Opportunities and risks of geographically- and time-flexible work
Spatial and temporal mobility potentially affects all employees, implies different working time models and forms of mobility and is associated with various opportunities and risks for employees. The Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) has prepared an overview of the risks of exposure to various forms of spatial mobility and provides recommendations for the design of mobile work.
© Uwe Völkner, Fotoagentur FOX
Over the last few years, the digitalisation of the working world has led to the fact that flexible forms of work are gaining in importance, and are increasingly moving into the focus of socio-political discussions. Temporal and spatial flexibility lead to an increase in "mobile work" and contribute to the dissolution of boundaries between work and private life.
Previous research shows that flexible working forms can facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life and improve the motivation and performance of employees. On the other hand, there is also the risk of increased workload, higher work intensity and interrupted recovery phases with possible health implications.
While flexible working hours have been under scrutiny for a long time, research on the effects of mobility on health is still at an early stage. With its overview, BAuA has documented the current state of knowledge and derives initial recommendations for the development of healthy mobility.
Mobility forms can be differentiated into occupationally linked and work-associated forms:
Depending on the form of mobility, there are specific requirements and strains with different consequences for psychosocial health. The increased traffic-associated stress during daily commuting is associated with numerous psychosomatic complaints. In case of weekly commuting, the separation from the family is associated with feelings of uprooting and loneliness, let alone increased separation risks. In the case of posting, the relatives traveling with the worker are in part more affected by the consequences of the posting than the posted persons themselves. In particular, in case of on-site work, but also on business trips, traffic-associated and psychosocial burdens collide and can be mainly due to high working intensity and combine to pose multiple health risks.
In addition to the personal, professional and private conditions, the mobility intensity is also relevant for health, which can be determined by means of the travel time, the distances to be covered and the frequency of travel. Throughout all forms of mobility, control aspects, in particular the predictability and planning of mobility, are identified as health-protecting resources. In addition to traffic-associated stresses such as congestion, delays or confinement in public transport, the important mobility-relevant stresses are high working intensity and time pressure (at work, but for certain forms of mobility, also at weekends at home) as well as private and/or professional conflicts.
The issue of time sovereignty is of paramount importance for all forms of mobility, with very different problems and requirements arising in each type of mobility. The issue of labour intensification is closely linked to this: too much work intensity can restrict or destroy all potentially positive effects of mobility for psychosocial health.
The dissolution of boundaries of stresses proves a common stress-associated issue of all forms of mobility. For example, time pressure is no longer confined to working time and workplace, but also in private life and in the "mobility zones" between work and the family. A high working intensity leads to time pressure at home, as a result family problems are exacerbated, the quality of the relationship is deteriorating, the stress spiral threatens to escalate. Such escalations induced by the dissolution of boundaries are not new, but they are given additional dynamic since the mobility steals additional time.
As a matter of principle, it is at the design level that the framework conditions for mobile working and living forms are to be designed in such a way that mobility can be carried out as freely as possible and without detriment to health, while respecting the social contact and the attachment capability of mobile workers, both professionally and personally.
There are significant differences in the design of work-associated and work-conditioned mobility forms:
Regulations must therefore address ambivalences and create framework conditions in which the greatest possible autonomy of the parties concerned is guaranteed. Central approaches are to create the greatest possible predictability, influenceability and controllability through participation in the design of the concrete mobility conditions and in the granting of decision-making and time-margins.
Operational and individual mobility conditions must be coordinated in order to enable employees to be healthy and mobile at different stages of their lives. On the individual level, the mobility competence must be developed as a function of the respective forms of mobility. At the company level, comprehensive mobility management can create structures and conditions that support mobile work forms. At the societal level, legal and political decisions must be taken with regard to the further development of information and communication technologies, traffic conditions, and, above all, the redesign of the limits between work time and non-work time. It is also necessary to establish protective mechanisms which prohibit precarious, unprotected and illegitimate forms of occupational mobility.
In summary, it can be seen that any form of mobility can have different effects on the health of the persons concerned and their relatives. Even in the case of heterogeneous findings, it can be stated that spatial mobility is an important influencing factor for the health of working persons, which can have a positive and a negative impact through very different mechanisms. However, an isolated consideration of the effects of mobility on health without taking into account the specific living and working conditions is hardly possible and also not very useful.
Future research needs to find answers to the question of how basic human needs for attachment, proximity and trust can be realised as well as possible under conditions of mobility. The advancing digitisation can certainly be used in the sense of support, but its possibilities and limits still have to be explored.
Future research must continue to examine how time sovereignty can be designed so that mobile workers can actually use the benefits of mobility as a health resource.