Xymax Real Estate Institute

TOPIC REPORT

Relationship between Flexible Workstyles andProductivity
Encouragement of reforms to facilitate workers to work

December 26, 2019

Introduction: The Objective of this Topic ReportCompanies’ awareness toward workstyle reforms is shifting to reforming how to facilitate employees to work
as companies become more “worker-oriented,” placing emphasis on improving workers’ work environment
and private life. In the process, companies have been promoting flexible workstyles that are not bound by timeor place. Such new workstyles, as represented by telework, are bringing diverse changes to the workplace,which had traditionally been uniform.
However, we wonder if it is individual workers alone that enjoy the advantages brought about by such flexible
workstyles. While it is not difficult to imagine that improving the private and work life of workers would lead totheir greater engagement toward the company and motivation toward work as well as raising productivity andreducing employee turnover rates, it is difficult to quantify the benefits that are returned to the companies. In a
survey of companies*1 conducted by Xymax Real Estate Institute, 38.8% of the companies replied that unclear
cost effectiveness was a concern or obstacle in carrying out workstyle reforms or developing a work environment,
while 24.5% cited difficulty in setting KPIs as a concern. Such concerns of companies may be hindering theincrease of flexibility in workstyles.
To prove that flexible workstyles—flexible locations in particular—are beneficial not only to the workers but
also to companies, in this Topic Report we conducted a multifaceted analysis of the results of a survey ofcompanies and an office worker survey.*2 Chapter 1 describes the gap between companies and workers bycomparing their situations and awareness toward workstyles, and identifies current issues. Chapter 2 focuses on
productivity improvement as a benefit to companies and presents a statistical analysis of how telework affects
the benefits to individual workers and to companies. Based on these results, we hope to provide an insight into
the kind of environment companies should provide so that their workers can work productively, i.e., clues toreforms to facilitate workers to work.
*1 Metropolitan Areas Office Demand Survey Autumn 2019, conductedin October 2019. The analysis of this Topic
Report only targets companies located in Greater Tokyo in order to align the conditions with the OfficeWorker Survey.
https://www.xymax.co.jp/english/research/images/pdf/20191127.pdf*2 Greater Tokyo Office Worker Survey 2019 (Part 2), conducted in October 2019.
https://www.xymax.co.jp/english/research/images/pdf/20191219.pdf

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

1

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute

1．Gap between Companies and Workers on Workstyles
1-1. Gap related to workstyle reforms
In Chapter 1, we will compare the situations of companies and workers concerning workstyles. In the surveyof companies, we asked the companies whether they carried out workstyle reforms, to which 63.1% of thecompanies replied that they did so (Figure 1).
In the office worker survey, we asked office workers whether their employer carried out workstyle reforms andabout the actual changes in their workstyles. The percentage of the workers who replied that their employer
was engaged in workstyle reforms was 62.9%, roughly equivalent to the percentage in the survey of companies.
As for the breakdown, however, only 28.2% of the workers replied that their workstyle had changed, while 34.7%
replied that there was no change.
Figure 1: Initiatives in Workstyle Reforms (Companies and Workers)

Of the companies engaged in workstyle reforms, 62.4% felt the effect of the reforms (the sum of companies
that felt an effect “very much” and “somewhat”) (Figure 2). On the other hand, the percentage of workers
whose employer was carrying out workstyle reforms and who felt the effect of the reforms was 49.1% (the sumof workers who felt an effect “very much” and “somewhat”), slightly less than companies.
Figure 2: Whether Respondents Felt the Effect of Workstyle Reforms (Companies and Workers)

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

2

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute1-2. Gap in telework introduction rate
In this section we compare initiatives in telework. In the surveys, we asked both the companies and office
workers their introduction of telework-related measures, which can be broken down into three mobile workmeasures*3 and three telework location measures.*4 We added up the percentages of respondents who carriedout any of the six measures as the telework introduction rate. The introduction rate among companies was
80.7%, more than double that among workers of 39.5% (Figure 3 (top row)).
*3*4“System enabling workers to check emails and schedules anywhere with a smartphone, mobile PC, etc.
(mobile work),” “system enabling workers to work outside the office in the same network environment as
the office with a smartphone, mobile PC, etc. (mobile work),” and “providing employees with IT devices suchas smartphones, mobile PCs and tablets to enable mobile work.”“Work-from-home program,” “serviced office or shared office provided by a specialized operator,” and“satellite office or other similar facility owned or rented by own company.”

Figure 3: Telework Introduction Rate (Companies and Workers)

The introduction rates of “mobile work” and “telework location” (Figure 3 (lower two rows)) indicated that
78.0% of the companies and 36.1% of the workers had introduced mobile work, which was a similar result as
the introduction rate of telework, while only 34.4% of the companies and an even smaller percentage ofworkers (13.4%) had introduced a telework location.

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

3

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute

PICK UPGap between telework introduction rate and needs of female workers raising a childIn the office worker survey we asked not only about the introduction of telework but also the needs fortelework. When we compared the introduction of telework and the needs by attribute of respondents,
we found a distinctive characteristic in the telework location by the age (from preschool to working
adult) of the child (youngest child if more than one) living with the respondent.
The result is shown in Figure 4. The introduction rate among female workers was generally low,
regardless of the age of the youngest child living with the respondent. The gap between the introduction
rate and the percentage of workers requiring telework was the largest among female workers living with apreschool child, with the introduction rate at 10.4% and the requirement rate the highest at 57.1%. The
development of telework programs or systems seems to be lagging behind the needs of workers raising apreschool child (especially women, who tend to bear most of the burden of childcare), although working
from a flexible office*5 or from home is recognized as necessary for workers to balance work andchildcare.
*5 Flexible office: In this report, a flexible office refers to a serviced office or shared office provided by aspecialized operator, or a satellite office or other similar facility owned or rented by the company.

Figure 4: Introduction Rate and Needs for Telework Location(By Age of Youngest Child Living Together)

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

4

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute1-3. Gap between interest in work location
We then compared repondents’ interest in the location of work. Figure 5 indicates the percentage of“interested” and “somewhat interested” ratings out of the four ratings of “interested,” “somewhat interested,”“not that interested,” and “not interested” for the following four items common to the survey of companies
and the office worker survey: “work in an area near home to achieve proximity between workplace and home,”“work in the city center where people and functions are concentrated,” “work in an area with ample restaurantand daily life services,” and “use a workation*6 program that enables working from remote places such as thecountryside or abroad.” Workers generally had a greater interest in work locations than companies, with thelargest gap seen in “work in an area near home to achieve proximity between workplace and home” (workers:
75.9%; companies: 25.9%).
Figure 5: Interest in Work Location (Companies and Workers)*6 Workation: A portmanteau of working vacation, meaning to work from a travel destination, etc.

We also asked office workers about their interest in “dual-location work” (a work/life style of being based in
multiple locations such as the city center and the countryside), a more advanced workstyle than telework(Figure 6). As much as 47.8% of the workers were interested, which indicate a diversification of values toward
workstyles.
Figure 6: Interest in Dual-location Work (Workers)

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

5

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute

PICK UPThe effect of commute time and commuting stress on office workers
In the Greater Tokyo Office Worker Survey 2019 (Part 1),*7 we focused on the commute of people
working in Central Tokyo and analyzed the effect of stress from long commutes on the workers. The
following are the results of the analysis.
*7 Refer to the existing reports below for details of the Greater Tokyo Office Worker Survey 2019 (Part 1) conducted in February 2019.
Figure 7: Effect of Commuting Stress on the Working People’s Satisfaction
https://www.xymax.co.jp/english/research/images/pdf/20190604.pdf
Figure 8: The Effectiveness of Setting Up a Workplace Other than in Central Tokyo
https://www.xymax.co.jp/english/research/images/pdf/20191004.pdf

We first focused on the relationship between commuting stress and work satisfaction. In the survey, we
asked respondents to evaluate their commuting stress and work satisfaction on a 11-level scale from 0(minimum) to 10 (maximum) and calculated the average work satisfaction level for each of the three
respondent groups classified by commuting stress (0–3, 4–7, 8–10) (Figure 7). The result indicates that lesscommuting stress leads to greater work satisfaction; the average work satisfaction level of the group with acommuting stress level of 0–3 (5.9) was higher than that of the group with a commuting stress level of 8–
10 (4.8) by 1.1 points (or approximately 23%).
Figure 7: Average Work Satisfaction by Commuting Stress

We then analyzed the psychological effect of commute time on workers. Figure 8 shows the relationshipbetween commute time from home to the workplace*8 and the percentage of workers who feel they enjoy
working every day. More asterisks mean that the effect is more statistically significant. Figures below zeromean that the commute time has a negative effect on the percentage of workers who feel they enjoy
working every day. A negative effect starts to appear from a commute time of 35 minutes, with thenegative effect becoming more significant for a commute time of 45 minutes or more.
*8 Door-to-door commute time (one way) between home and workplace using the respondent’s usual means ofcommute (e.g. train, bus, car, bicycle, foot).

Figure 8: Effect of Commute Time on Percentage of Workers Who Feel They Enjoy Working Every Day
Commute time

Enjoy working every day

20 min or more

-0.07925 min or more

-0.11630 min or more

-0.09535 min or more

-0.239 *40 min or more

-0.243 *45 min or more

-0.341 ***(Ref.) 60 min or more

-0.344 ****p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01（n=1,593）

The above two results indicate that the burden of commute has a negative psychological effect onworkers’ satisfaction and engagement.
TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

6

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute2．Effectiveness of Having Multiple Options for Workplaces2-1. Relationship between telework and productivity improvement (office workers)
In the previous section we identified that commute time andcommuting stress has a negative impact on workers. Then,does telework, which is considered to reduce commute timeand stress, have a positive effect on workers? In this section weanalyze the results of the office worker survey*2 to examine therelationship between telework and the benefits enjoyed byindividual workers and productivity improvement, which we havedefined as “positive effects.”

Figure 9: Effect of Telework

Since the survey targeted workers working in a company or an
organization, productivity improvement can be considered as abenefit enjoyed not by individual workers but by their employers(Figure 9). However, if we can identify a relationship between
productivity improvement and the benefits to individual workers,
it may act as proof of the rationality of a “worker-oriented”
company management that respects individual worker’s work
convenience and private life.

We began by examining the relationship between telework (working from a flexible office or home) and thepercentage of workers who felt the benefits*9 of telework.*10 The results are shown in Figure 10. Asterisks
mean that the result is statistically significant and figures above zero mean there is a positive effect. The results
indicate that working from a flexible office or home raises the probability of workers feeling the benefits.
*9 We extracted the following four benefits from the reply choices for the question asking workers the specificeffect they felt from workstyle reforms: “improved work-life balance,” “greater well-being,” “rectified longwork hours,” and “satisfaction in the current workstyle.”*10 Figures 10, 11, and 13 are the results of logistic regression analyses after replacing both independent andobjective variables with a dummy variable (0, 1). Details are provided at the end of this report.

Figure 10: The Effect of Telework on the Percentage of Feeling Benefits (Office Worker Survey)
Objective variable

Independent
variable

Satisfied orFeel improvement
Feel greater well- Feel rectified longsomewhat satisfied
in work-life
being
work hours
in workstylebalance
Working from flexible office0.1578 **0.1652 **0.1482 **0.1900 ***Working from home

0.3034 ***0.3294 ***0.2506 ***0.1160 *Gender *11

0.02330.03550.1164-0.0783

Age *110.1562 **-0.0391

0.1956 ***0.0782

Number of employees at workplace *11-0.1279 **0.1309 **0.0592-0.0148*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01 (n=1,135）*11 Each coefficient can be deemed to be eliminated of the effect of elements such as the worker’s gender, age,and number of employees at his/her workplace, since this method is meant to eliminate the effect of otherindependent variables and to indicate only the effects of each independent variable. The same applies to
Figures 11 and 13.

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

7

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute

Figure 11 is the relationship between the four benefits to individual workers and whether the worker felt an
improvement in productivity. The result indicates that “satisfaction in the current workstyle,” “improved worklife balance,” and “greater well-being” have a positive effect on the probability of workers feeling an
improvement in productivity, while “rectified long work hours” has a negative effect.
Figure 11: The Effect of Benefits on the Percentage of Feeling an Improvement in Productivity(Office Worker Survey)
Objective variable

Independent variable

Feel productivity improvement
Satisfied or somewhat satisfied inworkstyle0.3614 ***Feel improvement in work-life balance

0.3042 ***Feel greater well-being

0.2171 ***Feel rectified long work hours-0.1917 **Gender

-0.2754 ***Age-0.0731

Number of employees at workplace-0.1019*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01 (n=1,135）

In summary of the above two analyses, while telework seems to be effective in rectifying long work hours,
rectifying long work hours do not seem to contribute to greater productivity. On the other hand, we identified
that satisfaction in the workstyle, improved work-life balance, and greater well-being are effective in improving
productivity.
Rectifying long work hours is an urgent issue that the Japanese society must tackle. Amid government-led
initiatives such as revisions to the law, many companies have set their goal of workstyle reforms to reducing
overtime work. However, it has often been pointed out that simply shortening work hours may lead to a dropin productivity. This concern seems to be consistent with how workers feel about productivity improvement. In
workstyle reforms it is necessary to carry out initiatives that utilizes the time generated from reduced overtime
to improve individual worker’s satisfaction and work-life balance, instead of focusing solely on shortening
work hours. Only after making such efforts will workstyle reforms contribute to productivity improvement.

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

8

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate InstituteWe also conducted an analysis using
the same method on the direct
relationship between working from a
flexible office or home and workers
feeling an improvement in productivity.
Here too, the result was a positiveeffect.

Figure 12: Relationship between Telework and Feeling the Effectof Productivity Improvement (Summary of Analysis Results)

However, we believe that multiple
factors affect whether workers feel an
improvement in productivity, and it
goes without saying that improved
productivity is not always felt bycarrying out telework. The results of theanalysis in 2-1 (Figure 12) indicate not
only a direct effectiveness of telework
on productivity improvement but also
the underlying relationship between
the personal benefits of workers andproductivity improvement.

2-2. Relationship between telework and productivity improvement (companies)
In this section we analyze the survey of companies using the same method. The result indicates that employees
working from a flexible office led to a greater probability for the company to feel an improvement in productivity.
On the other hand, the result for working from home was not significant (Figure 13).
Figure 13: The Effect of Telework on the Percentage of Feeling an Improvement in Productivity(Survey of Companies)
Objective variable

Feel productivity improvement
Independent
variable

Working from flexible office0.3634 ***Working from home

-0.1623

Average age of employees-0.0095

Number of employees-0.0427

Year of establishment

0.0035*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01 (n=644）

While working from home has a positive effect on workers’ benefits and acknowledgement of productivity
improvement, it has no effect on companies feeling a productivity improvement effect. The results indicatethat there is a gap between companies and workers in this aspect as well.
One factor for companies’ difficulty in acknowledging productivity improvement from the work-from-homeprogram must be the difficulty in managing employees. For example, in a question in the survey of companies
about the concerns and obstacles in workstyle reforms or establishing a work environment, more than 30% of
the companies chose “high information security risk” and “difficulty in managing employees.” Such concerns
may become greater when working from home than when working from a flexible office.

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

9

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate InstituteWorking from home is
not all benefits to workers
either. Our survey indicatesthat there are workers witha diverse range ofcomplaints mainly
concerning the work
environment, such as“difficult to switch on andoff from work” and “do nothave a desk suited forwork” (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Complaints in Working from Home
(Office Worker Survey)

In developing a teleworkenvironment, it would be
important to provide an
option of working from a
flexible office, in addition to
working from home, andcreate a convenient work
environment for workers in
an integrated manner.

3．SummaryIn this report, we examined the benefits of flexible workstyles for companies and workers by clearly
distinguishing the benefits to the two and focusing on productivity improvement as a benefit to companies.
As a result, we presented an objective analysis that providing workers with options for workplaces contributes
to productivity improvement. On the other hand, we also acknowledged that the actual workstyles of theworkers have not become flexible yet, despite the progress of company-led workstyle reforms.
Now that it has been confirmed that working on the personal benefits of workers, such as work satisfaction
and work-life balance, benefits companies as well in the form of productivity improvement, companies should
step up their efforts in developing an environment that enables workers to work flexibly. In particular,
providing options for places to work such as flexible offices would be effective for facilitating workers to work
productively within a limited amount of time. Furthermore, when taking into consideration workers’
requirements to work close to home and the negative impact of commute time and stress, as we described inthis report, it may also be effective to provide options in suburban areas.
Currently, the demand and supply of offices in city centers are tight across the country, making it difficult tosecure offices of the required quality and space. At the same time, the flexible office service market is growing
rapidly and starting to act as a platform for increasing work location flexibility. In consideration of thesecircumstances, a workstyle bound to an office in the city center that requires stressful commute would beunreasonable, and a shift to a more flexible workstyle that enables workers to choose from a wide variety of
workplaces both in terms of location and type should prove to be a shortcut to productivity improvement, thegoal of reforms to facilitate workers to work.

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

10

TOPIC REPORT｜Xymax Real Estate Institute

The dummy variables for the logistic regression analysis conducted in Figures 10, 11 (Office worker survey) are as
follows:
・Working from a flexible office or home: “1” when doing so, “0” if not.
・Gender: “1” if female, “0” if not.
・Age: “1” if 51 or older, “0” if not.
・Number of employees of workplace: “1” if 1,000 or more, “0” if not.
・Satisfaction in workstyle: For a 4-level evaluation of the respondent’s satisfaction in his/her current workstyle,“1” if “satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied,” “0” if “somewhat dissatisfied” or “dissatisfied.”
・Improved work-life balance, greater well-being, rectified long work hours, productivity improvement effect: “1”if the above items were chosen from the choices for the question about the effect felt from workstyle reforms,“0” it not.
The dummy variables for the logistic regression analysis conducted in Figure 13 (survey of companies) are as
follows:
・Working from a flexible office or home: “1” if the company has introduced such program(s) “0” if not.
・Average age of employees: “1” if 40 or older, “0” if not.
・Number of employees: “1” if 500 or more, “0” if not.
・Year of establishment: “1” if in or after 2000, “0” if not.
・Productivity improvement effect: “1” when choosing “productivity improvement” for the question about theeffect felt from workstyle reforms.
Note: The percentage mix (%) in the charts contained in this report may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Contact for inquiries concerning this report
Xymax Real Estate Institutehttps://soken.xymax.co.jp

E-MAIL: info-rei@xymax.co.jp

TOPIC REPORT: Relationship between Flexible Workstyles and Productivity
The contents of this report are as of the time of writing. Xymax Real Estate Institute does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness.
This report may not be reproduced, cited, transmitted, distributed, or reprinted without prior permission of Xymax Real Estate Institute.
Copyright © 2019 Xymax Real Estate Institute Corporation. All rights reserved.

11