Publication record
- Original publication period
- July–December 2021
- Digitized / uploaded online
- August 10, 2026
The digitization/upload date records when this file was added to the website; it is not the article's original publication date.
Abstract
Flexible work arrangements do not produce productivity by location alone. Their effects depend on task fit, autonomy, coordination, measurement, technology, and recovery. This conceptual review organizes evidence available through 2021 into a Flexible Work Productivity Agreement: define the output, select where and when the task can be performed, establish coordination windows, provide the required resources, and review performance together with well-being. The framework distinguishes flexibility from permanent availability and rejects activity signals such as online status or message volume as universal productivity measures. It also recognizes that home conditions, disability, care responsibilities, role seniority, and access to equipment shape the value of flexibility. Managers are encouraged to use team-level service standards, documented handoffs, protected focus periods, and outcome measures with quality and timeliness checks. Employees need a route to revise arrangements when isolation, overload, or inequity appears. This article does not estimate productivity gains or recommend one model for all occupations. It provides criteria for matching work design with task requirements and human sustainability.