Baseline flexibility won’t futureproof tech businesses from fierce competition for talent
From Amazon to the NSW state government, many local and global organisations are introducing mandates for employees to return to the office. While these attention-grabbing headlines are resurfacing heated debates about whether employees should or shouldn't be forced to work from a physical office space, there is overwhelming evidence showing this is not Australians' preference.
This is particularly the case in the technology industry, with our latest Global Workforce Report showing almost three-quarters (74%) of Australian technology businesses have experienced increased demand for flexible work options among employees in the last six months alone. However, as flexible, hybrid, and remote work have become a popular preference for employees, simply having an offering in this space is not enough to guarantee staff are engaged and loyal to their employer long-term.
Tech companies are fast adopters of flexible working, but competition is fierce
The stats show the Australian tech sector is significantly more likely to offer flexible working hours, part-time work options, and remote work in comparison to other Australian businesses. This may be unsurprising as many would assume tech-related work can be more easily done remotely in comparison to, for example, work in the healthcare or education sectors.
However, with the greater normalisation of flexible working in the tech sector has come greater competition. More than half of Australian technology companies (58%) are losing employees to companies offering more flexibility. With 90% of the technology businesses surveyed citing they have increased their workforce in the last 12 months, it is worth reflecting on the significant time, resources, and costs spent on staff attrition, including the end-to-end recruitment process, onboarding, and initial periods of training and upskilling.
How to out-flex flexible working
It is important for tech employers to recognise that flexible working will mean something different to every individual, and these preferences could change over time. For example, recent research from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre shows there is a shift among Australian workers from part-time work to flexible full-time arrangements, which is being driven by women in the workforce. Meanwhile, almost half of Australian workers have said they would be enticed back to the office if there was a 10% salary premium on top of their base salary.
This range of preferences and potential incentives highlights the need to only keep an open mind when it comes to flexible working arrangements, but also to ensure the needs of the employee are centred in any policy or process development. Employees are demanding choice and are likely to perform better and stay loyal longer if they get it.
Having said that, businesses cannot assume that flexible working is a simple 'fix' to the competition for talent. It can come with its own challenges, particularly with global teams needing to manage international labour laws and compliance requirements, the administrative challenges of managing remote teams, the reduced opportunities to collaborate in-person, and the increased costs of adopting remote technologies.
Business and technology leaders need to go into flexible and remote working with their eyes open. The challenges exist, but they are significantly outweighed by the positive business outcomes. This includes increased employee satisfaction, increased business performance, and reduced employee turnover, which have been reported by 46%, 43%, and 43% of Australian technology companies respectively.
In the ongoing fight for tech talent, having clear policies that allow for flexible and remote working is step one. To remain competitive, technology companies need to ensure their working policies are employee-centred, flexible, and adaptable for each individual. Employees want their needs and preferences heard and are willing to change employers if they feel ignored or if profit is being prioritised over their well-being, and the latter is a risk most employers cannot afford to take.
