The 3-Day Hybrid Work Schedule Sets Gender Equality Back

Labor Day, a holiday that marks the unofficial end of summer for many Americans, is right around the corner. 

In a supreme irony, this Labor Day is being viewed by many observers as a turning point in the ongoing struggle between employees and employers over if and for how long the former will be expected to work at the office. After the Delta variant derailed similar plans for a full return to work last fall, companies have a renewed determination to get employees back into the office. Apple, Capital One, and Comcast are among the firms that have ordered corporate and office-based employees back to the office for at least 3 days a week starting September 5.

Though policies vary widely, three days in person and two days remote is emerging as the unofficial definition of hybrid work. For companies operating on a 5-day workweek, 3 days in the office seems like a solid compromise between the wildly divergent expectations of employees and their leadership on what hybrid work should look like (predictably, most employees wanted less time in the office and employers wanted more).

But there is a huge potential cost to setting a minimum requirement in terms of days rather than hours or another more flexible standard. Requiring employees to come to the office for a minimum of three days a week could set gender equality back and discourage employees from coming as often as they might otherwise. Here’s why.

For a long time, mothers in particular have struggled to align work schedules and school schedules, and many have opted for part-time work because the costs of paying for after-school care were higher than the additional pay they would receive for full-time work. Even those mothers who were sufficiently compensated to work full-time and pay for after-school care often struggled to find coverage or were left scrambling if a caregiver canceled. 

In other words, women–and occasionally men–have been shouldering what has until now been the invisible burden of managing the household while working (MHWW). These parents lived in a perpetual house of cards that could blow over any minute, and it has cost many of them in terms of career advancement (and sleep).

When children returned to school in the fall of 2021 while many of their parents continued to work from home, working parents breathed a sigh of relief because they no longer had to worry about after-school care or transportation. Being home when their children return from school (or being able to pick them up at 4:00 p.m. without facing the judging side-eye of co-workers) allows working parents to coordinate their work and caregiving demands.

New work patterns develop when giving employees the option of hours in the office

If these employees were given the option to come into the office for hourly intervals and finish up their days at home, they would be far more likely to continue full-time work. Requiring three full days of on-site work could undo some of the gender-equalizing effects of hybrid work. Remote employees are more likely to put in longer hours than on-site employees (another problem that I will address in a future post), which means that in most cases, employers would benefit from having more employees put in half-days. Establishing a rigid, 3-day in person schedule negates the flexibility that enables working parents to thrive in an otherwise unforgiving workplace.

Giving employees more autonomy to decide when they will be on-site would encourage on-site work in patterns employers may not anticipate. Employees who have a doctor’s appointment in the afternoon may come by the office on an unscheduled morning to knock out some tasks and have some face-to-face time with their colleagues. Employees whose partners work unconventional schedules (night shifts, for example) may start their days at home and then come in at mid-day. Employees have diverse and varied life circumstances, and employers who take the time to understand and work with those circumstances will build the foundation for a more diverse and productive workforce.

Defining hybrid work in terms of number of days in the office, instead of number of hours or another standard, also reduces flexibility for the inevitable days when sick children must stay home from school. When my children were younger (and unable to stay home unattended), I lived in perpetual fear of stomach bugs and other illnesses that circulate in elementary school classrooms.  A feverish child is a one-two punch in the gut: as a parent, you are worried about your child’s health and as an employee, you are worried about the impact to your workday. Now that offices are set up to accommodate remote work, these situations are, barring serious illness, far less stressful for working parents, and working mothers in particular. A mandatory Tuesday-Thursday in-person schedule could create additional stress and confusion if there is not sufficient wiggle-room to accommodate life’s little hiccups.

Expectations of a three-day minimum overshadows other hybrid possibilities

Some might argue that the three-day minimum is just that–a minimum–and that employees could come in for additional half-days. Given the 24/7, always-on nature of the American workforce, this is highly unlikely. Setting a minimum number of days for hybrid work sends the message that half-days or other arrangements don’t count and may result in employees coming in less than they would otherwise–the exact opposite of what many employers are hoping to accomplish by setting these standards in the first place.

Unfortunately, the assumption behind many of these standards is that employees who opt for remote work are trying to dodge work. On the contrary, many of the employees who opt for remote work are ones who wouldn’t be able to work without the flexibility that occasional remote work provides. In the contemporary workplace, where knowledge work is the norm for many white-collar workers, it is time to get rid of the nagging assumption that employees who seek flexibility are taking advantage of the system. For most of your employees, the reality is quite the contrary: the ones who need flexibility are the ones who face the most obstacles to full-time work and choose to do it anyway. Shouldn’t they be the employees companies try to keep?

Ideally, hybrid work should be a tool to help meet the needs of employees and employers simultaneously, not a tit-for-tat struggle over how many hours employees are or aren’t in the office. Don’t let the numbers game get in the way of what you and your team are trying to accomplish. Understanding how and why your employees use remote work is a critical first step in developing a hybrid work plan that aligns to everyone’s needs.

Previous
Previous

You Can Never Do Enough. It’s Time to Stop Trying.

Next
Next

We Are Getting the Future of Work All Wrong