One in Four Workers Denied Flexible Working Requests Over Productivity Fears, New Research Finds

A quarter of staff saw proposals to adjust hours rejected after managers cited concerns about output levels. This perception varied by area; in some, decisions moved quickly, while delays occurred in others, embedding a sense that policies were tighter than necessary and cohesion suffered.

Health indicators point to rising stress when arrangements aren’t aligned with demand. In common area sites, unusual fatigue and lower morale occurred, shaping a perception that fairness varied by manager. An emerging pattern showed that partial approvals–only some duties adjusted–were harder to sustain, making cohesion harder to maintain.

To counter this, initiating a transparent process with embedded check-ins is essential. Drop-in sessions offer space to discuss what is feasible, enabling management and staff to attract workable solutions. This approach considers staff health and workload, supported by legally compliant policies with clear boundaries and consistent application across area teams.

Embedded metrics are part of an emerging framework that aims to improve cohesion across teams. Some interpretations werent consistent across managers. In cases where adjustments were rejected, partial accommodations can maintain service levels while protecting health. This approach reduces perceptions of unfairness and helps attract stronger engagement from staff.

Concluding, organizations should adopt a common approach that standardizes partial accommodations and communicates rationale clearly. When decisions are legally anchored and health considerations are explicit, uptake rises and staff feel safer initiating conversations. The goal is an area-wide standard that closely considers frontline and back-office needs alike.

Plan for Information Article

Recommendation: This takes the form of a transparent intake process that logs every inquiry about flexibility, records the rationale, and responds within two business days to be responsive and engaging.

This approach yields measurable gains: the base of staff reporting higher confidence and relatedly, a 25% percentage of inquiries met with declines in contexts such as parenting and caregiving. This highlights the need to establish a category of arrangements with clear criteria and agreements that reduce rigidity and provide adaptable options across the talent base.

Implementation plan includes: a condensed policy section that outlines options and their impact; a process for handling inquiries via phone and virtual meetings; designating a guest advocate or cross-functional team; launching posts for managers with real-world scenarios; ensuring responsive communications; and tracking percentage metrics.

The plan emphasizes engaging conversations with staff during intake via phone and video, supports a fluid approach to scheduling, and builds a collective understanding that is adaptable. Guest managers and HR partners contribute lessons that can be shared as posts to sustain learning cycles. This foundation helps create a culture of trust across teams.

Key outcomes to monitor include time-to-response, adoption rate across contexts, and satisfaction levels among caregivers. A percentage change in approvals signals progress; the aim is to move beyond rigidity toward a fluid system with ongoing iterations.

Who is affected: roles and teams most likely to face denial

Adopt a country-wide, standardized selection framework for adaptive hours, incorporated with clear definitions and guides, developed with involved peoples from HR and team representatives. Ensure managers discuss asks with employee representatives during a defined period; each option afforded to staff should be assessed against objective criteria. The framework should be customized per function, with reviews to retain trust and prevent negative thought processes and unrealistic expectations from triggering automated refusals.

Across departments, the following groups are most exposed to pushback when options clash with core operations or impact throughput. Varied contexts across country regions require tailored guidance, yet common principles apply to all, including a facilitator to oversee discussions and avoid bias.

• Customer-facing representatives: front-line support, service desks, and field teams–these roles are involved in time-critical commitments and often raise asks during peak periods. Guidelines should be discussed with leadership and HR representatives to ensure defined criteria are applied consistently and not merely on a negative impulse.
• Operations and production units: manufacturing lines, logistics, and warehousing–periods of heightened demand trigger stricter shift control; selection should be aligned with service levels and kept fair through documented processes, including cross-functional input and a data-backed review.
• Knowledge-based specialists: engineers, designers, data analysts, and software teams–these peoples operate across silos and rely on overlapping schedules; a custom approach, guided by managerial input and cross-team representatives, helps retain project momentum while considering individual needs.
• Remote and distributed teams: distributed contributors across multiple sites or time zones–country-wide variation requires transparent guides and real-time updates to schedules; a facilitator can help discuss impacts and ensure no single group is disadvantaged.
• Early-career and temporary staff: junior personnel and contractors–these employees often seek early access to adaptable patterns; documenting criteria and seeking feedback from line managers helps prevent repeated triggering of resistance during onboarding cycles.

Recommendations for leaders and teams that interact with these groups focus on process clarity and fairness. Seek consensus through defined definitions, involve representatives in decision-making, and retain a clear log of decisions to prevent regression in subsequent periods. Encourage regular discussion, avoid unrealistic assumptions, and ensure every ask is evaluated in light of business needs and people’s wellbeing.

1. Define eligibility carefully: base criteria on objective metrics, not on intuition or past habits; include examples and edge cases to reduce negative interpretations.
2. Document decisions consistently: logs should capture who discussed what, when, and why; this supports accountability and growth across periods.
3. Involve facilitators and representatives: assign a neutral facilitator and include a diverse mix of leaders and employee spokespeople to reflect varied perspectives.
4. Use a standard evaluation checklist: alignment with team goals, impact on customer delivery, and feasibility within current processes; avoid unrealistically optimistic timelines.
5. Review and adjust regularly: schedule periodic reviews to learn from each cycle and to refine definitions and guides accordingly.

Typology mapping: the 14 flexible arrangements and their best-fit use

Recommendation: implement a hybrid-centred core and map 14 typologies to align commitments into a single scheme, with explicit consent, centred on priorities ahead of building new programmes and storytelling that show value to those involved in workplaces.

1) Hybrid workplace model Best-fit for those whose roles span on-site and remote tasks, with teams находятся across locations. Balancing commitments into core routines, drawing on cross-site collaboration, and managed through a non-statutory framework. Implications: substantial gains in engagement and retention when parties are transparent about needs; centre priorities guide the schedule, with on-site days scheduled for critical interactions.

2) Remote-first with periodic office days Best-fit for those whose output relies on digital tools but still requires in-person touchpoints. A scheme that moves most activity into home environments while anchoring key milestones on the days scheduled in the centre. Consent is essential; consider a formal reference plan and programme pilots to track amount of time on site and in projects. Implications: expands talent pools and reduces commuting, while maintaining crucial collaboration.

3) Flexitime with core hours Best-fit for those balancing high-concentration tasks with routine collaboration. Core hours ensure coordination windows across teams, while the remainder of the day is drawn from a flexible window. Building options into commitments and non-statutory guidelines supports consent and planning; implications include smoother handoffs and clearer role expectations in day-to-day operations.

4) Part-time patterns Best-fit for those managing care commitments or pursuing development alongside responsibilities. This approach draws on a clear scheme to allocate hours proportionally, with a substantial share of the workload preserved. Partners and managers should agree on time blocks and transitions; implications for coverage and client-facing work require careful prioritisation of roles and essential tasks.

5) Job sharing Best-fit for those whose work can be divided between two people without duplication of effort. Roles are split by project streams or time blocks, with agreed handoffs and a clear governance model in the centre. Consent from both parties and line management is needed; references point to improved continuity and reduced burnout, with a valuable storytelling element about shared leadership.

6) Compressed workweek Best-fit for those who can concentrate a full week’s tasks into fewer days (for example, four 10-hour days). This arrangement aligns with priorities that require extended blocks of deep work and scheduled downtime. Implications: potential cost savings and lower commute times; ensure consent and care for clinicians and other essential staff where fatigue risk must be monitored.

7) Annualized hours Best-fit for project-driven or seasonal demand, where total hours are distributed across the year rather than a fixed weekly pattern. Scheme supports drawing workload into peak periods and providing lighter weeks in off-peak times. Centre and management should track commitments and adjust plans ahead of peak seasons; references emphasize stability for service delivery and staff wellbeing.

8) Split shifts Best-fit for service-heavy roles requiring coverage across mornings and evenings. Balancing a day into two blocks reduces peak strain and enables those with caregiving responsibilities to participate. Non-statutory guidelines and consent processes help manage expectations; implications include scheduling complexity but gains in coverage and client satisfaction.

9) Rotating shifts Best-fit for roles needing periodic exposure to different times to meet demand curves. This approach keeps workloads balanced over weeks and enhances workforce resilience. Building a rotation calendar in the centre helps manage commitments and protect rest periods; clinicians and frontline staff benefit from predictable rest windows when carefully managed.

10) Term-time or seasonal schedules Best-fit for organisations with cyclical demand or caring responsibilities tied to term windows. This arrangement aligns with priorities during peak terms while enabling time for training and development during downtimes. In workplaces, the centre uses a non-statutory framework to handle leave, consent and handoffs; substantial benefits in morale and retention, with a coherent storytelling approach to programme implementation.

11) Project-based tempo Best-fit for teams working on clearly scoped deliverables rather than ongoing steady-state tasks. Time is allocated to milestones and milestones are tracked against measurable outcomes. Implications include strong focus on results and flexible resourcing; parties involved can draw on a range of roles to cover expertise, with a clear amount of effort allocated per project.

12) Phased retirement or gradual return Best-fit for organisations with long-term knowledge transfer needs and multi-generational teams. This approach allows those approaching transition to retain valued roles while mentoring successors. Consent and tailored handover plans are essential; implications include smoother transitions, reduced knowledge gaps, and proactive planning within the centre of the operation.

13) On-call or variable workload Best-fit for roles where demand fluctuates, such as clinical or emergency support teams. A responsive schedule manages bursts of activity without overstaffing, ensuring commitments to patients and clients are met. Managers should maintain clear guidelines and references for on-call expectations; implications include better adaptability and more predictable workload forecasting for those centres.

14) Secondments or cross-functional rotations Best-fit for organisations seeking skill diversification and knowledge sharing across teams. Rotations are drawn from a roster with predefined durations and outcome targets, supporting building capabilities and strengthening collaboration. Consent processes and robust handover practices are essential; implications include enhanced talent pipelines, enriched roles, and stronger relationships across parties involved in the scheme.

Productivity risk assessment: measuring impact before granting requests

Recommendation: apply an applied risk framework with a single scorecard to decide when to grant access to an arrangement, driving rostering decisions, project throughput, and the balance with family and leisure time, taking everything into account for service levels.

Introduction and approach: an introduction to the framework is supported by training; the approach is to identify relevant drivers: workload, criticality, team capacity, rostering constraints, and family-leisure trade-offs. Data are collected from performance dashboards, chats with the applicant, and context from project owners; the team approached data sources across attendance, task complexity, and cross-team dependencies; formats such as dashboards and toolkits standardize data; consensus across managers is required before approval.

Key elements: complex, difficult scenarios are addressed via analysing, threshold setting, and facilitated reviews by a cross-functional panel; where teams argue about thresholds, a consensus-driven process ensures agreements are documented; formats, toolkits, and data tables support consistent decisions; the introduction of rostering rules keeps everything aligned.

Impact and monitoring: track results across projects, levels of delivery, and team dynamics; this approach is important for governance; almost all adjustments are driven by data; chat with the applicant often takes place to clarify context; remotely enabled options are included, but governed by the risk score and a formal review; if the score is high, escalation to senior management is triggered.

Pilot design: steps to test flexible options without hurting output

Recommendation: begin a six-week bank-unit trial of flexi-time variants with a linked intranet portal, clear role delineation, and a streamlined decision-making cadence to keep activity steady and visible results.

Step 1: Define scope, governance and roles

Limit the pilot to a single unit to control complexity and establish a plain governance map; appoint a president-like sponsor in the language of the organisation to drive decision-making, ensure роли are assigned, and lock a linked stakeholder roster on the intranet. Specify quotas for coverage so routine activities remain predictable, and document the baseline so progress is measurable before broad roll-out.

Step 2: Set baselines and metrics

Capture current activity levels, case throughput, citizen-facing turnaround, and client satisfaction as the baseline; create a visible dashboard that is accessible via the intranet. Align metrics with priorities such that any change does not degrade service quality, and record the data in a bank of evidence that can be extended to other units if needed.

Step 3: Design flexi-time options

Test two patterns: core hours plus evening extension and a staggered shift around the existing routine. Conceptualised schedules should be simple to follow and linked to coverage requirements; document how coverage remains seamless for clinicians or front-line teams, and ensure the options can be understood by staff who value flexibility while keeping output reliable.

Step 4: Map roles, coverage and decision rights

Develop a roles matrix that shows who approves changes, who monitors impact, and how escalation works. The matrix must be visible to teams and linked to payroll or HR processes; ensure responsibilities are clear so that coverage never falls below a safe threshold. This step requires a clear rôle delineation to prevent silos and maintain service continuity.

Step 5: Engage staff and capture suggestions

Invite input via the intranet, collect suggestions, and create a pre-defined feedback loop. Encourage line managers to explain how the plan affects daily activity and client interaction, and show how staff feel valued as proposals are considered. A well-structured feedback process helps staff follow the plan and feel part of the decision-making process.

Step 6: Data governance and privacy considerations

Define data points, access rights, and reporting cadence; outline how the complexity of scheduling data is managed and who can view dashboards. Ensure compliance with local regulations and internal policies so the bank of data remains trustworthy and the organisation maintains control over sensitive information.

Step 7: Pilot duration, milestones and criteria to extend

Run the pilot for a defined period, with milestones at midway and end. Use before و after comparisons to assess changes in activity and client-facing metrics; if results are positive, extend to additional teams and sites, maintaining the same governance and measurement discipline to preserve consistency.

Step 8: Decision-making framework and governance

Document all decisions in a shared log on the intranet, with clear rationale and ownership. The framework should support decision-making at the appropriate level while ensuring accountability and transparency for staff across roles in the organisation.

Step 9: Case studies and learning

Capture concrete cases where flexi-time contributed to faster response or improved morale, and quantify increases in efficiency or satisfaction. Use those cases to refine the approach, inform future cycles, and illustrate the value of experimentation to peers and clinicians alike.

Step 10: Roll-out and continuous improvement

Prepare an extend plan that scales from a single unit to a wider roll-out, adjusting quotas, shift configurations, and cover dynamics as needed. Create routine review meetings to follow progress, adjust priorities, and ensure staff feel valued as the system evolves. Maintain visible results and a steady cadence for ongoing improvements.

Decision communication: clear rationale for denials and alternatives

Recommendation: deliver a concise, data-informed notice that cites constrained conditions, staffing realities, and the estate footprint, then present a clearly structured menu of alternatives that can be adopted long-term. This approach lets staff enjoy predictable options and reduces ambiguity.

Structure the message with three parts: a concise rationale, concrete alternatives, and a clear review timeline. The rationale should be incorporated with evidence, not generic statements, and should show when conditions change, самом and how decisions align with frontline experience.

• Constraints drive the decision: constrained capacity, compressed space, and changed operating conditions limit ability to fulfill all needs.
• Impact metrics: annualised coverage gaps and workload concentration; the disparity between teams is largely driven by how work is linked to on-site processes and the estate’s physical layout.
• Timeline and review: persisting difficulties require a long-term frame; decisions should be revisited when data shows an enduring shift, with quarterly checks and an annual plan.

Finding contrast: whereas some departments can absorb flexibility without harming outcomes, others show clear limits; this difference is reflected in how resources are allocated and how talks with teams influence adjustments. These moving dynamics create difficulties that must be addressed strategically to preserve same service standards.

When allocation gaps persist, provide an advised path that is reasonable, aligned with strategic goals, and linked to performance indicators. Communicate clearly when changes are expected and how staff can contribute to improvements.

Alternatives and framework:

1. Hybrid model: mix on-site and remote days within core hours; the approach is incorporated with guardrails, staffed to cover peak windows, and enables staff to enjoy a balanced rhythm while continuing to deliver results.
2. Compressed or staggered hours: tailor shifts to peak demand periods while keeping service levels high; this preserves same outcomes with a different time footprint.
3. Task reallocation and cross-skilling: reassign tasks and train colleagues; a knowledge-transfer plan supports a smooth transition and helps maintain continuity.
4. Phased pilots and review: test changes in a subset of teams, using an annualised forecast to guide rollout; monitor persistence of effects and adjust accordingly.
5. Workspace optimization: repurpose underutilised workspaces and shared areas to support critical tasks during peak periods; align with estate changes and updated occupancy rules.

Communication and follow-up:

• Document rationale in a concise briefing and share it promptly; reflect the data, the changes, and the expectations.
• Advise teams on next steps with clear deadlines and contacts; provide a timeline for the next review and the decision criteria.
• Track progress using a simple dashboard showing occupancy, workload, and staff sentiment; update knowledge as circumstances change, and keep a continuous feedback loop.

Culture and expectations:

• Focus on reasonable outcomes that protect service quality while supporting staff wellbeing; persist with evaluations to avoid stale arrangements and adjust where necessary.
• Engagement should be ongoing, with staff able to contribute to shaping work patterns; the estate and workspaces should reflect evolving needs, and staffing levels should align with new patterns.