Balanced Workplace Flexibility: Avoiding the Traps
Abstract
This article identifies three types of traps that can emerge when implementing workplace flexibility—altered work-life dynamics, reduced fairness perceptions, and weakened organizational culture—and provides core lessons for managers seeking a balanced flexibility approach. First managers must become flex savvy to understand the variation that exists in flexibility practices to align implementation with the workforce and organizational context. Second, implementing flexibility must not be treated as an accommodation but as a broader systemic organizational change empowering individuals and teams. The article provides a Work-smart case to highlight how to avoid traps and implement balanced workplace flexibility across multiple stakeholder interests.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Organizations that invest in workplace flexibility and equitable compensation structures report higher employee motivation and lower attrition rates.
“Organizations that invest in workplace flexibility and equitable compensation structures report higher employee motivation and lower attrition rates (Kossek et al., 2015).”
From Evaluation of the Sustainability of Organizational Welfare and Human Resources to Improving Long-Term Performance (2025) · cites this paper as Kossek et al., 2015
Variations in labor laws, corporate governance regulations, and workplace cultural expectations across different regions create inconsistencies in HR sustainability efforts.
“Variations in labor laws, corporate governance regulations, and workplace cultural expectations across different regions create inconsistencies in HR sustainability efforts (Kossek et al., 2015).”
From Evaluation of the Sustainability of Organizational Welfare and Human Resources to Improving Long-Term Performance (2025) · cites this paper as Kossek et al., 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction
Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-06-2015-0181 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
R.A, R. A., Hardy, H., Asrul, A., Maslim, M., & Megawaty, M. (2025) · PARADOKS Jurnal Ilmu Ekonomi · doi:10.57178/paradoks.v8i2.1157 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Regulatory complexities further complicate the adoption of sustainable HRM. Variations in labor laws, corporate governance regulations, and workplace cultural expectations across different regions create inconsistencies in HR sustainability efforts (Kossek et al., 2015).”
- Authors
- Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- University of Baltimore (US)
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Venue
- California Management Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 5-25
- ISSN
- 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-8564
- OpenAlex
- W2193356728
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 17.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- California Management Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Management and Leadership
- Keywords
- work flexibility, work-life balance, perceived fairness, organizational culture, organizational change, employee empowerment, stakeholder interests
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review