, they probably won’t be true in this current economy.

Collectively and individually as managers, we will need [click to continue…]

If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 1 comment }