Flexible work arrangements in SMEs: navigating communication, collaboration and productivity challenges Open Access

Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) have become a central focus in occupational health research, regarded as a key strategy for promoting work-life balance, employee well-being, health, and organizational adaptability (e.g. Ipsen et al., 2021, 2022; Eng et al., 2024; Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Sun et al., 2025). While extensive research has addressed FWAs in large organizations, their implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) remain underexplored (Cegarra-Leiva et al., 2012; Kotey and Sharma, 2016; Maxwell et al., 2007). Yet, SMEs are not merely “smaller versions” of large organizations; they are typically characterized by informal management and HR systems, compressed hierarchies and close owner–employee relations, which makes their everyday functioning particularly sensitive to changes in when and where work is carried out (Azeem and Kotey, 2023; Kirchmajer and Patterson, 2004; Kotey, 2017). This knowledge gap is particularly relevant in the Swedish context, where SMEs constitute 99.9% of all companies and account for over half of total employment (The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, 2023). In Sweden, FWAs are shaped by strong norms of employee autonomy, participatory work practices, and extensive digitalization (Eurofound, 2022). These conditions make Sweden a theoretically relevant context for examining how FWAs influence everyday work practices. Importantly, similar conditions are found in several Northern and Western European labor markets, such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Luxembourg (Eurofound, 2022) which enhances both the contextual relevance of the study and the analytical transferability of its findings beyond Sweden.

FWAs are generally defined as formal or informal agreement between employer and employee that allows for adjustments in various aspects of work (Eurofound, 2020; Putnam et al., 2014). These adjustments may include flexibility in work hours, such as choosing when to start and end the workday (temporal flexibility), flexibility in task execution, such as determining the order and manner in which tasks are completed (task flexibility), and flexibility in work location, enabling employees to work off-site on an occasional or regular basis (spatial flexibility) to a varying extent (Hill et al., 2008; Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Ray and Pana-Cryan, 2021). However, FWAs may subtly reconfigure everyday work practices by influencing how employees communicate, coordinate, and collaborate (Lane et al., 2024; Leonardi, 2021). These dynamics are especially salient in SMEs, where informal structures and close-knit teams mean that even small changes can have noticeable effects on productivity (Aboagye et al., 2023; Eng et al., 2025).

Although FWAs in SMEs have been studied mainly through quantitative surveys, scholars argue that understanding productivity and competitiveness in small firms requires close attention to employees' lived experiences and everyday work practices (Amah, 2023). This makes qualitative methods appropriate, as they capture contextual complexity and examine how organizational challenges arise and are managed (Amaratunga et al., 2002; Piperopoulos, 2010). Such relational and processual dynamics are central in SMEs yet difficult to access with quantitative methods. Therefore, a qualitative approach is essential for understanding how FWAs operate in these settings.

Communication is broadly defined as encompassing both formal and informal exchanges within an organization (Kang and Sung, 2017; Lane et al., 2024; Marsh et al., 2022). In this study, we conceptualize communication as an overarching construct that includes both formal, organization-wide exchanges and the more informal interpersonal communication between individuals. While formal communication structures ensure information flow and coordination (e.g. Kang and Sung, 2017; Lane et al., 2024; Marsh et al., 2022), interpersonal communication centers on mutual engagement, trust, and shared understanding between employees and managers (Bambacas and Patrickson, 2008; Hecht, 1978; Kirchmajer and Patterson, 2004; Sarapaivanich and Patterson, 2015). This distinction is particularly relevant in SMEs, where much of the organizational functioning relies on informal, relationship-driven exchanges and day-to-day presence.

By distinguishing these two levels (the organizational level of formal communication and the interpersonal level of day-to-day exchanges), our analysis captures how FWAs may differently influence organizational communication structures and interpersonal dynamics within SMEs. These definitions of communication and collaboration frame our analysis of how using FWAs influences not only individual work but also team-based processes and collective workflows in SMEs.

Collaboration refers to joint efforts by employees to achieve shared goals, drawing on open communication, trust, and coordinated workflows. It requires shifting from competitive to cooperative attitudes, and it is influenced by organizational structures, systemic contexts, and interpersonal dynamics (D'Amour et al., 2005; Lane et al., 2024; San Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2005). Collaboration depends on both the broader organizational communication environment and the quality of interpersonal exchanges between colleagues and leaders.

Communication, collaboration and productivity are often examined as distinct constructs, and each construct plays a crucial role in shaping everyday organizational performance (e.g. Bui et al., 2019; Dietrichson et al., 2022; Fay and Kline, 2011; Fonner and Roloff, 2012; Lane et al., 2024; Siha and Monroe, 2006; Thorgeirsdottir and Kelliher, 2017). However, these constructs do not operate in isolation. Research on team processes shows that communication and collaboration are interdependent mechanisms through which productive work is coordinated and executed (Lane et al., 2024; Leonardi, 2021; Suortti and Sivunen, 2024). Communication provides the informational and relational foundations that enable collaboration: it allows employees to exchange knowledge, align expectations, and develop shared understanding (Lane et al., 2024; Marks et al., 2001). When communication is fragmented or delayed, collaborative practices such as joint problem-solving, mutual adjustment, and workflow coordination become harder to enact, which in turn impairs decision-making and slows task progress (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009). Together, these processes suggest that productivity is closely tied to how employees coordinate, share information, and manage responsiveness in their daily interactions. Therefore, in this paper we examine how they jointly shape everyday organizational performance.

As work becomes more flexible in terms of time and place, communication increasingly takes place through digital channels such as email, instant messaging, and video conferencing (Leonardi et al., 2010; Suortti and Sivunen, 2024). Although these technologies enable collaboration across time zones and locations (Van Zoonen and Sivunen, 2022), they do not fully replicate the immediacy and richness of in-person interactions. Articulable tacit knowledge can be exchanged through online communication, yet it more naturally unfolds during in-person social interactions, where relational cues and shared context support understanding (Donnelly, 2019; Kaše et al., 2009). Earlier research suggests that employees working in different locations and at different times experience less frequent and more fragmented interactions (Bartel et al., 2012; Golden et al., 2008; Orhan et al., 2016). Informal and spontaneous exchanges, which build trust and foster collaboration, are particularly vulnerable in such settings (Charalampous et al., 2019; Fonner and Roloff, 2012; Windeler et al., 2017). Studies also show that the shift to full-time off-site work can alter relational communication in several ways: some perceive it as a challenge, others as an opportunity, while some express ambivalence (Jämsen et al., 2022).

Consequently, reduced face-to-face contact may fragment communication networks and undermine collaborative workflows (Soga et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). Moreover, these digital tools can create a “connectivity paradox.” Technologies that bridge distance also generate expectations of constant availability (Leonardi et al., 2010). Over time, employees adapt by managing their availability, going offline, using “away” statuses, or remaining technically connected while disengaged. These adaptive behaviors highlight that communication under FWAs is shaped not only by technology but also by evolving social norms and shared expectations. These dynamics play out differently depending on organizational size and structure.

Employee productivity is commonly defined as the extent to which an employee efficiently produces work output in both quantity and quality within a given timeframe (Fay and Sonnentag, 2010; Koopmans et al., 2011; Tangen, 2005). As such, productivity is a core component of individual work performance and a crucial driver of organizational profitability and long-term competitiveness (Lemon and Tackett, 2025; Ramezan, 2012). While the two concepts (performance and productivity) are closely related, productivity is distinct from overall performance, which encompasses broader behavioral contributions to organizational goals (Campbell et al., 1990).

Employee productivity has become a focus for organizations seeking to enhance efficiency while navigating changing work environments (Eng et al., 2024). However, findings on the relationship between FWAs and productivity have been mixed. One reason for these mixed outcomes is that productivity itself is a complex construct: it can be defined in multiple ways, measured through different methodologies, and may vary substantially across sectors. On the one hand, for example, spatial flexibility can improve focus by minimizing distractions and enabling personalized, autonomous work environments (Perlow, 1999; Shockley and Allen, 2012; Speier et al., 1999). On the other hand, while spatial flexibility fosters autonomy, it may also reduce communication and collaboration, potentially impairing individual and team productivity (Van der Lippe et al., 2019). These consequences are not limited to off-site workers alone; even on-site employees can experience reduced productivity if many colleagues work from home (Van der Lippe et al., 2019). Managers have reported similar concerns, highlighting that off-site work can have negative consequences on both individual output and collective performance (Eng et al., 2025; Van Der Lippe and Lippényi, 2020). These dynamic underscore the need for careful consideration of how FWAs shape both individual and team productivity within organizations.

This study aims to examine how employees in SMEs in Sweden perceive the influence of FWAs on communication and collaboration processes, and how these processes, in turn, influence their perceived productivity. Together, these capture both the relational processes and the performance outcomes that may underpin organizational functioning in SMEs.

While prior research on FWAs in SMEs has predominantly relied on surveys or quantitative designs to examine availability and outcomes (e.g. Kotey and Sharma, 2016; Maxwell et al., 2007), this study focuses on employees' perceived experiences. We argue that in SMEs, employees' perspectives are particularly important for understanding how FWAs are enacted in practice. The study, therefore, complements existing quantitative work by providing an in-depth exploration of how employees themselves make sense of FWAs in relation to communication, collaboration, and productivity. Attending to perceived experiences does not merely capture attitudes; it reveals how flexible practices are interpreted, negotiated, and enacted in everyday work, offering process-level insight into the relational dynamics that underpin organizational functioning in SMEs.

This qualitative study used focus group discussions to explore how SME employees perceive the impact of FWAs on communication, collaboration, and productivity. Unlike surveys, focus groups provide deeper insights into employees' experiences (Fern, 1982; Stewart et al., 2007; Wibeck, 2010). Compared to individual interviews, focus groups aim to explore shared experiences and the social dynamics of workplace practices. In organizational research, focus groups are especially relevant for exploring themes related to collaboration, communication, and the social context in which they occur (Morgan, 1993). The interactive format enables participants to reflect on and respond to each other's insights, which in this case was particularly valuable given the study's focus on collaboration and communication, two inherently relational constructs. Moreover, focus groups can generate a broader range of ideas and perspectives than individual interviews (Kidd and Parshall, 2000).

At the same time, focus groups entail methodological challenges related to group dynamics, such as the risk that more outspoken participants dominate the discussion or that conformity pressures discourage the expression of divergent views. To mitigate these risks, the moderator explicitly invited quieter participants to share their perspectives, and used follow-up questions to probe for alternative or minority views. Participants were reminded that disagreement was welcome and that multiple, even conflicting, experiences could co-exist within the same group.

The target group for this study were employees working in SMEs. Consequently, the sampling criteria were based on the SME definition provided by the European Commission (European Commission, n.d.), which classifies SMEs as companies with 10–250 employees, within which small companies have 10 to 49 employees and medium-sized companies have 50 to 250 employees. To ensure a diverse yet analytically relevant sample, we implemented a purposive sampling strategy, selecting participants with knowledge of their company's FWA policies, including aspects related to work hours, logistics, and workspace. The participants were non-managerial employees working in operational, administrative, or technical roles. However, a few had team coordination responsibilities without holding formal managerial titles. No HR representatives or upper-level managers were included.

For the focus-group discussions, participants were recruited from a preceding survey, in which employees indicated whether they would be willing to take part in an interview study. Those who responded “yes” were contacted by email and invited to participate. Building on these responses, we recruited participants from three small and two medium-sized private companies operating in the manufacturing, finance, and consulting (business development, technical consulting) sectors. When composing the five focus groups, we aimed to achieve diversity in terms of gender, age, and organizational role, while also ensuring that participants had sufficient shared experiences to enable meaningful discussion. This resulted in groups of 4–6 participants each, drawn from different departments and functions within the companies. The composition of the groups was therefore both pragmatic, based on availability and willingness to participate, and purposive, in line with the study's aim of capturing a broad range of employee perspectives on FWAs. While the study does not aim to compare sectors systematically, the inclusion of companies from manufacturing, finance, and consulting highlights that employees' experiences of FWAs may be shaped by sectoral conditions such as production requirements, client-facing roles, or the extent of digitalization.

The participants' companies were in a region in central Sweden that encompasses both urban and rural business environments and has a diverse SME landscape across multiple industries, enhancing the transferability of findings to other SME contexts within Sweden and beyond. Participants had to be at least 18 years old, and no financial compensation was provided for participation.

The sample size was determined based on both pragmatic and methodological considerations. Practically, the number of focus groups was influenced by participant availability and the study timeframe. Methodologically, we followed the principle of thematic saturation to assess when the process yielded a sufficient depth and breadth of insights. In qualitative research, saturation refers to the point at which no new relevant themes or patterns emerge from the data (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Gandy, 2024; Guest et al., 2017). While saturation is often discussed in relation to individual interviews, it is also applicable to focus group studies, especially when the aim is to explore shared experiences and generate thematic insights. In line with thematic analysis, we assessed saturation as the point where additional data were unlikely to add new conceptual insights, rather than the replication of identical accounts across groups. Despite variation in sectors and roles, core patterns relating to communication, collaboration, and productivity recurred across all five groups. Given the focused nature of this study and the recurrence of key themes across the five conducted focus groups (each with 4–6 participants), we considered the sample sufficient to capture meaningful variation in employee perspectives on FWAs in SMEs (Gandy, 2024). At the same time, we acknowledge that the sample was not designed to support systematic sectoral comparisons, and our aim was instead to achieve analytical depth regarding shared processes across SME contexts.

Data was collected during September and October 2024. The first author interviewed participants in a private room at their workplace. With participants' consent, all sessions were audio-recorded using a Dictaphone and lasted 60–90 min.

A semi-structured interview guide was followed to ensure that all relevant topics were covered along with their follow-up questions. The interview began with questions about participants' general experiences of FWAs at their workplace and how these policies were implemented. This was followed by a discussion focusing on how an FWAs influences productivity, a person's ability to get work done in terms of collaboration and communication, which was the primary focus of the interview. Example questions included.

1. What is your perception of the importance of FWAs for productivity (in general)?

2. How do FWAs influence the productivity of the work group(s)?

3. Have any other consequences, positive or negative, occurred as a result of FWAs?

4. What is your perception of the importance of FWAs for your ability to work (in general)? and

5. Are there any other consequences, positive or negative, of FWAs on an individual's ability to work that ultimately influence the work group?

Toward the end, participants were encouraged to reflect on any additional consequences of FWAs at their workplaces that had not been addressed during the discussion, as well as to share any further insights about FWAs.

The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Ref. no. 2023-02441-01).

We conducted a thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2022) six-phase approach to generate nuanced, data-grounded themes.

In the first phase, the audio-recorded focus group discussions were transcribed using the transcription software Amberscript (Amberscript, n.d.). The first author listened to each recording while reviewing the transcript, making corrections to any misheard and inaccurately transcribed paragraphs. This was done to ensure both accuracy and familiarity with the data. Each focus group generated approximately 20–30 pages of single-spaced text. Moreover, the first author revisited the audio recordings several times to develop a deep understanding of the participants' perspectives. Following transcription, all generated transcripts were read several times in full to establish an overall sense of the data and identify more impressions.

In the second phase, the first author conducted a systematic line-by-line coding of each transcript using the qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, 2024). Codes were developed directly from the participants' own language and meanings, with close attention to their expressions and experiences. At the same time, the analysis was guided by the study's overarching research aim and informed by existing literature on FWAs, productivity, communication, and collaboration. Conceptually, the analysis was framed around the three outcome domains identified in the introduction: communication, collaboration, and productivity. These domains served as sensitizing concepts (Blumer, 1954), helping to link participants' accounts to the broader literature on FWAs while still leaving space for new, inductively derived themes to emerge. This dual strategy ensured that the analysis was both grounded in participants' language and conceptually connected to existing scholarship.

In the third phase, the codes were carefully reviewed and grouped into preliminary themes and subthemes. To allow identification and repeated ideas and central topics, the first and last authors organized the codes into broader conceptual categories. The coding structure was not fixed; it evolved throughout the analysis as new insights emerged. At this point of analysis, the initial candidate themes were developed, aiming to capture meaningful patterns in the dataset.

In the fourth phase, the first and last authors engaged in critical dialogue to reflect on the content and boundaries of each theme, comparing interpretations and challenging assumptions. To reach coherence and distinctiveness, the candidate themes were further assessed by all authors. This collaborative discussion helped to refine the themes further and ensure that each theme was internally consistent and distinct from the others.

In the fifth phase, all authors were engaged in naming and refining the themes, and the thematic narrative was constructed. The first author revisited the dataset to ensure that each theme was grounded in the empirical material. This included selecting empirical quotes and revising theme descriptions to ensure clarity and focus.

In the sixth and final phase, we had the respondent quotations translated from Swedish and wrote the full report of the analysis. This involved integrating the themes into a coherent narrative. The thematic structure was presented in a way that reflected both the complexity of participants' experiences and the study's research aims.

In total, 24 participants took part in the study: 13 men (M_age = 47) and 11 women (M_age = 44). When employees reflected on the perceived consequences of FWAs on communication, collaboration, and productivity their responses fell into four subthemes (Table 1).

This theme explores how informal and spontaneous interactions remain vital for fostering collaboration, despite the availability of digital communication tools. Employees reported that being physically present enabled them to access important and unexpected information through casual conversations and observations, exchanges that digital tools could not fully replicate: “And sometimes there can be real gold nuggets of information that you didn't know you needed … So there must be much more structure for the communication to work [in the case of flexible work].” (Male, 54 years).

This illustrates the crucial role of informal, spontaneous communication networks, which our introduction identified as a key distinction from formal organizational communication. Having colleagues physically present was described as facilitating immediate problem solving and reducing the need to formally coordinate small but crucial bits of information. In contrast, while technologies enabled scheduled updates, they lacked the fluidity and immediacy of in-person interactions: “We often work on the same projects, and we get help from each other daily.” (Male, 34 years). This highlights how informal communication is not merely supplementary but an integral aspect of collaborative work and adaptive team dynamics.

This theme explores how physical co-presence is crucial for maintaining efficiency and responsiveness in collaborative work. Employees emphasized that without face-to-face interactions, it was more difficult to ask questions or provide immediate support: “I have actually complained a lot. We find that others are often not available, that they have quite a lot to do or it takes a long time to get a response on the phone and on Teams. And then you have to wait longer than you realize.” (Male, 40 years).

The ease of spontaneously seeking help and clarifying issues in person was viewed as essential for smooth workflows: “It would definitely be more difficult [if colleagues were not on site]. It would be possible, but it would take longer. Just being able to stand up and ask or get help from someone makes things easier.” (Male, 42 years).

Reduced physical presence was linked to difficulties in identifying bottlenecks and aligning individual efforts, with potential consequences not only for individual productivity but also for team cohesion. Employees stressed that even when not working on the same tasks, being physically present created opportunities for collaboration that digital tools could not fully replace: “Interaction with colleagues in a group ends up better on site.” (Female, 28 years).

These findings underscore how the challenges of fragmented and delayed communication described in the introduction also manifest in practice. There are complex interactions among FWAs, communication modes, and team-level collaboration. This theme highlights that while FWAs can enhance individual autonomy, it also poses challenges for the collaborative relationships and informal networks that sustain organizational productivity and resilience.

The challenges employees described in communication and collaboration were not only relational but also had direct consequences for how work was completed. These dynamics shaped employees' perceptions of productivity, highlighting that individual efficiency in SMEs is deeply intertwined with team-level coordination and communicative flows.

This theme explores how employees experience FWAs as a tool for individual productivity, while acknowledging the challenges FWAs presents to team workflow. Employees valued the opportunity to focus more deeply on individual tasks and adapt their work to personal preferences. However, this individual autonomy occasionally disrupted teamwork when personal decisions to work off-site conflicted with the needs of the team.

While many reported increased focus when working from home, the lack of immediate access to colleagues delayed problem-solving. “If it's something that's not so urgent and you feel it would really be easier on site, then I'll postpone it to the week when I come back in.” (Female, 28 years). The postponement of questions or shared tasks until it is possible to be physically present on site illustrates a subtle fragmentation of workflows. Employees described how spatial flexibility shifted the rhythm of collaboration, creating a tendency to save questions in batches for in-person interactions:

This theme illustrates that while FWAs may initially boost individual productivity, it can paradoxically create collaboration bottlenecks and delay or hinder an overall smooth workflow. This observation reflects the tension between personal autonomy and team-level coordination, as outlined in the introduction's discussion of FWAs' dual impact on productivity.

This theme highlights how FWAs is not solely an individual privilege but a shared responsibility that requires careful balancing of personal autonomy and team-oriented availability. Employees emphasized that even when working off-site, there remains an obligation to be reachable and responsive to colleagues' needs. One employee illustrated this dynamic:

FWAs was portrayed as a practice that depends on mutual understanding and shared norms of accountability. While employees appreciated the freedom to manage their own schedules, they also recognized that this autonomy must be balanced with the collective needs of the team:

This theme highlights the often-overlooked social context of FWAs, emphasizing how mutual availability and responsiveness are crucial for productivity and collaboration. The consequence of this trade-off between personal temporal and spatial flexibility and its responsibility to the team is not always immediately apparent, yet it may shape collaboration dynamics in somewhat subtle but significant ways.

Our findings align with prior work showing the dual impact of FWAs on autonomy and coordination, but extend this literature by demonstrating how these dynamics are amplified in SMEs. Employees described how informal communication networks are easily disrupted and how norms of shared availability shape responsiveness under FWAs. Even small coordination delays, such as postponing questions or managing asynchronous exchanges, can accumulate into team-level bottlenecks in SME. These patterns clarify the conditions under which temporal and spatial flexibility support or hinder collective functioning.

Our findings revealed that employees experienced specific challenges in maintaining informal communication and collaboration in FWA settings. Employees described how difficult it was to replicate the immediacy and richness of spontaneous, face-to-face interactions with digital technologies. While digital tools enable formal communication across time and space (Van Zoonen and Sivunen, 2022), they often fall short in facilitating the informal exchanges that build trust, support problem-solving, and strengthen team cohesion (Charalampous et al., 2019; Windeler et al., 2017). Over time, reduced informal contact can weaken the collective problem-solving capacity and erode the relational infrastructure that underpins successful collaboration in SMEs.

Our findings show that communication and collaboration are not only relational processes but also mechanisms that directly shape employees' perceptions of productivity. In SMEs, productivity cannot be understood in isolation; it is deeply embedded in the communicative flows and collaborative practices that sustain daily work. The dual impact of FWAs aligns with existing research suggesting that temporal and spatial flexibility can simultaneously empower employees and strain team-level productivity (Perlow, 1999; Shockley and Allen, 2012). Participants in our study described how working off-site improved their ability to concentrate and complete tasks. However, while such tensions have been documented in larger organizations with formal coordination systems, our findings show that in SMEs these frictions are amplified by a reliance on informal exchanges (Kotey and Sharma, 2016).

This extends previous work by Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020), who found that spatial flexibility can impair both individual and collective performance if collaborative structures are weak, by illustrating how these mechanisms play out in smaller firms where cross-functional support and informal knowledge sharing are essential. In such contexts, what benefits the individual may paradoxically hinder team performance, compromising long-term responsiveness and operational continuity. Thus, while FWAs supports individual autonomy, it requires deliberate strategies to maintain team-level efficiency and group-based workflows. This reflects the theoretical notion of work intensification under flexible practices, where employees “do more with less” (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010). While similar dynamics can be found in larger organizations, they may be harder to manage in SMEs, where coordination often relies more on informal practices and interpersonal trust.

Our findings also reveal that FWAs is not merely an individual benefit but a shared responsibility that requires balancing personal autonomy with collective availability and mutual responsiveness. Employees emphasized that aligning individual FWAs with team needs is crucial for maintaining organizational functioning. This underscores the need for SMEs to develop shared norms and relational practices that reinforce mutual accountability. Without such norms, the hidden costs of FWAs, such as delays, fragmented workflows, and declining team cohesion, may undermine not only day-to-day productivity but also the long-term sustainability of the organization.

This aligns with previous research suggesting that FWAs are most effective when they are grounded in mutual understanding between employers and employees. Reilly (1998) found that temporal and spatial flexibility can serve as a win-win solution only if the employer and employees actively recognize and respond to each other's needs and constraints.

This dual character of FWAs, as both inducement and contribution, highlights the importance of establishing shared norms and regular dialogue about expectations. As Cañibano (2019) argues, these paradoxical tensions are not easily resolved; they must be actively managed in practice. In SMEs, fostering a culture of collective reflexivity around FWAs may help navigate these tensions constructively.

It is important to acknowledge that extant literature also contains more critical perspectives. Some studies suggest that FWAs may contribute to work intensification, where autonomy is accompanied by rising demands and blurred boundaries (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010). Our findings illustrate how FWAs, while promoting autonomy and focus, can compromise employees' recovery when boundaries become blurred. Several participants described a tacit expectation to remain digitally available beyond core hours, driven by team needs or a sense of responsibility. From a workplace health perspective, this also resonates with studies on recovery and detachment (Hayashi, 2024), which show that sustained accessibility undermines employees' ability to recover and increases risks of strain. For SMEs, this underscores the need to establish clear norms that not only coordinate work but also protect employees' recovery time, ensuring that FWAs functions as a health-promoting strategy rather than a hidden source of long-term exhaustion.

For SME managers, the findings indicate that FWAs cannot be treated as a purely individual benefit. To make FWAs work in practice, managers need to support both autonomy and collective functioning.

First, agreeing on shared core hours or regular on-site days for each team can secure predictable windows for informal exchange, joint problem-solving, and rapid clarification of issues. This helps reduce postponement of questions and fragmented workflows.

Second, managers should establish norms for responsiveness under FWAs, for example, how availability should be signaled when working off-site, and which matters require synchronous contact. Making these expectations explicit can limit frustration and delays without undermining employees' ability to focus.

Third, the study suggests that employees already reflect on how their own flexibility choices affect colleagues, but often implicitly. Managers can harness this by creating regular opportunities for teams to discuss how FWAs influence communication, collaboration, and availability, thereby strengthening mutual responsibility rather than framing FWAs solely as an individual privilege.

Finally, from a workplace health perspective, SMEs should safeguard employees' recovery by clarifying boundaries for after-hours availability and by signaling that flexibility does not imply constant accessibility. Such practices can help ensure that FWAs remain both productivity-enhancing and health-promoting in the long term.

Our study refines existing FWA research by showing how the consequences of FWAs in SMEs are shaped by informal communication networks, shared norms of availability, and day-to-day coordination practices, rather than formal policies alone. It advances a relational process perspective in which communication and collaboration are understood as key mechanisms through which FWAs shape perceived productivity. In our material, perceived productivity is not an individual attribute, but a collective outcome shaped by how colleagues coordinate, exchange information, and manage responsiveness under flexible conditions.

Together, these insights suggest that future studies of FWAs should pay closer attention to organizational size, team processes, informal structures, and recovery processes, and therefore consider mixed-method or longitudinal designs to examine when FWAs function as a sustainable resource and when they become a source of strain.

A central strength of this study lies in its focus on employees lived experiences of FWAs within SMEs, a perspective often overlooked in the literature. The use of focus group discussions made it possible to explore not only individual insights but also the collective and relational dynamics through which FWAs is enacted in practice. Including employees from different industries and SME sizes further enhances the transferability of the findings.

Nevertheless, several limitations should be noted. Although focus groups enabled rich exploration of shared experiences, group-based discussions may have constrained the expression of critical or dissenting views due to dynamics such as social desirability, conformity pressures, or the dominance of more outspoken participants. Despite moderator strategies to encourage turn-taking and invite quieter participants into the discussion, some individuals may still have withheld sensitive or divergent perspectives. Individual interviews might therefore have captured more personal, nuanced, or contradictory accounts that were less likely to emerge in a group setting. In addition, the study included only five focus groups, which limits the breadth of organizational and sectoral variation represented. As such, the findings should be understood as analytically transferable rather than statistically generalizable. In addition, because this study focused on perceived experiences rather than objective measures, future mixed-method or longitudinal research could examine how perceived effects of FWAs align with actual organizational outcomes, such as productivity and the mediating role of communication and collaboration.

The study also included employees from manufacturing, finance, and consulting sectors, yet the limited number of groups did not allow for systematic sectoral comparisons. Future research should further explore how sectoral conditions, such as task interdependence, client demands, or levels of digitalization, shape the implementation and consequences of FWAs. Finally, although qualitative studies do not aim for statistical generalization, the recurrence of themes across all five focus groups provides confidence in the robustness of the findings.

These findings highlight the importance of intentional structures, shared norms, and relational awareness in making FWAs work not only for employees but also for teams and the long-term success of the organization. From a research perspective, the study extends FWA scholarship into the SME context, showing how organizational size and reliance on informal structures shape the dual impacts of FWAs. At the societal level, framing FWAs as a mutual responsibility rather than an individual benefit may foster healthier work–life integration and more supportive organizational cultures. In practice, SMEs can act on these insights by agreeing on shared core hours or regular on-site days, clarifying norms for responsiveness, and safeguarding boundaries for recovery, ensuring that FWAs remains both sustainable and health-promoting.

At the same time, the Swedish context of this study, with its institutional emphasis on work–life balance and relatively strong employee protections, may have shaped how FWAs were experienced. In countries with weaker institutional support or different cultural norms, employees might perceive FWAs differently. Future research should therefore explore how national and sectoral contexts interact with organizational size to shape the outcomes of FWAs.