Will Stress Cause the American Workplace to ‘Snap’? Can Flexibility Save Us?

Are things “about to snap” in the American workplace? Are we reaching a “tipping point” at which stress-related trauma is going to cause our national productivity to plummet?

This point was raised by Ted Childs, Jr., a well-known speaker and former IBM vice president of Global Workforce Diversity, during a keynote address at last month’s World of Work Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. His sentiments were echoed at the close of the conference by Carol Bryce Buchanan of the Families and Work Institute, New York, N.Y. “There are just too many e-mails, too many interruptions,” said Buchanan. “I can’t help but agree with Ted Childs that ‘things are going to snap.’”

I certainly agree – to a point. We are living in a crazy age when technology – cell phones, e-mails, and all of the other gizmos that some of us love, and life demands—are converging with two-earner families, the “sandwich” generation, and “24/7” work schedules, to make work life just too much for many people.

So, I agree on the problem, but I don’t think we are headed for catastrophe.

When Capacity Equals Change

The discussions reminded me of a theory I learned during an economics course in graduate school. It examines what happens as systems or processes grow and grow.

Say you start out with an assembly line that produces 100 items per day. You can increase in small amounts by tinkering with things—adding a person, adjusting the process. At first, these changes increase productivity by improving efficiency. Then, after a while, it gets harder and harder to make incremental changes. Finally, at a certain point, everything falls apart. At that point, when you’ve reached “capacity,” you just have to stand back and remake the entire process. Tinkering no longer works.

Over the years, I’ve seen this at work time and again. You have a great process. Volume increases. After a certain point, it’s no longer possible to make slight improvements. You have to start all over again, sometimes with new people.

I think we’re nearly at the point of remaking the workplace as a more flexible environment. A place where greater latitude in how and where jobs are done is the order of the day. How will employers react?

I’m optimistic that most will willingly embrace the changes (some more than others, of course) because – like remaking things when you reach capacity overload – the changes will make our lives easier and our businesses more profitable in the long run.

Those who resist may have little or no choice in the matter if they want to remain competitive. Especially in the areas of recruitment and retention, now so important to our “knowledge economy.”

While “chew ’em up and leave ’em behind” employment practices may still be true in industrialized sectors of the economy that are declining, it’s quite a different story at Microsoft or Costco – or any growing company, from retailers to hospitals. Managers at those companies know the cost of turnover. Even low-skilled employees carry lots of institutional knowledge in their heads.

Until recently, lack of flexibility has not been that costly to employers, probably because most workers, fearful of losing jobs and benefits, have accepted less than ideal situations because they felt they had little alternative.

The Role of the Supervisor

Today’s new breed of workers, particularly the young, are more demanding. They have less tenure at stake and are willing to pick up and move on. Those of us who want to preserve our investment in employee training have greater and greater reason to make accommodations that would have been radical – even unthinkable – just a few years ago.

I know we’re doing that at BLR. We have many employees whose jobs allow them to work at home, often thousands of miles from the office. The relationships are often complex and sometimes don’t work out, but – guess what: Neither do traditional ones.

I could go on with my theories of what is important in flexible work relationships – but I’ll spare you all but one: While you’re making changes more amenable to workers, don’t forget those who directly manage them. Flexibility never works if it makes things tougher for the employee’s boss. Middle managers and supervisors already have tough, demanding jobs, and they cannot be expected to fill in the gaps.

Frontline managers have to see flexibility as a help, whether in reducing absenteeism and turnover, in meeting scheduling needs, or improving product quality. If it improves someone’s life at another’s expense, we’ve just substituted one problem for another.

That’s my e-pinion. I’d love to hear yours. Use the Share Your Comments button or e-mail me at Rbrady@blr.com.

Note to e-mailers: Unless you ask that they not be, e-mailed comments may appear in a future feedback column. If you’d like your name and/or organization name withheld, please note that in your e-mail.