1. Work flexibility is increasingly recognized as essential for worker well-being, allowing them to address personal and family needs and increasing job satisfaction.
2. The lack of access to flexible arrangements is a reason for the "great resignation," and work flexibility can contribute to employers' ability to attract and retain workers.
3. A recent NIOSH study found that working at home increased job satisfaction but also job stress, while taking time off decreased job stress and increased job satisfaction. The prevalence of work flexibility indicators has remained relatively stable over the years examined.
The article "Work Flexibility and Worker Well-being: Evidence from the United States" provides an overview of the positive and negative consequences of work flexibility for workers, employers, and society overall. The article highlights that work flexibility can have a positive impact on worker well-being by accommodating personal and family needs, increasing job satisfaction, and reducing work-family conflicts. However, it also notes that there are potential negative consequences such as blurring work-life boundaries due to working from home.
The article presents findings from a recent NIOSH study that assessed the prevalence of work flexibility and its relationship with worker well-being using nationally representative data. The study used three common indicators of work flexibility: location flexibility, leave flexibility, and schedule flexibility. It found that working at home increased job stress but also increased job satisfaction. Taking time off decreased job stress and activity limitations while increasing job satisfaction. Changing one's schedule decreased job stress and increased job satisfaction.
While the article provides valuable insights into the relationship between work flexibility and worker well-being, it has some potential biases and limitations. For example, the study only used data up until 2018, which may not reflect changes in work arrangements due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the study did not consider other factors that may affect worker well-being such as income level or access to healthcare.
Furthermore, the article does not explore potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives on work flexibility. For example, some may argue that work flexibility can lead to increased pressure to be available outside of regular working hours or result in reduced opportunities for social interaction with colleagues.
Overall, while the article provides useful information on the relationship between work flexibility and worker well-being based on empirical evidence, it is important to consider its potential biases and limitations when interpreting its findings.