Full Flex

Overview

Full Flex is a work style that allows employees to work whenever they want without set working hours.

There is no core time, and also no de facto core time. Many teams or projects claim to offer flexible work hours, yet have unofficial core times. This approach is deceptive and does not align with the concept of Full Flex.

There's no obligation for predetermined working hours in Full Flex. Many companies have implemented this, despite there being no legal constraint requiring it. For example, in Japan, it's common to require at least 150 hours of work per month, but there's no such restriction in Japanese labor laws.

Concepts

Let's break down the elements of Full Flex.

• 1: Temporary Core Time
• 2: Measurable Meritocracy
• 3: Streamlined Time-Tracking

1: Temporary Core Time

The first component is Temporary Core Time.

Full Flex does not impose a core time, but having no shared time at all would be inconvenient. Thus, creating temporary core times when necessary is permissible. This is akin to coordinating meetings and can be secured through pre-adjustment.

A common anti-pattern is the Regular Event Trap. A measure of Full Flex's success is the absence of any regular events. This is straightforward—if you have regular meetings, it's not Full Flex. Full Flex allows everyone to work during their own optimal times, and regular events disrupt this principle. Agile morning meetings or weekly regular meetings and study sessions are typical examples. You might think,

“Why not make them optional?”

But that doesn't work. Regular events, by nature, are ‘musts' or ‘shoulds'. Implementing optionality leads to non-attendees being perceived negatively, creating information gaps and, consequently, internal politics.

2: Measurable Meritocracy

The second component is Measurable Meritocracy.

Companies impose specific working hours or core times because they don't trust employees. The return to offices stems from the same mistrust—companies believe that employees, inherently lazy, must be physically confined to the same places at the same times for surveillance. From a managerial perspective, this might be understandable, but it's an outdated form of exploitation that we must oppose. However, removing constraints will lead to widespread slacking. What's the solution?

Measure by outcomes. Outcome-based evaluations are presumably standard in the English-speaking world but aren't sufficient. A monitoring mechanism to prevent slacking, akin to mutual surveillance, is necessary. This is where a measurable meritocracy comes in.

It's simple—engage in output-based communication. Avoid non-recorded conversations or hidden direct messages in Slack or Teams; communicate via text visible to the entire team. For meetings, always leave a recording. Always.

This approach ensures work-related communication revolves around some ‘output'. In other words, everyday communication showcases that proper work is being done. Measuring this can prevent slacking. Working hours don't matter—what's important is producing specifics like opinions or results, i.e., outputs. So, check the output.

While this might seem dystopian, it's the opposite. Binding by hours or core time is dystopian. With measurable meritocracy, we can work in comfortable time slots. Producing outputs is standard—it's work, after all. Only the means change, moving from a time-bound dystopia to a utopia based on autonomous efforts.

Finally, the most crucial aspect of measurable meritocracy—always retain outputs. Always. This is so important that I emphasized it twice. When I design Full Flex as a Knowledge Architect, anyone engaging in private exchanges (except HR or personal matters) receives penalties. Not producing output is equivalent to being late.

3: Streamlined Time-Tracking

The third component is Streamlined Time-Tracking.

Labor laws typically require employees to manage their working hours with quantifiable records globally, not just in Japan. Barring freelancers or small startups, escaping labor management duties is unlikely. Hence, Full Flex still necessitates quantitative labor hour management.

Naturally, incurring costs for this process is senseless. Thus, streamlining—not automating—it is paramount. Full automation seems preferable, yet automation and surveillance are two sides of the same coin.

Let me ask you this: would you install an agent tool on your PC just because attendance is automated? Executives and IT personnel might say ‘yes', but strict surveillance hinders productivity and engagement as it's a form of oppression.

Avoid automation that leads to oppression; streamline instead. In my view, using digital tools for clocking in and out finds a decent balance. Providing API or command-line tool support allows experienced engineers to automate independently. The time-tracking interface should be exceptionally simple—start_work() and end_work() should suffice.

Seamlessly activating the time-tracking tool represents a blue ocean. For example, if you could sell a small button for clocking in and out, you could dominate this domain.

Benefits

Full Flex offers the following benefits:

• Work becomes aligned with one's natural rhythm, enhancing performance and enabling cognitive, “head-heavy” tasks.
• Routine output-based communication minimizes information disparities and internal politics.
• By constantly adjusting core times, truly necessary events (requiring time or location constraints) are better designed, reducing unnecessary events, particularly meetings, and improving work-life balance.

Though reducing politics is significant, the greatest advantage is enabling cognitively demanding work.

I call it Slack—not mere mindlessly doing tasks but doing "essentially good work" with creativity while questioning premises requires physical leeway. Time, mental state, stamina, and cognitive resources are involved. Slack is eroded by conforming to non-conducive schedules. Full Flex's greatest benefit is mitigating this waste.

Drawbacks

The drawback of Full Flex is the demand for employee autonomy.

I call it Atmosphere Remind—by sharing the same time, a "scene" and "atmosphere" are created. Immersing oneself naturally determines and eases the next steps. Similar to children attending schools with structured timetables. Cynically put, it uses the environment to mobilize those unable to act autonomously.

Since Full Flex essentially removes core time, there's no atmosphere remind. Despite measurable meritocracy, output must be self-driven. With combined full remote, you'll produce it alone, at home, at your desk. The reality is, those who can “keep moving autonomously despite solitude” are in the minority.

The challenge of implementing Full Flex lies here. Supporting non-autonomous individuals is crucial. Though I have no definitive answers (finding one would yield immense fortune!), creating temporary core times for “dense communication opportunities” seems viable.

For instance, establishing a bi-daily "chat hour" for casual conversation could ease non-autonomous individuals' frustrations. Managers hosting office hours for anyone to chat is also common. Admittedly, it's not simple—a delicate balance of multiple opportunities and frequencies requires meticulous adjustment.

Implementation

How do you implement Full Flex?

Although it varies by organization, here's a common flow I use:

• 1: Successfully conduct a Mute Day
• 2: Cover all formats of output-based communication
• 3: Integrate Full Flex into work rules and evaluation methods (start limited, not company-wide initially)

Let's explore each step.

1: Mute Day

First, there's Mute Day.

Mute Day means spending a day without speaking a single word. Of course, as it's work, this means the job must still get done.

When I lead the introduction of Full Flex, the initial task is:

• "Try to succeed with a Mute Day."

If successful, the next task is:

• "Succeed in doing Mute Day consistently for two or more days a week."

Finally, I suggest mastering the Mute Week.

The goal is to, naturally, implement Full Flex. A Mute Day is nearly synonymous with enabling work without sharing the same hours. For instance, meetings are impossible, leading to asynchronous output creation and exchange. This encourages creative problem-solving for systems and setups.

It might sound like delegation, but in my experience, the solutions to Full Flex implementation differ greatly. Offering a prescribed system has little value. Organizations must devise methods fitting their culture. Mute Day serves as practical training. Complete delegation stalls progress, but nudging helps (explained in a column below).

At this stage, you'll determine Full Flex's feasibility. Should any organization claim “Mute Day is utterly impossible!” such a workplace won't succeed with Full Flex. Conversely, managing a Mute Day means clearing 70%, or perhaps 80%, of it.

On a side note, my involvement usually ends here as a job. Further steps become organization-specific advancement based on concrete needs, beyond the abstract purview of a Knowledge Architect. Architects pioneer, not push forward, nor should they. Talents are distinct. Advancement isn't my expertise.

(Column) Starting a Mute Day

I often employ brainstorming.

Reserve about 3 hours; set aside work, and allow free entry/exit along with food and drinks. Start brainstorming.

The theme is, “How does one achieve a Mute Day?”

Consider it akin to brainstorming, but prioritize information over speaking. Facilitating individuals to speak holds no value. Oral contributions usually fall short, so I provide notebooks or boards for writing. Thus, it's a 3-hour casual idea writing event, or Casual Writing Camp (CwC).

CwC's goal is to see, “Achieving and sustaining Mute Day seems feasible” or even “Mute Day seems unattainable”. Repeat CwC multiple times if needed. While 3 hours isn't mandatory, having a half-day buffer, morning or afternoon, is desirable. I recommend 3 hours—2 hours is too short, and 4 hours can be excessive.

2: Cover All Formats of Output-Based Communication

Applying Full Flex nearly eliminates core time, as previously noted. Meetings, pair programming, or mob programming and other high-density collaborations (outside temporary core times) aren't conducted.

So, how do daily interactions proceed? Through output-based communication. Create an output, have it reviewed asynchronously.

This leads to struggles with what formats to use. For instance, taking 1-on-1s as an example, the required format depends on the organization.

For reference, I developed text-based 1-on-1s, viewing 1-on-1s as "information exchange sessions". It's a Q&A form of mutual entry. Preparing multiple Q&A templates would cover 1-on-1 communication. Non-verbal communication isn't covered through text; use temporary core times for that. But specifically, utilize temporary core times?—There's a format, and it must be identified, articulated, and decided.

Consider this akin to domain-driven development. Identifying formats aligns with grasping domain knowledge, requiring sufficiently deep communication and interviews. At this point, Full Flex remains challenging. Mute Days won't work. Hence, my full engagement involves listening thoroughly. Of course, if the organization cannot prepare accordingly, regrettably, Full Flex can't be achieved because it can't be fully grasped.

Once formats are organized, company-wide sharing and enlightenment are necessary. Validity is checked by ensuring these formats cover all work-related interactions. Enrich the formats to ensure proper coverage. This maintenance continues indefinitely.

3: Integrate Full Flex into Work Rules and Evaluation Methods

By this stage, it's time to officially incentivize as a company.

Incorporate Full Flex into work rules and evaluation methods. Suitable processes for each organization must exist and belong to the HR and management domain, so this will be left out here.