Flexible Work Arrangements and Workplace Productivity: Examining The Nexus

Purpose: This study investigates the nexus between flexible working arrangements (FWA) and the productivity of the selected workplaces across the 6 geo-political zones in Nigeria. Research methodology: The descriptive survey design was used, with a population of 600 businesses in chosen states throughout Nigeria's six geopolitical zones. Using the statistical procedure developed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), a sample size of 234 was found. Data was acquired from primary sources, and descriptive (mean) and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data with a 5% level of significance. Results: Flexible work arrangements had a positive statistical effect on workplace productivity (R2 = 0.882359, F = 1545.089, p-value = 0.05). Limitations: One state does not efficiently represent the geopolitical zones. Contribution: FWA can influence the development of business policies and strategies as revealed in the study. As such, businesses must adapt and invest in strategies that support and facilitate FWA such as information and technology systems, as they have become crucial to both staff and workplace viability.


Introduction
In today's world, what does it mean to operate in a flexible environment? Companies must adopt a functional and operational simplicity that encourages innovation, viability, and mental health benefits as employees' processes and outcomes have become either complex or diverse (Monyei, Agbaeze & Isichei, 2020). Flexible working arrangements, according to researchers and scholars, are one way to boost employee outputs together with other job-related results (Solanki, 2013, Hofäcker & König, 2013. Flexible work arrangements (FWAs), often known as flextime, are our work environments and schedules that are not bound by typical work constraints. These arrangements take into account the demands of employees, particularly in terms of balancing work and personal life. The emergence of Covid-19 has increased the popularity of FWA, as several governments have imposed a stay-at-home order to prevent the spread of the pandemic, prompting businesses to implement FWA methods. FWA became more popular in most economies that still had the old working arrangement thinking in countries where many employers were taken off guard by the order and had to establish regulations that accommodated and allowed it to thrive (Hakovirta & Denuwara, 2020;Di Gennaro, Pizzol, Marotta, Antunes, Racalbuto, Veronese & Smith, 2020). As a result of the Covid19 pandemic's effects, flexible working arrangements have gained appeal and maybe a longer-term remedy to stress and other psychosocial problems (Hidayah, Singh & Hussain, 2021). Flexible working arrangements enable employees to better balance work-family duties while still completing work-related tasks, which is expected to lead to higher productivity and other favorable outcomes (Solanki, 2013). Tharu and Shrestha (2019) and Onyekwelu, Nnabugwu, Monyei, and Nwalia (2021) state in their studies that productivity at work primarily refers to the amount of work completed in a certain work environment over some time. Because the onset of the health pandemic has raised a red signal on productivity, workplace protocols have been enhanced during this period. The right to a reasonable working environment has also become a constitutional right for all employees. This has been codified in the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 2007, which mandates that all employers protect the safety, health, and welfare of their employees (Ochieng & Kamau, 2021). Governments throughout the world have issued the Occupational Safety and Health Advisory on Coronavirus, based on these legal provisions. All employers were expected to implement workplace safety measures as a result of the recommendation. The Public Health (COVID-19 Restriction of Movement of Persons and Related Measures) Rules 2020 was later codified into law and passed as a result of the advice. As a result of these rules, firms are more likely to establish FWA policies for the protection of their employees, especially the most vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions. In this context, it is critical to increasing FWA and productivity to limit the negative impact of the pandemic on the firm and its employees, especially given the risk of a persistent or recurring COVID-19 epidemic. According to studies, employees' work-family conflict is exacerbated by irregular and unpredictable working hours (Hofäcker & König, 2013). Work-life balance issues can lead to stress, burnout, anxiety, poor health, and even mental illness (Kremer, 2016). Work commitment (Hofäcker & König, 2013), work-family conflict (Choo, Desa & Asaari, 2016), and job satisfaction are some of the other positive outcomes of flexible working arrangements (Masuda, Poelmans, Allen, Spector, Lapierre, Cooper & Lu, 2012).
However, previous research has yielded mixed and contradictory results. Work-family conflict is exacerbated by flexible working hours, according to empirical evidence. According to a study by Allard, Haas, and Philip Hwang (2007), the availability of flexible working hours had an impact on workfamily conflict experienced by management fathers. In research, flexible work arrangements have been associated with decreased job satisfaction and higher stress levels (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010;Shagvaliyeva & Yazdanifard, 2014;Haley & Miller 2015). Others have speculated that this could be the result of a multitude of factors. The disparity could be attributable to the nature of the flexible work initiative, according to Russel, O'Connel, and McGinnity (2007). It is said that employees with enough job resources may progressively adjust to high job demands and deal with work pressure. Furthermore, an employee's capacity to control his or her work environment is often regarded as a resource for dealing with work pressure (Hidayah et al., 2021;Agbaeze, Monyei & Agu, 2017). This demonstrates that previous research findings are inconclusive and contentious. A survey conducted revealed that over 60% of African employees had gained trust and loyalty to companies that permitted FWA to work with them (Ochieng & Kamau, 2021). The poll revealed that many employees were concerned about the ability of their jobs to allow them to strike a balance between work and personal life. As a result, it is only reasonable to say that firms that employ an FWA approach attract a large number of employees while also increasing diversity and ethical behavior. This is because potential employees are likely to come from a variety of backgrounds, and the business trusts them to work remotely. Such arrangements also aid in instilling organizational loyalty (Agbaeze et al., 2017;Mas & Pallais, 2017). As a result, flexible working arrangements are one of the most common ways for increasing employee dedication and capabilities. There is an overwhelming demand for firms to begin looking at the successful implementation of flexible working arrangements because researchers encourage it (Ochieng & Kamau, 2021;Haley & Miller 2015). This is also necessitated by the dearth of research on the influence of flexible working arrangements on workplace productivity in developing countries. Furthermore, when it comes to the value of flexible working arrangements and their relationship to aspects such as worklife balance and employee organizational commitment, the literature shows contradictory and conflicting results. In terms of novelty, existing literature on flexible working arrangements focuses primarily on advanced countries and multinationals, with little or no attention paid to enterprises in developing countries. It is thus necessary to focus scholarly attention in this direction and investigate the topic under study.

Theoretical Underpinning The Facilitation Theory
The facilitation hypothesis began with a study done by Barnett (1998), who proposed the notion of facilitation as a way to describe adaptability in all work circumstances. Grzywacz and Butler (2005) assert that facilitation occurs when an entity, individuals, or social systems adopt pre-planned techniques to complete a complex task, based on ecological theory. Facilitation is also defined as a type of interaction in which resources associated with one activity or role help to complete or complete another task (Grzywacz & Butler, 2005;Voydanoff, 2004). According to Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, and Kacmar (2007), facilitation has three components: engagement, gains, and improved functioning. They go on to define engagement as the degree to which a person takes advantage of a particular activity. In the acquisition of new competencies, innovation, behavioral modification, income earnings, health, and productivity increases, functional gains are considered gradual progression. Improved functioning, on the other hand, is characterized as improvements in tasks that are critical to task completion, such as problem-solving. The amount to which participating in one task or position leads to new experiences, skills, and opportunities that make participating in another activity or role smooth is defined as facilitation theory (Agbaeze et al., 2017;Frone, 2003). The fundamental premise of facilitation theory is that doing one job is made simpler by doing another. Although facilitation is seen as a supplementary theory to flexible working arrangements, they are also seen as opposed to poles on the flexible working arrangement theoretical continuum (van Steenbergen, Kluwer, &Karney, 2014). In summary, the facilitation theory combines flexibility and productivity by providing insight into how a company may harness its resources (human and nonhuman), core skills, and strategies, as well as how they can be used for a better, more productive economic operation.

Conceptual Clarifications Flexible Working Arrangement
Flexible working arrangements refer to the extent to which employees can change the time and place of work-related activities, as well as how their job is conducted regularly. It is also characterized as a choice given to employees to agree with their employers on when, where, and how long they work for certain periods (Hidayah et al., 2021). Flexible work arrangements are a way for employees to balance work and non-work obligations, according to O' Driscoll and Kalliath (2004). Workplace breaks, shorter workdays, telecommunications, and part-time labor are all requirements in this scenario. According to Russell et al., (2007), flexible working arrangements include flexitime, working from home, which includes telecommuting and teleworking job sharing, and part-time work, as well as a variety of organizational activities to support work-family balance. According to the definitions, the adaptable working arrangement has multiple dimensions. It includes not just the option of working at a different time or location, but also working from home, job sharing, and taking career breaks, all of which assist employees to plan their work hours and achieving work-family balance (Torrington, Taylor, Hall, & Atkinson, 2011;Shagvaliyeva & Yazdanifard, 2014).
According to the perceived organizational support hypothesis, flexible working arrangements demonstrate that the company values and cares about its employees (Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009). Employers who provide flexible work schedules will be rewarded more favorably by their employees as a result. Flexible working arrangements, according to researchers and academics, lead to several positive outcomes, including job satisfaction, commitment, return on investment, and staff retention (Russell et al., 2007;Kotey & Sharma, 2019;Posthuma, Campion, Masimova& Campion, 2013;Cegarra-Leiva, Sanchez-Vidal, & Cegarra-Navarro, 2012;Wang et al., 2011). Employee loyalty is said to be enhanced by flexible work arrangements, which allow employees to meet their goals while also improving workplace satisfaction and commitment (Kotey Sharma, 2019). According to Russell et al.,(2007) employees need organizational flexibility to balance work and other obligations. This clause is based on the idea that these arrangements will benefit both the company and the employees.
According to a study by Kwon, Cho, and Song, (2019) companies should be aware of their corporate culture and support. Supervisory assistance will lead to flexible work arrangements. An organization's hierarchical culture, on the other hand, can stifle employee participation in flexible working arrangements. Furthermore, there was no link found between flexible working arrangements and employee work-related outcomes such as plans to leave, according to the study. Another fascinating finding by Masuda et al., (2012) was that flexible work arrangements were not often observed or valued in countries with collective cultures. According to Nikbakhsh et al., (2020) workplace, cultural norms are also vital for successfully implementing flexible work arrangements. As a result, the outcomes of implementing flexible working arrangements are being investigated further.
Taking on the perspective of an employee concerning their company is a typical method to conceptualize flexible work arrangements. Individual agency is emphasized in the context of organizational culture and structure when flexible work arrangements are conceptualized from the worker's perspective. Flexible work arrangements are defined as the degree to which employees have control over the activities they perform, particularly the decisions about where, when, and how those jobs are completed (Kotey Sharma, 2019;Torrington et al., 2011). Flexible work arrangements are defined as workers' ability to choose when, where, and how long they engage in job-related tasks (Hidayah et al., 2021;Nikbakhsh et al., 2020). Two basic domains are hypothesized when utilizing this model of flexible work arrangements, the first of which is the physical context in which employees perform work-related tasks. The arrangement in this domain is distant. Off-site work is a term for this type of employment arrangement. The second domain refers to the situation in which these work-related duties are performed, as well as when and for how long. It is the temporal dimensions of workplace flexibility, as this description of flexible work arrangements suggests. As a result, the focus of this research is on both domains, namely, how much workers may control the amount of time they have to spend on a task as well as when it is completed. Furthermore, Kwon et al. (2019) aver that flexible work arrangements are represented by dimensions or techniques. For example, if a person has the flexibility and time, he or she may choose to work 10 hours one day and fewer hours the next. Another aspect of flexibility and location is that employees might choose to work off-site, which is a location other than the workplace. As a result, the foundation of this study's conceptualization of flexible work arrangements is determining the amount to which workers have the opportunity to choose when and where they perform work-related tasks, also known as schedule flexibility and flex place.

Workplace Productivity
Productivity, according to Monyei, Ukpere, Agbaeze, Omonona, Kelvin-Iloafu, and Obi-Anike (2021), is an enterprise's ability to continue delivering products and services to consumers while maintaining quality and profitability over time. The term has a colloquial meaning of "keeping the business running," but others who often used it in this sense refer to it as "future-proofing" an operation. As a result, achieving success now means not jeopardizing future accomplishments (Colbert &Kurucz, 2007;Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). The ability to satisfy stakeholder objectives is defined as workplace productivity. It refers to a company model that generates profit while preserving and improving financial, environmental, and social capital through time. Workplace productivity has been defined as a company's long-term achievements that also help to improve the environment in which it operates in terms of creating a stable society and a healthy environment (Wales, 2013;Umar, 2022). It always comes down to making a positive contribution to society and the areas in which the firm operates while also protecting the company's operations. The idea of maintaining or improving income earnings, community, and region within which people work is at the heart of productivity in the workplace. This emphasizes the importance of the triangular model, which any company seeking productivity strives to achieve (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development CIPD, 2012). As Colbert and Kurucz (2007) argue, workplace productivity must always entail a simultaneous focus on the firm's economic, social, and environmental performance. Perhaps culture, rather than a specific policy or process, influences workplace productivity. Enterprises are establishing sustainable policies, according to Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim (2011), but these policies are also aimed to foster a basic productive culture. As a result, these rules aim to foster a productivity culture that articulates the values and ideas that support the company's main goals (Wales, 2013;. Scholars are becoming more interested in the growing emphasis on production. According to Wales (2013), it is either another exercise in bookkeeping, a strictly commercial purpose such as profitability, or simply social/ethical concerns. Empiricism, according to Eccles et al., (2011), indicates that organizations are not accepting productivity guidelines solely for bookkeeping or public relations reasons, but rather to represent actual progress in the business process. However, it is acknowledged that productivity will continue to be important even in a capitalist-driven economic structure. Furthermore, it is said that businesses with a high productivity drive outperform their competitors over time, whether in terms of market share or financial success (Tharu& Shrestha, 2019; Onyekwelu et al., 2021). According to Nidumolu, Prahalad, and Rangaswami (2009), increasing productivity at the workplace lays the groundwork for innovation skills, which will put the business in the pole position of market leadership, and there is no alternative to long-term sustainable development. The challenges of globalization, according to Ballinger (2011), are one of the causes of the push for a more productive approach to workplaces. The fact that globalization is a factor could be crucial. Kielstra (2008) agrees, stating that the most compelling commercial reason for adopting a flexible approach to a sustainable business operation is the rise of globalization, which has significantly altered the processes and roles of businesses, governments, and other economic stakeholders. Even businesses that don't operate on a global scale have inter-firm relationships with other franchise groups or suppliers who do business or work abroad.
In their well-researched work, which identifies the complexity and far-reaching features of productivity, Caratiquit (2022); and Monyei, Okeke and Nwosu (2021) attempted to operationalize the debate by validating the term workplace productivity as being firm-based particularly in terms of scope and its main purpose as being environmental. While Wales (2013) identifies flexibility, innovation, and persistence as new characteristics, the policy goal is the strategic sustainability potential of workplace productivity. To that end, they suggest a slightly different understanding of the term, saying that it refers to individual businesses employing strategies to achieve long-term viability. Workplace productivity refers to an entity's ability to stay viable. Productivity is defined as the long-term determinants of a company's success that extends to its stakeholders and the operational environment in terms of its credit or loans, and corporate social responsibilities (Umar, 2022). That is, it is concerned with making meaningful contributions to the community and its inhabitants. Environmental, socio-cultural, and economic factors have all been cited as important factors in a workplace's productivity. Workplace productivity is further defined as the most efficient use of resources to meet human, economic, social, and environmental needs while maintaining high-quality standards (Wales, 2013;Ross & Ali, 2017). In essence, workplace productivity is the concept that companies owe their success not only to profits but also to the operational environment of their jobs. A widely accepted description of productivity in the workplace affirms it as instructive in understanding the contemporary context in which it is used. They define workplace productivity as a company's ability to meet the needs of immediate stakeholders without jeopardizing the interests of future stakeholders. The scope of this clarification, which is inspired by sustainable development, is limited to the firm alone (Ross & Ali, 2017). In today's world, the company's stakeholders, or those who have direct or indirect power over the company's operations, finances, or market, are also a cause of concern. There appears to be some implicit pragmatic consensus, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) assert that workplace productivity is a multi-faceted paradigm that incorporates environmental, social, and economic company results. It's also worth noting that the performance aspect is more concerned with the next group of stakeholders, as the viability of a company is judged more by its capacity to persist through time.

The Influence of Commitment on Flexible Working Arrangements and Workplace Productivity
Employee commitment is a critical component of workplace productivity (Monyei, et al., 2020;Agbaeze et al., 2017), thus business leaders who want to galvanize this devotion must adopt workplace flexibility that is people-centric. Commitment is a multifaceted concept that has been described in a variety of ways by researchers. Commitment is a psychological force that binds a person to a path of action that serves one or more objectives (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Commitment, according to Yoo and Kim (2016), is an employee's psychological integration and sense of belonging to their employer. Employee loyalty will determine whether or not they stay with the organization (Ghani, Nordin & Mamat, 2004). The broad spectrum of commitment includes affective commitment, continuing commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to an employee's emotional attachment to and identification with the company (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees will acquire higher degrees of affective commitment if they share a common objective and will work together to achieve it (Ketchand & Strawser, 2001). Employees' awareness of the cost of leaving the company is referred to as continuity commitment. Employees that have been devoted to the company for a long time will generate a stronger level of long-term commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001;Meyer & Allen, 1991). Normative employment refers to the feeling of being obligated to continue working and be loyal. In exchange for the employer's rewards and benefits, employees will build normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991;Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).

Empirical Insight
Flexible work arrangements have been linked to increased productivity in the workplace, according to studies (Ross & Ali, 2017;Caratiquit, 2022;. Flexible work arrangements exhibited a positive and significant link with normative commitment, according to Ross and Ali (2017), who studied commitment characteristics among ICT employees. Eaton looked studied the link between working from home and employee perception and productivity in 2003, utilizing data from employee questionnaires from a variety of US organizations. According to the survey, flexibility refers to employees' ability to use flexible solutions in the workplace. As a result, having access to standards that allow flexibility makes employees feel more invested in the firm and productive. Using the Eaton definition, Austin-Egole, Iheriohanma, and Chinedu (2020) conducted a study to provide a theoretical and empirical model to examine the effect of FWA on employee work performance. To determine the influence of FWA on productivity, they employed intrinsic motivation and employee reciprocity. The German Socio-economic Model was employed. They used an approximation of the moral-hazard model and discovered that workers who had control over their working hours performed better than those who did not. This was discovered to be due to a strong inner motivation. The researchers looked at things like the difference between contractual and actual hours worked, absenteeism, and hourly earnings as well as other labor productivity indicators. However, the survey does not look at the actual work that the employees do for the organization. Booth and Van-Ours (2008) conducted research in a travel agency's phone center. They wanted to see what effect FWA had on output. Employees were asked if they would consider working from home, which was one of the things they were asked. Many people said yes, and working from home had a good impact on productivity, according to the study. However, the study found that after a nine-month trial period, 50 % of individuals who worked from home elected to return to the company office, while only 35% wanted to stay at home. Furthermore, the research indicates that FWA output varies and is dependent on the type of activity. For example, adopting FWA will be illegal invocations that demand personal contact, such as doctors, nurses, and hairdressers, among others. As a result, FWA can only be used for specialized white-collar vocations. However, although these workers contribute significantly to the economy, particularly in developed economies, there is a lack of data on the production of their job when companies use FWA policies. In 2012, Dutcher piloted an inquiry into the influence of FWA on efficiency. He uses a comparative analysis of two types of professions in the study: creative and boring jobs. The study discovered that flexible employment earns efficiency points, but only for innovative jobs. When it comes to mundane or uninteresting pursuits, the reverse is true. Companies can be harmed in the study's context if they give the option of flexible work since workers' productivity is diminished. Flexible work arrangements (FWA) have been studied, but little study has been done on their impact on workplace productivity, particularly in Nigerian enterprises (Atiku, Jeremiah & Boateng, 2020). According to a study conducted by McGuire and Brashler in 2006, 80% of surveyed workers prefer flexible work arrangements as long as they do not interfere with work and are supported by employers in the form of information technology accessibility. In several of the nations studied, cultural values were found to have a mediating effect on FWA use and organizational outcomes. Despite the lack and rarity of studies on the introduction of FWA by some organizations in Africa, according to the International Labour Organization (2020), FWAs are gaining acceptance by software development companies in Africa due to the perceived benefits they provide to workers and employers in the ICT industry. As a result, the following hypothesis is formed: H1: Flexible work arrangements have a significant impact on workplace productivity.

Research Methodology
Based on the study's feature, the descriptive survey method was used to collect data from a sampled respondent utilizing a questionnaire set. The study's population consisted of 600 commercial businesses (100 from each of the selected states) from Nigeria's six geopolitical zones, which were chosen based on the density of SMEs in these areas. Lagos was chosen from the South-west, Abuja from the Northcentral zone, Kano from the North-west, Bauchi from the North-east, Anambra from the South-east, and Delta from the South-south zone. The rationale for these businesses was based on the number of years they have been in operation, at least a minimum of 5 years (this is to cover the periods before and after the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic), and the number of employees they employed should be at least 5 (this validates a requirement for an SME). TheKrejcie and Morgan (1970) sampling technique yielded a sample size of 234 people. Because the population was divided into a sample size, the questionnaire was distributed evenly among the six states participating in the study. A total of 39 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to each of the six states; 219 copies were returned, accounting for 94% of the total; 208 copies were valid and used in the study's analysis, accounting for 88% of the returned copies. To ensure that the questionnaire items were structured to elicit the needed responses for the study, content and face validation were used. This was done by management and industry professionals, who made sure the questionnaire items were structured in such a way that the study's required responses were elicited. The Cronbach Alpha technique was used to assess the study instrument's reliability, yielding a coefficient of 0.899, indicating that the items are internally consistent. The hypothesis was tested at a 5% level of significance, and data were analyzed using descriptive (Mean) and inferential statistics.  Table 1 shows the distribution of responses from respondents on the impact of flexible work arrangements on workplace productivity. The average of the individual questionnaire items is used in the study. Any questionnaire item with a mean of 3 or higher shows that the respondents agree or that the questionnaire item is relevant to their business, according to the acceptance criterion of 3. Except for questionnaire item 7, all of the mean results for all of the questionnaire items appear to be positive. The regression analysis for the study's hypothesis is shown in Table 2. Changes in FWA account for an 88% shift in workplace productivity (dependent variable), according to the table (independent variables). This is because the coefficient of determination (R2) achieved in the study is 0.882359, the F-statistics is 1545.089, and the probability value is 0.0000 0.05 level of significance. Following this, the alternative hypothesis is adopted, and FWA is found to have a statistically significant impact on workplace productivity.

Results and Discussions
Flexible Work Arrangements have a large and statistically significant impact on workplace productivity, according to the findings of this study. Despite the constraints given by the strategy on business operations productivity, it is revealed that the adoption and deployment of FWA assure increased productivity for both personnel and company, as well as a higher level of control over the business environment. The firms under investigation agree that workplace productivity has become a serious issue, especially since the outbreak of the pandemic, and that FWA is thus more than a commercial strategy, but also a panacea for employee well-being and developing mental health issues. As a result, enterprises, employees, and customers can still engage and conduct business with the adoption of a flexible work arrangement. This finding is consistent with that of Atiku, Jeremiah, and Boateng (2020), Eaton (2003), and Booth and Van-Ours (2008), who found that giving employees more flexibility increases employee commitment and involvement. Additionally, corporate executives have stated that working from home has had a favorable impact on their employees' work-life balance. Similarly, the FWA strategy's use varies and is dependent on the nature and context of the job; otherwise, it leads to abuse and poor performance. Furthermore, it is consistent with the findings of Caratiquit (2022), Ross and Ali (2017), the International Labour Organization (2020), and Onyekwelu et al., (2021), who stated that business sustainability is a function of the incorporation of social media and information technology into business strategy and that FWAs are gaining acceptance among software development companies due to the perceived benefits they provide to employees and employers across industries. On the contrary, the findings of Austin-Egole, Iheriohanma, and Chinedu (2020), as well as McGuire and Brashler (2006), that productivity is simply an efficiency advantage accrued to freelancing employment and work systems, while the inverse is found in the case of routine tasks, are refuted. As a result, businesses are impacted if they provide the option of flexible work strategies since workers' productivity suffers without direct supervision. It also refutes Dutcher's (2012) claim that employee productivity is only judged by the number of tasks performed within the number of contractual hours worked, rather than the company's total success.

Conclusion
Mental health, employee well-being, and the Covid-19 epidemic all have an impact on the economy's demand and supply sides. Many of the company's operations have been disrupted, and people's livelihoods have been badly harmed as a result of these problems. FWAs are not widely accepted in some countries because of a lack of information technology infrastructure, as well as certain business procedures and cultures. Nonetheless, due to work-family conflicts, mental health, and the global spread of the coronavirus epidemic, there appears to be a push for employers, employees, and businesses to implement FWA. FWAs are being developed by businesses to reduce the risks to their employees and the assigned task. As a result, this study reveals that there is a growing discussion on how workers choose flexible workplaces. Employees appear to favor firms that have an FWA policy, according to the findings of this study. This is motivated by the urge to keep safe while balancing work and family obligations while yet performing well. As a result, workplaces must change policies and invest in strategies that enable flexible work arrangements, as it is well acknowledged that this has an impact on overall workplace productivity.

Limitations and Scope for Future Research
Based on the sector and geographic scopes of this study, certain firms could not be reached and examined; however, conscious efforts were made to examine SMEs with the closest proximity. As such, it is suggested that future research should extend the investigation into other sectors such as the hospitality, and financial industries. Furthermore, analyze variables such as workforce sustainability, and financial performance, in other to make for a better generalization of the research facts and findings.