Offering flexible workplace schedules seems like a no-brainer. Work has become more flexible — tied less to specific times and places — and gender roles have changed. Letting employees shift their hours to accommodate hectic life schedules makes sense. Surveys show that flex time ranks high on the list of benefits employees want and that women value it even more than men do.
But two recent studies suggest flex-time programs may be costly to the people who enroll in them, especially women.
The penalty begins before any scheduling adjustments are made. In a recent study by Furman University’s Christin Munsch, the reactions that men and women receive when requesting flexible work requests are quite different — and quite favorable to men. Munsch studied over 600 working-age individuals, all from the United States. Participants were shown a transcript of what they believed was a real conversation between an employee and a human resource representative. Unknown to the participants, Munsch had modified the transcript in a few ways. In some versions, the employee asked for a flexible schedule, working three days a week in the office and two from home while also coming in late or leaving early on office days. In others, no flexible work request was made. More important, Munsch modified the transcript to change the gender of the employee and the reason for the request (some versions were a request because of child care, others were specifically nonfamily reasons). All participants, regardless of transcript shown, were asked to evaluate the employee based on likability, dependability, and dedication to the job, as well as how likely they would be to accommodate the employee’s request.
This article also appears in:
In comparing the different transcripts and the reactions they elicited, Munsch found that when male employees requested flexible schedules to accommodate child care requests, almost 70% of participants were either likely or very likely to grant the request. When female employees made the same request, that number dropped to around 57%. In addition, participants were much more likely to evaluate the men as likable and committed than the women.
In terms of flexible scheduling, Munsch believes her results should give employers caution. “In an arrangement where both partners contribute equally at home and in terms of paid labor — men, but not women, would reap workplace advantages,” Munsch said. “A move towards gender equality at home would perpetuate gender inequality in the workplace.”
Even if flexible scheduling could be granted without bias, evidence from a study in Germany suggests that it might be exacerbating the gender wage gap. Using the German Socio-Economic Panel, an annual survey of over 30,000 people, researchers Yvonne Lott and Heejung Chung examined the impact of flexible scheduling on hours worked (particularly overtime) and income. Their study compared men and women in three schedule arrangements: a control group of normal hours, a flexible schedule group, and a group given total control over their schedule.
In comparing the groups, and after controlling for factors including level of job authority, the researchers found that men and women who switched to flexible scheduling and schedule autonomy all worked more overtime than those who worked a fixed schedule. But men used the extra time to earn significantly more than women in the same program. On average, men with schedule autonomy earned €6,700 more per year than men with fixed schedules, while women with the same autonomy earned around €2,000 more per year.
One possible explanation is that men are more likely to gain schedule control as a result of increased productivity or a promotion and to use that control to set an even more productive schedule, while women are more likely to use their control to better accommodate their family schedule. An equally likely explanation might be that women are perceived as using flexible scheduling to accommodate family demands. Thus, even if women are using flexible schedules to be more productive, the impression of their peers might be the opposite.
Taken together, these studies paint a grim picture for the future of work-life balance and gender equality. But neither study should be seen as a justification for eliminating flexible work arrangements. If these programs aren’t producing the results they’re designed for, the logical step is to look at what adjustments to the design need to be made to eliminate the perceptions and biases that come along with the programs.