Flexible Work Unseen Trade-offs

Flexible working arrangements have helped companies retain women in the workforce. That is real progress, but retention is not the same as advancement.

Over the past decade, many organizations have expanded flexible work policies — remote work, flexible schedules, compressed weeks, part-time tracks — often with the explicit goal of supporting women balancing work and family responsibilities.

Yet long-term outcomes tell a more complicated story.

According to the World Economic Forum, while women’s representation at entry levels has remained relatively stable, promotion rates to management have not grown fast enough to sustain a healthy pipeline of future women leaders. Before the pandemic, the estimated time to close the global gender gap was 99.5 years. After the pandemic, that estimate increased to 135.6 years — a nearly 40% regression.

Retention alone has not translated into parity. Why?

Good intentions, unintended consequences

In fast-paced industries that demand long hours, constant availability, or heavy travel, some companies have created alternative career tracks designed to be more “sustainable.” These roles often offer more predictable schedules, less travel, and fewer high-pressure assignments.

Women disproportionately opt into these tracks.

On the surface, this looks supportive. But here is the structural trade-off: stretch assignments, international exposure, high-visibility projects, and demanding clients are often the very experiences that qualify someone for senior leadership.

When employees step away from those experiences — even for understandable reasons — their trajectory changes.

Imagine two professionals up for partnership at a prestigious firm. Both have the same tenure. One has led major external projects, built a global network, and managed high-stakes client relationships. The other has focused on internal operations and delivered steady results. Who looks more ready — at least on paper?

This is not about fairness. It’s about how leadership potential is evaluated.

When decisions are made for women

There is another dynamic at play — often well-intentioned.

Leaders sometimes assume what a woman would or would not want, can or cannot handle, is or is not willing to sacrifice — often based on her personal circumstances, especially family situation. Without asking, they may conclude that a demanding assignment, relocation, or stretch role would be “too much” or “not realistic.”

Earlier in my career, my company struggled to fill a country manager role overseas. I had always wanted international experience. My children were in elementary school; my husband had his own career. But the role was never presented to me. A male colleague — single and not particularly interested — was offered the assignment instead.

No one asked me. Likely out of consideration. Perhaps they assumed I would decline. Perhaps they didn’t want to put pressure on me to choose between career and family.

That experience changed how I lead. We cannot make career decisions on someone else’s behalf — even out of kindness.

The Flexibility Stigma

Beyond structural trade-offs, there is perception.

Research on “flexibility stigma” shows that employees who use flexible work arrangements may be viewed — consciously or unconsciously — as less committed, less ambitious, or less reliable.

Many organizations still operate under an “ideal worker” norm: fully devoted to work, physically present, always available, and unencumbered by external obligations. When someone visibly uses flexibility, it can signal competing priorities. Even if performance is strong, colleagues or leaders may interpret flexibility as prioritizing personal commitments over work — and therefore question long-term dedication.

There is also a peer dimension. Coworkers may quietly resent flexibility if they believe it creates more work for them or if they perceive inequity: “If I make the effort to be here 9-to-5, why can’t they?” Even when that perception is inaccurate, it affects trust.

I have seen this play out in small but powerful ways.

In one case, an employee left to attend their son’s school Christmas pageant without informing their boss or team that they would be offline for a couple of hours. During that window, a major supplier issue emerged and no one could reach them.

In another case, an employee at the same company, under the same policy, stepped out for a personal errand but clearly communicated availability. When a sales emergency arose, they replied that they would be home in 30 minutes and would handle it immediately — and they did.

Both worked for the same company and were following the same flexible work policy. The difference was not flexibility — it was trust and reliability.

Flexibility without proactive communication erodes trust.
Flexibility paired with visible accountability strengthens it.

Mitigating flexibility stigma requires managing not only your time — but the perceptions surrounding it.

Work devotion vs. family devotion

Sociologists describe two competing cultural models:

• Work-devotion schema: Work as the central organizing principle of life.

• Family-devotion schema: Family as the primary commitment.

Corporate systems have historically been built around work-devotion norms. Even in companies that encourage balance, employees who visibly prioritize work are often rewarded faster.

There is also a gendered layer. Men are generally assumed to operate under the work-devotion model. Women are more often assumed to operate under the family-devotion model.

If a man misses his child’s recital for work, it is unfortunate.
If a woman does, it can feel transgressive.

If a man takes extended parental leave, questions may arise about ambition.
If a woman returns quickly from maternity leave, questions may arise about priorities.

These assumptions are rarely explicit — but they shape opportunity allocation. They surface most strongly at decision points: when leaders must choose who receives a stretch assignment, relocation opportunity, high-visibility client project, or promotion. Under time pressure, decision makers may unconsciously gravitate toward the person they believe will be “fully available” or “all in.”

If men are subconsciously associated with work-devotion and women with family-devotion, that bias can quietly influence who is seen as a safer investment. This is rarely malicious. But it is powerful.

That is why leaders must pause and ask: “Am I making this decision based on performance and capability — or on assumptions about availability and priorities?”

The 24/7 culture problem

In some organizations, flexibility initiatives coexist with an unspoken 24/7 expectation.

Researchers from Harvard Business School studied one such firm that initially believed women were leaving because they “couldn’t handle” the workload. The data revealed something different: attrition rates were similar for men and women. What employees of both genders wanted was greater predictability and boundaries. The culture, however, was built on constant overdelivery and permanent availability.

Flexibility policies cannot compensate for a culture that rewards exhaustion.

I experienced a version of this dynamic myself. I worked for a leader who was caring, family-oriented, and well-intentioned. His work style, however, was to respond to emails immediately — across time zones, regardless of urgency.

Eventually, I sat down with him and said: “I appreciate how responsive you are. But please don’t expect that I will do the same unless something is urgent. Otherwise, I will respond first thing the next day during working hours.” He smiled and understood.

Boundaries sometimes need to be stated explicitly — not assumed. And if a culture fundamentally requires constant availability to succeed, the question becomes not whether you can handle it — but whether that expectation is sustainable or aligned with the life you want to lead.

Questions worth asking yourself

Flexible work is a tool. It can be used strategically — or casually.

If advancement matters to you, consider:

• Am I opting into stretch assignments that increase exposure?

• Does my manager clearly understand my output and impact?

• When I use flexibility, am I managing communication intentionally?

• Does my role realistically support the type of flexibility I want?

• Am I choosing convenience today at the expense of opportunity tomorrow?

• Is this company’s definition of leadership compatible with my life and values?

There is no single right answer, but there is a cost to not asking the question.

Flexible work can be empowering. It can also subtly reshape your trajectory. The difference lies not only in company policy,  but in how consciously you navigate it.

For further reading

• World Economic Forum, Flexible working is helping women in work – but they are still struggling to reach senior roles (2023)

• Padavic, Reid & Ely (Harvard Business School), Explaining the Persistence of Gender Inequality: The Work-Family Narrative as a Social Defense against the 24/7 Work Culture

• Kossek, Gettings & Misra (Harvard Business Review), The Future of Flexibility at Work

• Pauliks, Is Workplace Flexibility Penalised? The Gendered Consequences of Working from Home