The coronavirus has changed the workplace in ways that will permanently transform the future of most organizations. Many leaders have been forced to craft new and improved strategies for successfully running an office remotely, building environments that help — not hurt – our immune systems, and developing guidelines to enforce safety measures like social distancing. Perhaps the most common change designed to address all of these areas is rethinking employee schedules, whether it is to support changes in work-life balance, to minimize social contact, or to meet wavering business demands. The traditional nine-to-five workday is no longer the gold standard.
The pandemic has put nurses, doctors, grocery store workers, delivery drivers, and others who often work irregular hours in the spotlight. But the reality is that nonstandard work schedules are common, and every organization that is reimagining the workplace should be cognizant of the pros and cons of implementing them. Schedules can affect a host of important outcomes for employees, both personal and professional.
We recently conducted a review of 153 academic articles examining how working a nonstandard schedule affects employee attitudes, behavior, physical and psychological health, as well as their personal and family life. Our review of this research prompts four questions employers should consider as they begin to rethink work schedules:
(1) How does my organization’s scheduling practices affect employee effectiveness and well-being? We reviewed studies investigating an array of nonstandard work schedules, including rotating shifts, night work, flextime, and more, and found that they affect absenteeism, turnover, and job performance in different ways. Working the night shift is associated with higher absenteeism and lower productivity, while flextime schedules are generally associated with reduced absenteeism and turnover. In fact, earlier this year, Gallup reported that 51% of U.S. employees said that they would switch to a job that offers flextime. Working mothers were especially likely to seek out and benefit from such arrangements.
Scheduling practices not only affect employees’ effectiveness. They also have a significant impact on their attitudes and well-being. We found that flextime and compressed work schedules (schedules where employees work more hours per day, but fewer days per week) give employees more control over when they work and provide larger blocks of free time, increasing overall job satisfaction. In contrast, rotational and night shifts can be less predictable and more disruptive to employees’ personal lives, ultimately undermining overall job satisfaction.
In terms of well-being, shift, night, and evening schedules often influence behaviors important to a worker’s physical and mental health, such as eating and sleeping properly. Over time, irregular habits can lead to serious health consequences. Case in point: in a 2016 study that tracked around 189,000 women over a period of 24 years, those who worked a rotating night shift schedule for more than 10 years had a 15%-18% greater risk of developing coronary heart disease. Irregular schedules can also affect employees’ ability to maintain positive relationships with their partners and children. This disruption can be a source of work schedule dissatisfaction, which is critical since schedule satisfaction has been shown to positively correlate with work engagement.
(2) Can we better align our work schedules with the needs, desires, and personalities of our employees? Person-schedule fit, or finding the right hours for the right person, is an important factor to consider when contemplating a post-pandemic strategy. Although prior research has found that some nonstandard schedules are more harmful than others, it is also evident that some employees are better suited to work certain hours. For instance, while studies have found that nonstandard schedules, such as working the night shift, can undermine employee health and wellbeing, research also suggests that some employees are better suited to working on these timelines (e.g., because of their circadian rhythms or family situation).
For this reason, employers considering nontraditional schedules should do their best to find employees who, based on their personality, needs, or life circumstances, want to work them. Organizations can make this a greater point of emphasis during the recruitment process, and they can use surveys to assess existing employees’ scheduling preferences and even their chronotypes. Measuring schedule satisfaction, the same way many companies track employee engagement, would allow more organizations to better monitor how employees feel about their workplace.
(3) What are the implications of creating customized schedules or giving employees more control over their schedules? It is possible to create schedules that are idiosyncratic and customized to meet the needs and desires of individual employees. Theories of organizational justice suggest that schedules should be equitable, not necessarily equal; therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach may be outdated. During the pandemic, many employees have already gone about completing their assignments remotely, and quite likely, on their own timelines.
Organizations considering giving employees more control in setting their own routines and hours could start by broadening the concept of job craftingto include scheduling. Traditionally, job crafting allows workers to help determine what they work on, who they work with, and why they work. This can be extended to when they work, as well.
Of course, this might create challenges, especially for managers, who may find flexible arrangements more stressful than employees. However, this is an opportune time to give this issue greater attention and consideration.
(4) Can we effectively balance the needs and desires of both the organization and employees? In this 24/7/365 economy, it has been suggested that organizations need employees working around the clock, overnight, and on holidays to meet consumer demands. Our review revealed that employees are increasingly asked by their employers to work precarious schedules, characterized by unpredictable hours, short advance notice, and limited employee input. Although research on this topic has emerged only recently, it is clear that these volatile schedules can create tremendous stress and hardship for employees and their families. This is especially true for workers in positions that do not pay well and offer limited benefits.
Of course, managers should be mindful that their organizations still need to perform their core functions, and it might not always be possible to give employees their ideal schedules. This pandemic has revealed that some jobs, such as healthcare, are truly essential, and employees in that sector have to work difficult hours. At the same time, the post-pandemic period may be a time for organizations and society to reconsider the definition of essential. For instance, moving forward, is it really necessary for workers to be available at all hours, year-round, to provide nonessential services at retailand fast food establishments?
The key will be finding a balance between short-term business needs and the long-term benefits that new scheduling strategies bring to both employees and the organization.
In closing, rather than being mechanistic, organizations can take a more organic approach and allow employees to play a bigger role in determining when they want to work. We have already seen considerable discussion lately about where (e.g., from home) and how (e.g., using video conferencing technology) people will work in a post-pandemic world, but additional thought should also be given to when everyone works. We encourage managers, in partnership with their teams, to thoughtfully consider the schedules that are right for them as they return to their places of work.
This article originally appeared on Harvard Business Review.
