Article
8
min read
For Millennials like me, work flexibility is just a myth.
Writer
Just call her by the name Mawar.
Published on
One day, an old campus friend sent me a text message. At first, there was indeed some interest, but in the end, it became just small talk.
“Hey, where are you working now?” he asked.
“At ((sensor)). He he.”
“WOW… YOU'RE REALLY ARROGANT, HUH,” this is how he joked. He might be annoyed because I was reluctant to keep in touch, especially to just let him know that I was working at the same parent company as him.
“You're in ((sensor)). I'm in ((sensor)). He he,” I replied. Honestly, I was just lazy to make small talk about work. At that time, I was experiencing acute insecurity.
“IT'S THE SAME. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT BUILDING. IT'S REALLY CLOSE. When are you going to the office? Let's meet.”
“I never go to the office. He he. I'm a freelancer. I also work remote.
“Wow, that's nice. You get to travel a lot, huh,” he joked again. Maybe he thought I was working as a journalist sent to cover outside the city, not bound by time and place, and could breathe air outside the cubicle desk and computer screen. His response made me even more insecure.
I work as a freelance worker or casual worker. More precisely, a freelancer under the corporate umbrella. At that time, I was still working remote. Maybe because my friend worked full-time and always went to the office, he started to expect that my job was nice. Maybe he was bored with the rigid office routine that stifled his freedom, so when he heard ‘remote work’, suddenly, what came to his mind was heaven. Even though I was overwhelmed with insecurity, I understood his position a little. After all, we were both at a disadvantage.
At least for the current condition, I am part of the millennials group that wants to work at a standard pace—which sometimes sounds ‘conservative’ for this 4.0 era. Like regularly going to the office or being assigned by the office to go out—clearly not staying inside the house. I could go to a cafe to work on my tasks, but that’s still a consideration because I’m actually broke.
Other desires, for example, to be able to meet regularly with office colleagues and build enjoyable friendships—aren't these relationships a healthy work ecosystem? Then, of course, I want to earn a decent income, receive benefits, and various other accesses.
Unfortunately, I have to accept the reality; I spend more time working at home with equipment and internet data that I bear myself, never face-to-face with colleagues even video calls are not happening, an inadequate income, and of course no benefits.
Earnings below the minimum wage, transferred monthly, but if I don't go to work—whether the reason is sick or for any permission—it is still deducted based on the number of absent days. So, I almost never absent even if it’s a public holiday or a great holiday—unless I'm desperate—or I try to find replacement hours by trading schedules with colleagues.
Indeed, some people feel suitable working as freelancers plus remote. A person's living conditions also determine the ideal job type needed within a certain period. These conditions are always fluid and can change at any time. For example, a mother with a toddler might find it difficult to work full-time, thus freelance can be an alternative. But what about my situation as a (back then) fresh graduate, with a mediocre economic background, and starting to feel frustrated after being rejected by companies repeatedly?
This freelance work is my first ‘official’ job in a corporation. Previously, I had only worked as an intern and part-time jobs. Initially, I thought, instead of being unemployed for too long, it’s better to take it. At least the contract says that I can leave whenever if I get a job in another company. After some time, it turned out to be not as easy as I imagined.
I felt stuck in a box and kept spinning inside it. Job applications to other companies went unanswered. On the one hand, I wanted to give up that job—which was toxic to me—but I always hesitated. This is a dilemma. Because if I resign, I would have no income. In the end, I had to extend the contract again (and again?).
The reality is, remote working isn't always as beautiful as many people imagine. Not everyone is suited to this system. Harvard Business Review once released a short review of research on 1,100 workers. They said that 52% of those who remote work at home tend to feel isolated, especially if they never have direct contact with coworkers who stay at the office. This is what I roughly feel.
During nearly a year of remote working, I could count on one hand how many times I went to the office; when training and orientation as new workers, when signing and extending contracts, and when invited to attend the year-end meeting. All forms of telecommunication were only through text messages, and in the chat room, only work-related topics were discussed. There were no regular meetings as if freelancers were merely small crumbs and not part of the company.
After almost a year, the company offered freelancers the chance to work at the office. The reason was that face-to-face interactions were beginning to be seen as a communication necessity (see, I told you. This is very important in a work ecosystem). As an implication, the salary was indeed increased but still not significantly. The mechanism and workload didn’t change—thankfully, the jobdesk didn’t become heavier.
Then the next reason, the company wanted to improve the quality of production. At this point, I started to cringe. Of course, I was happy if the company kept improving ‘quality’ considering its negative image in previous years. But, wait a minute. Wanting to improve production quality but by employing young freelancers, on short-term contracts, and minimal salaries?
The company reasoned that it had financial constraints, as its income was declining that year. Reportedly there was an ‘efficiency’ of permanent workers in the office, some of whom were ‘laid off’—I do not know whether they were transferred to another business unit or truly ‘sent home’.
In the end, I gave in because I had no alternative choices. Moreover, to maintain my mental stability so that I can often engage in activities outside the home. Honestly, during my remote work, my mental health deteriorated.
This experience made me question the touted work flexibility that was said to enhance worker and company productivity. Many say millennials like this type of job. But actually, who are the 'millennials that tend to prefer flexible work'? Which millennials?
If they mean urban millennials who have privileges and stable, even affluent economic backgrounds, such flexible work is probably not a problem. They do not worry about whether the amount of money in their account is enough, whether they can save or not, whether they can buy this or that or not.
I often doubt the surveys and research used as the basis for arguments that ‘flexible work is like a paradise with promises of freedom’, isn’t it biased? For instance, how diverse is the respondent pool used in the sample? This needs to be examined and critiqued further.
Moreover, the media simplifies that narrative concoction in various ways. Just try googling, for example, with the keywords ‘millennials and flexible work’, most results speak in a positive tone. Furthermore, companies legitimize the trend of flexible work among youth purely for production purposes; minimizing expenses as much as possible by employing young people under PKWT.
Well, if work flexibility is accompanied by fulfilling workers' rights and treating them humanely, who wouldn’t want that? But let alone that utopia, even permanent workers' rights are still often ignored.
Moreover, hey… ((remember)) if the Cilaka omnibus law—which is still a hot debate—one day gets approved, what will happen to workers like me? With the Cilaka Bill yet to be passed, I'm already struggling to survive in an imbalanced work-life, let alone if it gets officially enacted?
The Chairwoman of the Media and Creative Industry Workers Union for Democracy (SINDIKASI) Ellena Ekarahendy stated during a discussion at Walhi National, Jakarta, Thursday (20/2) that if the Cilaka Bill is passed, it will allow for a wave where workers become permanently temporary workers. And this is increasingly worrying for young workers, especially fresh graduates, as they are in a difficult position to gain high bargaining power. The relationship of becoming permanent workers becomes increasingly challenging.
The principle of ‘easy hiring, easy firing’ is indeed the spirit advanced by the Cilaka omnibus law. As the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto ‘confirmed’ that this Bill will regulate the flexibility of working hours as well as ease in the recruitment process and termination of employment or layoffs (katadata.co.id).
The image of flexibility perhaps stems from the boredom of a rigid, stagnant work world, like what my friend above experienced. Workers long for freedom, flexibility, and leniency. But what if that 'freedom' turns into another form of prison?
A prison that is subtly built by corporate logic, facilitated by capitalism, reproduced by technology and the digital economy, and… legalized by the government? Work flexibility ultimately becomes a myth in the 4.0 civilization. A myth for the working class who has no power.
Author: let's just say her name is Mawar.
Other articles
Article
3
min read
Being Competent vs Being Liked. Why are female leaders always forced to choose?
"She's too emotional."
"She's too nice to lead."
Comments like these might sound simple. However, behind them lies a double standard that still affects how we view leadership in the workplace. In various organizations, female leaders are still faced with conflicting expectations. When women are firm and assertive, they risk being labeled bossy or emotional. But when women show empathy and warmth, their competence is questioned instead.
In Enemies with Benefits, the character Wine, who is newly appointed as a Supervisor, is immediately labeled "just a pretty face" due to her friendliness at work. To gain respect from her team, Wine feels she must change her demeanor and suppress her personality to appear more "worthy" of being a leader.
Wine's experience reflects a phenomenon known as the likability-competence trap.
A bias that often forces women to choose between being respected for their competence or liked for their personality. This double standard means that a female leader's competence is judged not only by her work results, but also by the way she speaks, expresses emotions, and builds relationships.
“women who lead are disliked, and women who are liked don’t lead.”
This kind of bias rarely presents itself in the form of overt discrimination. Instead, it arises through everyday comments, feedback, performance reviews, and promotion processes that appear objective, yet are still influenced by unconscious gender stereotypes (unconscious bias).
Consequently, a woman's leadership is often judged not just by things that objectively support work success, such as the quality of decisions, work results, or the impact created. Instead, assessments are also influenced by the extent to which a female leader is considered "friendly" enough, "assertive," "pleasant," or aligned with gender expectations that still linger in the workplace.
For organizations, the impact is not only felt by individuals. Bias in evaluating leadership can limit the diversity of leadership styles, hinder creativity and human resource development, and make decision-making processes less fair.
Image: A scene of Wine crying upon hearing gossip from her coworkers about her.
Building an inclusive workplace is not just about opening up more opportunities for women or vulnerable groups to lead. What is equally important is ensuring that every process of evaluation, promotion, and feedback is conducted with fair standards. Inclusive leadership begins when competence becomes the basis of evaluation, not stereotypes about how a leader "should" behave.
Focus on competence.
Focus on work results, objective KPIs, leadership quality, and impact, rather than whether someone seems “friendly enough” or “assertive enough” in their interactions.
Distinguish leadership style from leadership ability.
Not all leaders have to show the same style to be effective. Diverse leadership styles can support the growth of creativity in the work culture and in decision-making. Support women to lead authentically.
Review the language in performance reviews.
Avoid feedback that focuses on someone's personality or expression, such as being "too emotional", "lacking warmth", or "lacking authority". Provide specific, work-behavior-based, and actionable feedback.
Be aware of bias before making decisions.
Reflect on whether evaluations, promotions, or feedback are truly based on performance, unaffected by unconscious gender stereotypes (unconscious bias).
Because in the end, competence has no gender.
An equal workplace is a place where everyone can lead authentically, without the need to suppress themselves to gain respect. Have we truly evaluated and appreciated leaders based on their competence, integrity, and the impact they create?
Read more
Article
4
min read
Creating Proactive Mechanisms for Handling Sexual Harassment: Learning from Filing for A Love
“At our office, we are safe; after all, there has never been any report received so far.”
The above statement cannot be used as a foundation to validate the absence of handling mechanisms for sexual harassment and violence in a company or institution.
For many corporate managements, the absence of reports is often used as an indicator that their work environment is completely clean and safe. However, the reality is not that simple. The absence of reports does not mean there are no cases at all. Regulatory documents must still be possessed and actively implemented, even if there has never been a report of violations.
The Danger of Not Having Clear Mechanisms
Based on data released by the Never Okay Project in 2022, many workplaces still do not have clear mechanisms to handle cases of sexual violence and harassment.
As many as 34.53% of respondents mentioned that their workplaces do not have mechanisms against sexual violence and harassment. Meanwhile, another 23.53% of respondents did not even know whether their office already has such handling mechanisms or not.
This is dangerous. Ignorance and the absence of clear mechanisms will make many victims and witnesses choose to remain silent. Because they do not know where to report and receive handling.
Learning from the Haemu Audit Team
The K-drama Filing for Love, in episode 4, tells the story of Lim Ha-Kyong (a junior engineer) who experienced sexual harassment and intimidation by James (the director). The victim felt pressured and chose not to report her situation when asked by Jo In-A (the Leader of the Haemu Audit Team).
Even though the victim claimed "nothing happened," In-A still conducted an investigation according to the applicable protocols and policies. The process was carried out without compromising the victim's position.
In-A's brave decision enabled the existing policies to be executed effectively. Evidence was successfully gathered, the perpetrator was punished, and the victim was slowly able to recover and return to work.
This story aims to show that active intervention from the company is proven to be able to save victims while maintaining organizational integrity.
Why a Proactive Mechanism is Important
Providing a responsive protection system is not just a form of care for staff, but a strategic investment for business continuity. The benefits for the company are not small
Creating psychological safety. This means employees can work peacefully without being overwhelmed by anxiety about their safety.
Increasing employee and team productivity. A healthy work environment, free from intimidation, of course, has a positive impact on work performance.
Building a healthy and sustainable work culture. This is possible due to deeply rooted values of professionalism and mutual respect within the company ecosystem.
Maintaining and enhancing business reputation. Doing business in the digital era makes companies that are committed to humanitarian issues highly attractive (employer branding) in the eyes of job applicants and investors.
Mitigating management crisis and public relations (PR) risks. Having internal handling SOPs prevents cases from escalating into public scandals, while also fostering public trust in the company's handling.
Two-Way Synergy to Create a Proactive and Effective Mechanism
A mechanism, no matter how good, cannot run effectively if its implementers are confused and intimidated.
Adapting the global guidelines from the International Labour Organization (ILO), here are the things companies can do to create proactive and effective mechanisms against sexual violence and harassment.
From the policy perspective:
Strictly defining what constitutes clear sexual harassment and violence in the workplace.
Declaring a zero-tolerance stance against all forms of sexual violence and harassment.Guaranteeing a clear, confidential, and safe reporting mechanism for reporters.
Having investigation SOPs that side with the victim's rights (a victim-centered approach).
Requiring periodic risk assessments to mitigate potential violations.
From the HR readiness perspective:
Holding mandatory training related to anti-harassment policies for all levels of employees.
Forming a special team for handling cases and providing them with specialized training (as demonstrated by Jo In-A and her Audit Team).
Providing specialized training for managers, supervisors, and team leaders to be sensitive in detecting issues.
Guaranteeing access to dedicated, easy-to-use channels for reporting.
Thorough, transparent, and justice-oriented handling of harassment cases has been proven to rebuild employees' trust in the company's credibility.
The first step to breaking the chain of workplace sexual violence begins when management dares to open its eyes, draft strict regulations, and train its HR to be proactive protective guards.
Read more
Article
3
min read
There Are No Hacks for Female Leaders
Deborah Vance in the series Hacks is the character of a female comedian who has been successful for the last three decades of her career. As a leader and employer, Vance is far from ideal. The fast-paced and sometimes toxic work culture in the entertainment industry does not make things any better. A familiar pattern emerged when Vance dared to dream even bigger. She was then deemed too ambitious. Conversely, Vance does not easily show her vulnerable side to the team she leads, so as not to be labeled weak. Vance's career journey serves as a reminder of familiar challenges. Many of us subconsciously question women in leadership positions.
Psychologist Madeline Heilman from New York University developed a framework she calls the "lack of fit model." According to this model, first introduced in 1983, discrimination against women stems from a perceived mismatch between the attributes women are thought to possess and the attributes believed to be necessary for success, especially in male-dominated positions and fields. In other words, women are considered unfit for leadership roles because gender stereotypes conflict with leadership stereotypes. Gender stereotypes generally cast men as leaders (take charge) and women as responsible for caregiving (take care). For example, men are expected to be strong, decisive, and assertive. Women are viewed as nurturing, emotional, and communicative.
In Heilman's follow-up study involving 242 participants across 3 different experiments, it was found that when women were acknowledged as successful in traditionally male-dominated occupations, they were rated as less likable. Women also received significantly more personal derogatory comments than men who achieved identical success.
This phenomenon was later summarized by the Catalyst organization in their 2007 report under the term "double bind," meaning female leaders are caught in a situation where they lose on both sides. Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don't. When women are strong, decisive, and assertive, they are viewed as competent but disliked. When women are nurturing, emotional, and communicative, they are liked but viewed as less competent leaders.
The most frequently offered solution is to increase the number of women, especially in leadership positions. But sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kanter had already warned about the limitations of this solution since 1977. In research conducted at a Fortune 500 company, Kanter categorized women who were a minority of under 15% in a work group as "tokens." Tokens experience specific pressures due to the skewed proportions, such as:
Over-visibility: every action and mistake they make is noticed and scrutinized more, because they are seen as representing their entire group.
Assimilation: they are encouraged to conform to roles that are already familiar to the majority, rather than being expected to bring new ways of leading.
Contrast and role-traps: they are guided to fit into pre-existing stereotypes for women rather than being viewed purely as leaders.
In the workplace, the double bind phenomenon ensures that evaluations of female leaders are skewed from the very start, regardless of the leadership style chosen. Tokenism ensures their presence at the top remains merely symbolic, without any deep-rooted systemic change. This change, of course, cannot be expected to happen overnight. However, there are some small strategies that can be practiced in daily life starting now:
Interrupt bias
Speak up if there is a situation that perpetuates negative gender stereotypes.
Example: if someone says "she is so emotional" when a woman is speaking, try to redirect the focus to the substance of her speech.
Use the same standards
Challenge your thinking by swapping a person's gender to see if there is a difference in the standards you apply.
Example: before asking a female colleague how she manages to have career ambition and take care of a family, check with yourself whether you would ask a male counterpart the same thing.
Understand specific challenges
Instead of placing female leaders as tokens, strive to be more sensitive to the barriers they face and what can be gradually changed to ensure more female leaders are empowered.
Example: in meetings, observe whether ideas from women are frequently interrupted, repeated by others and only then considered valid, or given less airtime compared to male colleagues. If so, actively redirect the credit back to the original idea owner.
Deborah Vance is not a perfect character or leader. So what? Imperfect male leaders are generally given the space to grow, fail, and try again. Imperfect female leaders are more often questioned whether they should have been in that position in the first place. Let's start shifting old habits. If someone has leadership shortcomings, the focus should be on those specific areas, rather than passing judgment based on gender and gender stereotypes.
Read more
