Over the years there has been no shortage of studies highlighting the benefits of working more flexibly. Most of these focus on issues such as employee engagement, lower stress levels and greater productivity.
Alas, actually achieving this cultural and behavioral change has proven difficult. A report a few years ago from Forrester suggested that the key to successful change was a burning platform, or something so severe that there was literally no choice but to change.
In terms of flexible working, it seems that just such a ‘burning platform’ may be something akin to a transport strike. A recent study from researchers at Oxford and Cambridge universities found that during recent strikes by underground workers, the British economy actually improved as people were forced to find new, and it transpired more productive, ways of working.
The benefits of tube strikes
The analysis of strikes on the London Underground in February 2014 discovered that many commuters actually found more effective routes to work, and therefore, not only did the economy not suffer, but it actually improved as a result.
“For the small fraction of commuters who found a better route, when multiplied over a longer period of time, the benefit to them actually outweighs the inconvenience suffered by many more,” the authors say.
The research team obtained 20 days worth of anonymous data from the contactless Oyster travel card most Londoners use when navigating public transport in the city. This consisted of over 200 million data points so represented a thorough picture of how people were traveling before, during and after the strike and allowed the researchers to see whether people reverted to old habits after the strike ended.
A direct comparison between commuters was possible because the strike only resulted in a partial closure of the underground network.
Behavioral change
The analysis found that a decent number of commuters made a permanent change to their commute patterns as a result of the strike. It should be said that the numbers aren’t enormous (around 5%), but given how we are often creatures of habit in our travel patterns, it is still a respectable shift.
This is especially so when framed in cost-benefit terms. The authors analyzed the time saved by those who did change their behaviors and found that the time saved was greater than the time lost due to the strike.
“One of the things we’re looking at is whether consumers usually make the best decision, but it’s never been empirically tested using a large consumer dataset such as this one,” the authors say. “Our findings illustrate that people might get stuck with suboptimal decisions because they don’t experiment enough.”
So, being forced to change ones behaviors can jolt us out of our comfort zone and encourage us to explore what could be better strategies. It’s a hypothesis coined by Michael Porter back in 1995 and offers food for thought for any of us looking to provoke behavioral change in our workforce.
I mean it's very interesting and all, but the findings are a bit on the small side aren't they?
Yes, the findings are interesting to say the least, but even small improvements when scaled up are worth pursuing.
There have to be more effective ways of passing on this knowledge than staging industrial action – for example travel apps. Besides, the best route on a strike day may not be the same as on a "normal" day.
Fair point Kenneth. I suppose the challenge is prompting people to assess their current strategies. A strike forces that to happen when it otherwise might not.
Nassim Taleb might describe this system as "antifragile". Small disruptions cause the system to adjust and improve.
I wonder how many people stopped using the tube altogether (or using it less). And whether the TfL provides data on new Boris' bikes subscriptions. In other words, I wonder whether one could extend this to see whether the strikes incentivised some number of people to take up healthier travel alternatives (walking, cycling).