sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Survey reveals two-thirds of NZ employees want more work-life flexibility – how should employers respond?

Business / analysis
Survey reveals two-thirds of NZ employees want more work-life flexibility – how should employers respond?
p
Getty Images.

By Wayne Macpherson, Beth Tootell, Jennifer Scott & Kazunori Kobayashi*

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on all facets of our lives, including the ways we work and our work-life priorities.

Globally, workplaces are navigating trends such as the “great resignation”, “quiet quitting” and the “great recruitment”. But in New Zealand, the “great return” to work is still being negotiated, providing employees and employers an opportunity to redesign the workplace in ways that benefit both.

One common theme in the employment trends to emerge during COVID-19 is a shift in the value people place on their work and their lives outside of work. But has this gone too far? Are workers being selfish – or “self-first”, as in putting their non-work preferences ahead of workplace productivity?

Or are they prioritising personal wellbeing in order to be better employees? And are these global employment trends meaningful in the New Zealand context, where small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) dominate the business landscape?

Our ongoing survey of more than 600 SME employees found workplace practices and future working preferences have changed since 2020. Workers are looking for jobs that better fit their lives. The results suggest now is the time for employers to work with employees, rather than against them, for mutual benefit and increased productivity.

Global trends: big players and trendsetters

More than two years after the first COVID-19 lockdowns, employers are calling their employees back to the office – but also having to respond to employee push-back. Employees are expecting and asking for more flexibility in where and when they work – they aren’t just quietly accepting the “old ways” of working.

Workers have had a taste of work-life flexibility and are demanding this more frequently and with more confidence. Meanwhile, some employers are focused on “traditional” 40-hour weeks in the office, while others are offering flexibility in hours worked, work style and location.

Tesla recently told workers to return to the office for 40 hours a week, or work elsewhere permanently. Apple’s mandate for employees to return to the office was met with a petition for a work-from-home policy, as implemented at Facebook and Twitter. The company eventually settled for a hybrid “two days at home, three days in the office” model.

In the UK, a four-day work week pilot involving 70 companies is underway, while in Canada some workplaces are navigating the broad pushback from employees who have seen they can work in different places and during different hours and who now want a say in how, when, and where they do their job.

Some businesses are mandating a return to the office while other Canadian businesses have embraced a four-day work week with no change in daily hours for employees.

Man sitting on the floor working next to a child and surrounded by toys.
Employees’ expectations around work have changed and now is the time for employers to negotiate with their staff over what work looks like. Getty Images.

NZ workplaces in a state of flux

While similar trials are under way in New Zealand, the big questions are whether employers need to worry about the actions of large, multinational companies (given SMEs make up approximately 97% of local businesses), and whether employees have the same desired future work-life preferences as workers overseas.

A quick search of vacancies on the job website Seek.com showed more than 700 jobs mentioned “working from home”, 5,000 mentioned “flexibility”, and 38,000 mentioned “work-life” in the job descriptions. Businesses clearly have the sense that staff preferences are changing.

Our research provides insight on what employees want and why. We asked questions about when, where and how many hours they work, as well as the levels of autonomy they have in setting their own work patterns. We also asked what changes they had seen in their organisations since 2020.

While more than half of the respondents (52%) said they had more flexibility in terms of their work arrangements compared to before COVID, and 62% agreed they were able to manage their work-life demands, two-thirds (67%) indicated they now wanted more work-life flexibility.

Nearly half of the respondents (48%) reported that their organisation had already made formal policy changes to enable more work-life flexibility (not including temporary changes during the pandemic). Some 41% said they knew of employees who had left organisations because the employer did not provide enough flexibility to match their needs.

Flexibility in this context meant control over their working patterns. Employees wanted to decide how, where and when they carried out their work. This does not necessarily mean only working from home, but start and end times, number of daily hours worked, and preferred locations such as the homes of friends and family, cafes, libraries and shared open spaces.

The dominant reason for people seeking greater flexibility was personal wellbeing (60%) – above family care, lifestyle, community involvement, fewer interruptions and increased productivity.

We also found 77% of respondents wanted to feel a strong sense of belonging to their organisation. Despite wanting more control of their working patterns, including not necessarily being in the same building as their colleagues, respondents still wanted to be part of an organisation – just in a different way.

Finding common ground

The survey results offer local employers an opportunity to work with employees, rather than face the backlash that has been seen overseas.

With record low unemployment, employees are seeking organisations that are responding to the shift in employee values. Employers need to look past what might appear, on the surface, to be employee selfishness and accommodate the new “self-first” preferences in the post-COVID environment.

By embracing the preferences of their workers, employers can show they value employees and employee wellbeing, which might help navigate the best options for employees – including helping set the new “rules” of working and where compromises might take place.

Remember, employees want a sense of belonging to something bigger. But they also understand the importance of taking care of themselves first. It is time for employees and employers to work together to carve out the mutual benefits of finding new ways of working.The Conversation


*Wayne Macpherson, Senior lecturer, Massey University; Beth Tootell, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, Massey University; Jennifer Scott, Senior lecturer, Massey University, and Kazunori Kobayashi, Lecturer in Management, Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Massey University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

17 Comments

Why do businesses so desperately want their workers sitting in an office 40+hrs a week? If it's proven that the job can be done remotely and productivity is maintained/at higher levels - what's the point dragging people back in to office full time? Control...?

I don't know if anyone else has had the experience of travelling into an office to then do the majority of meetings by Teams/Skype... 

Up
10

If a business has all it's employees in for 40+hrs a week, why would they do the majority of meetings on Teams?

Up
0

Many employers have hired remote workers to get the specialists they couldn't get locally. Multiple offices, clients, suppliers etc. We are now in a business environment where not all stakeholders will or can attend onsite. Many run flexible offices themselves so you now have to accommodate the needs of all stakeholders.  

Up
4

Has happened for me - there always seems to be someone who can't get to the meeting room, so you need Teams (or zoom or whatever) anyway.

I find it works better to just have all meetings on Teams anyway - works better than face to face for various reasons.

Up
3

It ultimately comes down to control, but some of it is to do with investment and expensing.  Many employers who have invested in their buildings feel they need to justify their lease, ownership, costs of fit out and maintenance. Some see the office as the only space professional enough to host clients who may judge their investment based on a 'professional' work space. Some are invested in other real estate and businesses that make money through the second tier of a busy CBD environment. Ultimately they like to feel in control, that they are getting bang for their buck, and can only truly feel they have that based on bums in seats, eyes on screens, hands on keyboards and paperwork on desks(even if employees aren't as productive or working on business related content 100% of the time). Numerous studies have proven the productivity improvements of less than 5 days a week and more flexible work arrangements so the only excuse is the human failings of the capitalist class.

Up
2

Some workers are self motivated, and get more done if they aren't being interrupted.

Most seem to need supervision.

I guess it's unfair to discriminate.

Up
1

I've got a client who has an extremely strict "no WFH" policy despite running a fully digital business (apart from during the lockdowns where there was no option). His view is that WFH is bad for productivity and team building.

In his defence, he literally does not allow any WFH - except for himself and two other senior managers - in the sense that if a client contacts outside of work hours the team member isn't to reply until the next working day, so staff can properly unwind once the day is done. He actually fired a client once who repeatedly called one team member over a long weekend to get some urgent work done - a bold move, but the company doesn't seem to have any issues attracting new clients. 

It definitely causes some recruitment and retention headaches in the current environment; the business has lost a few to employers offering full flexibility, even working for AU/USA-based companies hiring in NZ.

Up
2

Interesting.  I would only work for them if I was desperate.  WFH saves a ton of time and hassle for me.

Up
6

Bingo. The capitalist class have no concern for the time lost during travel and maintenance costs of vehicles, especially when fuel and parts for maintenance are high and scarce.

Up
2

On the one hand, it's excellent that he's not allowing them to be interrupted after business hours. On the other, the ability to work from home sometimes can be very good for reducing employees' costs, and even for productivity.

Up
2

"Remember, employees want a sense of belonging to something bigger."

Sounds woke to me, but maybe people are into that sort of thing. Personally I wouldn't look to co-workers for a sense of belonging in my life.

MY ADVICE:
.. simple, DO NOT hire Woke Staff and people will want to work for your business, it's so simple. If you hire a bunch of woke staff you'll have nothing but problems and a failed business.

Workplace culture will take care of itself because people will have shared values. If you go down the diversity of values route - more fool you!
 

Up
5

I dislike the word woke, I dislike a lot of words but that's another matter.

But I want to point out for anyone reading that there are woke staff and there are woke staff. I have heard before that the beginning of the 'end' starts when a societies (be it a company) biggest issues to solve come from within. Ie, accommodating the diversity of values. But whatever.

Imagine being part of a group that is consistently screwed by everyone and everything in our society. A bit of 'wokeness' in neurodivergence will be glady accepted and should allow for a lot of people to be even more productive for an employer.

I guess a line between woke and woke can be drawn between those who are actually different and should be treated as such and those who just want more as an individual.

Up
1

On the other hand, plenty of candidates would see ranting about "woke" as a red flag in an employer, that they're likely to be caught up in Facebook-driven outrage and overall a bit too fruity.

Up
2

A good point.. though people using large social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and TikTok is a red flag in itself.

Social media is a mecca for narcissists, it gives them access to untold numbers of potential victims.

A lot of cucks out there. 

Up
3

Another issue these days is folk bringing their Facebook rants to LinkedIn. It just looks like they've started to be ignored on Facebook - relatives got sick of their bile and spittle, perhaps - so they're searching for an audience elsewhere.

Up
0

If employers and employees disagree on company culture, the employees need to leave, and make room for employees who like the culture that they don't like,  they need to find a culture/company that better fits them. No-one wants to be a slave or a prison warden. It's not class warfare, just preferences.

Up
2

Yep. Fit in or f**k off. Best policy. Retains the company culture just as the majority like it. Best way to keep like minded colleagues happy.

Up
1