In Singapore, many organisations are encouraged by the government to have their employees work from home (WFH) where possible amid the ongoing pandemic.
By having staff stay at home, there is no doubt that such flexible work practices (FWPs) can curb the spread of COVID-19. Pundits forecast that some organisations are likely to adopt these new practices even after the pandemic. Social media service providers Twitter and Facebook, as well as e-commerce platform Shopify have even adopted a “remote-first” approach, allowing their employees to work from home for the long term.
Many employees reported that they would love to continue working from home even after the pandemic is over. In a People Continuity Survey conducted by EngageRocket in Singapore between March and June, 92 per cent of the 18,705 respondents were keen to incorporate some semblance of working from home after the Circuit Breaker.
It is not difficult to imagine why – these FWPs give employees greater control over their lives, leading to higher levels of job satisfaction. For example, some employees can save time commuting, as well as have a more flexible and comfortable work space at home. Organisations also stand to benefit as these practices tend to increase employee productivity and reduce staff turnover.
But the question is, should employees undertake them? While the short to medium-term benefits are apparent, there is research that indicates doing this long-term may be detrimental to career progression.
To WFH or not to WFH, that is the question
My research suggests there is a career penalty associated with the use of FWPs. In three separate studies, I found that supervisors tend to rate employees who use FWPs as lower performers, even if they remain objective throughout. In one survey study, I found that employees who had undertaken FWPs were rated as lower performers, by their direct supervisors, compared to their counterparts who had not undertaken FWPs. In a follow-up controlled lab experiment, we asked participants to rate the performance of a fictitious employee. Participants were randomly assigned to read either a package of performance information of an employee who uses FWPs, or the same package of performance information of an employee who does not use FWPs. Supporting our hypothesis, participants rated the employee who uses FWPs to be a lower performer even though the performance information of both employees was exactly the same!
There are at least two explanations for this finding. First, it could be that supervisors may have personal biases against employees who use of FWPs. Second, it could be that supervisors still want to have “face time” with their employees to ensure that they are in fact working. A lack of face time with employees in the office creates a psychological discounting effect for these employees’ productivity. While this research is cross-sectional, accumulated poor performance ratings as a result of using FWPs might have detrimental effects on career advancement in the long run.
Other research reveals similar downsides for employees who undertake FWPs. For example, some studies show that supervisors only look upon FWPs favourably when they perceive an employee is using them to achieve higher productivity. When supervisors perceive FWPs being used to only accommodate personal-life demands, then they tend to view the employee unfavourably. These attributions result in real salary losses for those who adopt FWPs and are perceived by supervisors as using them to merely accommodate personal demands. This might be especially problematic for parents, and especially working mothers, as such attributions can be easily made.
It is possible that with the pandemic some organisations and supervisors would perceive employees who undertake these flexible work practices differently and not penalise employees for using them. But until future research can provide support for this account, I would unlikely undertake these policies myself.