Research Drop: How Flexible Work Arrangement Policies Shape Leaders’ Views of Their Organization by info.odysseyx@gmail.com October 31, 2024 written by info.odysseyx@gmail.com October 31, 2024 0 comment 1 views 1 Four years after the pandemic, organizations continue to refine their work placement policies while balancing employee feedback, industry trends, and leadership preferences across in-person, hybrid, and remote models. As we navigate this evolving landscape, one thing is clear: There is no one-size-fits-all solution. To help our clients better navigate the world of hybrid work, Viva People Science surveyed a data pool of insights from global leaders and people managers to better understand whether work placement policies have influenced leaders’ perceptions of their organizations. This analysis used the Viva People Science team’s High-Performing Organizations Survey, which surveyed 1,100 global leaders and people managers across more than 10 industries. In this month’s research, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of what leaders think about their ability to meet performance indicators, how they evaluate their organizations’ effectiveness, and what the biggest barriers to high performance are. We categorized leaders’ perceptions based on how they described their organization’s work placement policies. There were four categories: Complete flexibility – these organizations do not require multiple days on site (21.5% of the sample). Partially on-site – These organizations require on-site visits 1-2 days per week (31.3% of sample). Predominantly on-site – This organization requires on-site visits 3-4 days per week (40.7% of sample). Fully Onsite – This organization requires onsite visits 5 days per week (6.9% of sample). It is important to note that this classification allows comparison of leader perceptions in organizations with different work placement policies. It doesn’t provide context for how employees in these organizations manage their time and location according to policy, or how teams co-locate across these organizations. Our data showed an interesting trend! As the level of flexibility in work placement policies increased or decreased, leaders’ perceptions of their organizations did not change in a direct or linear way. In fact, we found that leaders of organizations with fully flexible or primarily on-site policies reported higher organizational performance and effectiveness than leaders of organizations with partially on-site or entirely on-site policies. This trend continued throughout the analysis. This suggests that it is not a battle of “remote versus face-to-face,” but that there is some nuance to work placement policies. Top performance reviews are completely flexible and come primarily from leaders within the field organization. When examining leaders’ perceptions of their organization’s performance, leaders of fully flexible and primarily on-site organizations reported achieving performance indicators more consistently than leaders of partially on-site and fully on-site organizations. These patterns of leader perceptions indicate that flexibility and weekly face-to-face time cannot be assumed to be the only variables influencing work arrangement policies on overall organizational performance. For example, one might think that more face-to-face time leads to higher levels of collaboration.1. However, while we see leaders in organizations that are primarily in the field valuing collaboration the most, this is not true for all work arrangement policies that include a face-to-face component. When creating and implementing your work placement policy, consider more than just the number of days on site. Finding the right balance in your work routine can impact your perception of the effectiveness of your work practices. After closely examining fully flexible, primarily field-based organizations, we found that these organizations can increase leaders’ perceptions by providing stability and balance in their work routines and environments. When asked to rate organizations on a set of organizational effectiveness factors, a stronger pattern of feedback consistently emerged among leaders from leaders of organizations that were fully flexible and primarily on-site. Our previous research has shown that being intentional about how and where certain face-to-face work activities are planned can increase high-quality connections between employees, fostering effective work and productivity.2. However, when looking at the organizational effectiveness indicators above, leaders in both partially on-site and fully on-site organizations reported lower levels of vision, collaboration, innovation, and effectiveness. So what is causing the low awareness of these essential working conditions? When considering how work placement policies play a role, leaders who are onsite 1 or 2 days may feel their work is spread out over the week, while leaders who are required to be onsite 5 days may feel overwhelmed by in-person expectations. there is. We also found in our research that even as work placement policies evolve to include more face-to-face time, not all work routines evolve accordingly. In fact, regardless of work placement policies, the size of virtual meetings has not decreased3. This suggests that being face-to-face does not reduce the time spent collaborating in a virtual work environment, emphasizing the need for effective collaboration habits regardless of where the work occurs, including effective meetings, intentional communication, and productive asynchronous work. It works. Unique strengths of a fully flexible, site-oriented policy Both fully flexible and primarily field policies are associated with higher leader recognition and evaluation, but each of these policies has specific areas where they stand out. In a fully flexible environment, manager efficiency and alignment are higher. Leaders of fully flexible organizations rate their organizations higher in managerial effectiveness and goal alignment. This suggests that organizations with fully flexible policies have created environments that deepen the impact leaders can have on their teams, including providing greater clarity and coordination in workflows. work. Research has shown that virtual work can reduce the impact of traditional power dynamics, creating an environment where employees feel more confident raising sensitive topics and breaking down departmental silos.4. The perceived impact of “face time” is inconsistent in face-to-face settings. Among work placement policies with a face-to-face component, leaders of primarily field organizations report the highest levels of confidence that their organization’s employees know what is expected of them and how to grow within the organization. What’s interesting is that these face-to-face benefits do not extend to the perceptions of leaders who are either partially or fully present. This suggests that face-to-face influence may have a bell curve. Leader ratings suggest that while only 1-2 days face-to-face may not provide enough opportunity to network with cross-functional teams and identify performance goals for internal mobility, being fully on-site may limit the following location-specific internal mobility limitations: It can happen. Job postings with location restrictions. When creating your work placement policy, consider which moments are most important for face-to-face contact and the impact you want those moments to have: creating team cohesion, supporting employees through onboarding, or facilitating effective project launches.2. Regardless of work placement policies, overworked managers and an ineffective culture hinder high performance. Leaders also reported obstacles they felt were preventing their organizations from moving toward high performance. All four categories of work placement policies shared a common barrier with the top three being overburdened managers. Leaders with different work style policies reported the same barriers to high performance. Ineffective work culture was ranked as the biggest obstacle to any flexible policy, suggesting that getting the processes and culture right is still a work in progress. For field-oriented organizations, the accumulation of tedious tasks and inefficient organizational practices ranked second. Being constantly in the field can increase the expectation that leaders will perform routine, tedious tasks while in the office. For fully onsite organizations, inefficient tools and resources ranked third. Being fully present can limit a leader’s ability to do the focused work needed and utilize their time most effectively. This study advances our understanding of how work placement policies shape leaders’ views of organizational performance and effectiveness. The important thing is that while these policies make a noticeable difference in some areas of operation, they have little effect in others. This means that regardless of work placement policies, leaders must focus on getting the basic priorities right. 1) Support overburdened managers, 2) Set collaborative norms across locations, and 3) Invest in the moments that matter. Hat problem. These implications reflect the leader’s perspective, but forming effective work policies also requires the employee’s perspective. A recent study found that U.S. employees expect their organizations to allow them to work from home 2.3 days per week in the next year, and on average, employees want to be able to work from home up to 3 days per week.5. Connecting leader and employee perceptions is essential to understanding the overall experience of an organization and is critical when strategizing work placement policies to promote high-quality employee experiences and expectations. Stay tuned for our November Research Drop to see what the Viva People Science team is learning! 1 – Gallup, how important is your time in the office? March 2, 2023. 2 – Microsoft WorkLab, as the role of the office changes, key moments matter. 2024. 3 – Harvard Business Review, Hybrid working has completely transformed meetings. June 17, 2024. 4 – Is Deloitte inclusive or isolated? New DEI considerations when working from anywhere. May 25, 2023. 5 – Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom, Steven J. Davis, 2021. “Why Working From Home Is Here to Stay,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28731. Source link Share 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail info.odysseyx@gmail.com previous post Stay ahead of cyber threats with security skill building next post healthcare ai models You may also like AI search threatens digital economy, researcher warns November 12, 2024 Qualcomm has an ‘AI-first’ vision for the future of smart devices November 11, 2024 AMD is moving fast in AI, may join forces with Intel November 11, 2024 A New Dawn of Software Defined Networking (SDN) in Windows Server 2025 November 5, 2024 Get AI ready: Empowering developers in the era of AI November 5, 2024 Announcing the General Availability of Windows Server IoT 2025! November 5, 2024 Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.