I recently read an AP News article by Cathy Bussewitz on microshifting titled “Microshifting puts new spin on 9 to 5 schedules.” It described “microshifting” as a flexible scheduling approach where people tackle work in short, productive bursts rather than a traditional, continuous nine-to-five stretch.

The article also made an important point. Work is increasingly being organized around output, not hours. Work fits around and between other responsibilities, and success is measured by what gets done, not how long someone appears to be working.

For many organizations, this isn’t exactly breaking news. Most of my corporate clients had some version of flexible work long before the pandemic. And for those that didn’t, the pandemic forced the issue. Flexibility wasn’t always thoughtfully designed. It was deployed quickly, out of necessity, and then stuck without considering whether and how well it was working.

At the same time, AI is accelerating this shift in how and where work gets done. As organizations adopt AI tools to automate tasks, augment decision-making, and streamline workflows, the traditional boundaries of work are becoming less defined. AI enables people to complete complex tasks more efficiently, often in shorter bursts and with greater independence, reinforcing the very patterns that microshifting describes.

Now, we’re seeing the pendulum swing back. Organizations are asking employees to return to the office, sometimes three, four, even five days a week. The reasons are valid. Collaboration, culture, mentoring, and, yes, the reality of paying for office space that’s sitting empty.

I don’t see the genie being put back into the bottle. I see the opportunity to create a better version of flexibility through thoughtful planning.

The Real Question Isn’t “Should We Allow Flexibility?”

It’s “How do we make flexibility productive, for both the employee and the organization?”

At the height of the pandemic, many organizations allowed flexibility without structure. There wasn’t time to design it well. It was reactive, not strategic. And in many cases, those arrangements remained in place, even when they weren’t working particularly well.

That’s at least part of where the tension comes from today.  Leaders see inconsistency. Employees see autonomy. And both are, in many cases, right.  So let’s address the concern that often sits just below the surface.

Can high-performing teams really succeed if people are stepping away from work throughout the day to manage personal responsibilities?  Yes. They can.  But not by accident.

Output Matters More Than Optics

One of the most persistent myths in the workplace is that visibility equals productivity.

We all know the person who is always “on,” always at their desk, always online, always available. And yet, somehow, not always delivering meaningful results.

I often refer to this as the “cubicle sabbatical.” It looks like work. It feels like work. But it’s not necessarily adding value.

On the other hand, motivated and engaged employees, especially those who value flexibility, often work harder, not less. They understand that flexibility is earned and maintained through performance. And they are willing to deliver to keep it.

Microshifting, when done well, taps into this dynamic.  It allows people to step away when needed, reset, and return to their work with more focus and clarity. That reset is not a distraction. It can improve problem-solving, creativity, and decision-making.

We already understand this concept in other contexts.  In a recent blog post, “When 90 Minutes of Training Is Worth It and When It Isn’t,” I made the case that shorter, well-designed learning sessions are often more effective than longer ones. People focus better. They retain more. They engage more deeply.

Work isn’t that different.  Continuous, uninterrupted time is not always the most productive way to operate. Strategic breaks, whether they’re intentional or simply part of how someone structures their day, can improve performance.

The key is not the schedule.  The key is the outcome.

Not All Roles and Not All People Are the Same

This is where many organizations get stuck.  They try to create a single, consistent approach to flexibility across all roles and all employees.  That sounds fair.  It’s also unrealistic.

Some roles are naturally more flexible than others. Some require real-time collaboration, physical presence, or immediate responsiveness. Others are more independent and outcome-driven.

And then there’s the human side.  Some people thrive in a flexible environment. Others struggle without structure. Some miss the energy and focus of being in an office. Others do their best work when they have more control over their time.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution here.

Leaders Aren’t Wrong to Want Visibility

I work with many leaders who are open to flexibility, if the work gets done.  But I also work with leaders who are more hesitant. And it’s easy to label that hesitation as a lack of trust.

Many leaders simply do their best work when they are interacting with their teams in real time. They think more clearly. They make better decisions. They feel more connected to the work.

Leadership is not a passive activity. It requires energy, awareness, and engagement. And for some leaders, that’s harder to achieve in a fully flexible or fully remote environment.

So instead of framing this as “leaders vs. employees,” it’s more useful to see it as a design challenge.

How do we create a system that allows for flexibility while still supporting strong leadership and team performance?

Flexibility Works Best When It’s Designed

Flexible work arrangements are like the stars in the sky. There are many of them, and no two need to look exactly alike.

Being planful doesn’t mean being rigid.  It means being intentional.  It means having conversations about what works, what doesn’t, and why.  It also means being honest about limitations and opportunities.  There was a time when we would joke that roles, like surgeons, were (obviously) not eligible for flexible work.  Well, today, with advancements in robotics and connectivity, that assumption is being challenged.  Things change and so must our way of thinking.

The Responsibility Doesn’t Sit Solely with Leaders

Too often, leaders feel pressured to say “yes” to flexibility, even when it doesn’t make sense for the role, the team, or the individual’s performance.  That’s not sustainable.

Employees need to take ownership of how flexibility will work.  They need to think through how they will meet expectations, stay connected, and deliver results, and then put that into a clear, workable plan.

The leader’s role is not to create that plan from scratch.  It’s to review it, refine it, and ensure it aligns with team and organizational goals.

A Practical Framework for Making Flexibility Work

This doesn’t need to be complicated.  In fact, the simpler it is, the more likely it is to work.  Here’s a straightforward approach I’ve used with clients.

1. Set Clear Parameters

At the organizational or team level, define what is generally acceptable.

• Which roles are eligible for flexibility?
• What expectations are non-negotiable?
• Are there core hours or required in-office days?

You don’t need to define every detail, but you do need a clear starting point.

2. Communicate Consistently

Everyone should understand the parameters, whether they are using flexible work arrangements or not.  Without clear communication, flexibility can quickly turn into perceived favoritism. And that’s where resentment builds.  Transparency prevents that.

3. Have Employees Create a Plan

Employees should outline how they intend to work flexibly while still meeting all expectations.  This doesn’t require a formal system or complicated documentation.  It just needs to be written down clearly enough that both the employee and the leader understand it.

4. Review and Align

The employee and leader should discuss the plan together.

• What works?
• What needs to be adjusted?
• What risks need to be addressed?

If the plan moves forward, set a clear timeframe to evaluate it, typically around three months.  That’s long enough to see patterns, not just isolated successes or challenges.

5. Evaluate and Adjust

After the agreed period, revisit the plan.

• Is the work getting done?
• Is the team functioning well?
• Is the arrangement sustainable?

If yes, continue.  If not, adjust.  This is not a one-time decision. It’s an ongoing process.

You Don’t Need a Complex System

It’s tempting to over-engineer flexible work.  To create forms, systems, tracking mechanisms, and layers of approval.  In most cases, that’s not necessary.  What matters most is having a plan and discussing it to ensure clarity, alignment and accountability.

Final Thought

Microshifting is just one label for something much bigger.  Work continues to evolve.  Not just where it happens, but how it happens.  The organizations that will perform best are not the ones that resist that change or blindly accept it.  They’re the ones that design it both thoughtfully and practically.