A systematic review of flexible working arrangements for frontline workforce: challenges, benefits and implications

In recent years, the concept of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) has gained significant surge across various industries, transforming traditional work structures and challenging conventional beliefs of productivity and employee engagement (Barrero et al., 2023; Choudhary and Jain, 2025; Rose, 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic marked a pivotal moment in flexible working arrangement adoption, transforming them from emerging practices to organisational necessities. Research following this shift found that remote work can increase job satisfaction, workforce diversity, productivity and resilience (Bloom et al., 2021; Fatima et al., 2024; O'Kane et al., 2020; Pantha, 2020). With technology transforming the way people do things, organisations have stepped into FWAs that encompass options such as telecommuting, remote working and flexitime (Barrero et al., 2023). It allows employees to have greater control over their work environment and schedule, ultimately bringing flexibility and balance in performing job responsibilities (Jain and Choudhary, 2024).

While FWAs have been widely applied across office-based roles, their implementation in frontline workforce settings creates unique opportunities and challenges worthy of closer examination (Solnet and Golubovskaya, 2023). Frontline workers include employees from sectors such as healthcare, retail, transport and emergency services, often called essential employees, who work in high-pressure environments and face numerous challenges. To capture the widest relevant body of literature, the term essential workers was also incorporated into the search strategy, recognising that this terminology is frequently used interchangeably with “frontline workers” in academic literature. For consistency and clarity throughout this review, the term “frontline workers” is used to encompass both frontlines and essential worker categories. These workers are vital across industries but often face long hours, stress, hazards and limited support or training, undermining performance and wellbeing (ILO, 2023; Solnet and Golubovskaya, 2023).

Frontline workers have traditionally been considered less suitable candidates to be provided with flexible work options. However, the nature of work is changing, as are technological advances and employee expectations, leading organisations to reconsider this stance (Bloom et al., 2021). The consideration of FWAs for frontline workers arises from the recognition of their unique challenges and the need to enhance their work–life balance, job satisfaction and overall well-being (Solnet and Golubovskaya, 2023). FWAs can address some of the critical issues facing frontline workers and have received much attention in recent years with a focus on frontline workers (Timewise Foundation, 2025). While flexible working arrangements have gained significant attention in organisational practice and policy implementation, research specifically examining their application to frontline workers remains limited and receives comparatively little scholarly attention.

FWAs for frontline workers can also be understood within broader theoretical perspectives in human resource management. The job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) posits that job characteristics can be categorised into job demands (physical, psychological and social aspects requiring effort) and job resources (aspects that help achieve goals, reduce demands or stimulate growth). FWAs can function as job resources that help manage demanding work environments when appropriately implemented. Kalleberg's work (2003) showed how organisational restructuring and flexible firm structures segmented labour markets, often privileging some while increasing precarity for others. Later, he developed the concept of “good jobs” and highlighted how institutional arrangements mediate access to stability, autonomy and work–life balance. Osterman's (2013) work on job quality and Rubery and Grimshaw's (2015) focus on precarious work further illuminate how structural and institutional factors mediate the benefits of flexibility. Taken together, these perspectives highlight that FWAs for frontline workers must be evaluated not only as managerial practices but also as part of wider employment systems that shape equity, sustainability and resilience.

The current research aims to present evidence-based insights that can inform policymaking and organisational decision-making. Given the significance of this topic and the rapidly changing nature of work, a systematic literature review of FWAs for the frontline workforce is both timely and necessary, addressing the following research questions:

1. What are the recent studies related to FWAs for frontline workforces?

2. What are the organisational and employee benefits of implementing FWAs for frontline workforces?

3. What are the challenges in implementing FWAs for the frontline workforce?

4. What are the key strategies for implementing FWAs for the frontline workforce?

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to explore the organisational and employee benefits, challenges and strategies of implementing FWAs for the frontline workforce. This approach was chosen for its potential to minimise bias through systematic and transparent procedures (Oates et al., 2021). As the authors were interested in qualitative interpretation beyond mapping broad trends and patterns across large volumes of publications, SLR enabled extracting key benefits, challenges and strategies of FWAs for the frontline workforce. This method aligns with the research questions and provides a rigorous synthesis of literature to draw conclusions.

The SLR began by identifying pertinent research articles from EBSCO and PROQUEST. A comprehensive search strategy employed Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”) and search terms used include (“flexible work arrangement*” OR “FWA” OR “remote work*” OR “flex* work*” OR “work* trends” OR “New way* of work*” OR “WFH” OR “Work* from home” OR “Hybrid work*”) AND (“frontline work*” OR “essential work*”). Using both terms, frontline and essential in the search strategy, ensured broader coverage of literature on flexible work arrangements, given variability in terminology across sectors and geographies. The inclusion criteria were (1) articles published between 2014 and 2024, (2) written in English and (3) from academic journals or reviewed sources. Exclusion criteria involved (1) articles not directly related to research questions and (2) nonempirical paper.

As shown in Figure 1, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to identify the relevant articles for the research objectives published approximately between 2014 and 2024. PRISMA is a widely used guideline for reporting systematic literature reviews (Page et al., 2021). A period of 10 years was selected as the date range because the authors wanted to analyse the evolution of FWAs pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic; hence, the bigger range was chosen. A total of 71 studies were reviewed and synthesised for full-text review. The initial search identified 1,167 articles, reduced to 788 after duplicate removal (n = 338) and nonjournal publications like conference abstracts, book reviews, editor's note were also excluded (n = 41). Abstract screening excluded 716 for nonfrontline focus, lack of FWA content or misalignment with research questions. A full-text assessment of 72 articles led to one additional exclusion, yielding 71 articles for synthesis.

A bibliographic overview of selected articles was produced; this information provided a contextual background for the research findings and allowed the researchers to examine the papers from multiple perspectives.

More than 43 studies are dated post 2022, while 28 are dated on or before 2021 (Figure 2). This suggests a growing interest in the subject of flexible working arrangements among frontline workforces post pandemic.

Selected articles were predominantly based on the health sector (Figure 3). This shows interest and exploration of FWAs in the health sector among academics.

This predominance reflects both the high research activity on flexible work arrangements in health-related roles and the fact that “frontline or essential workers” is most frequently used in healthcare-related literature, especially in post-pandemic discourse.

The selected articles encompass research conducted across 18 countries and regions, with most studies originating from England, followed closely by the USA, Switzerland and Canada (Figure 4). This distribution highlights a strong representation of research from these countries, which may reflect the accessibility of published literature in these regions. Additionally, studies from other regions contribute valuable insights, offering a diverse perspective on the topic.

These articles collectively underscore the increasing significance of flexible work policies in enhancing employee engagement, satisfaction and retention, especially for frontline workers who face high job demands.

Many studies have shown positive outcomes for employers implementing flexibility. These are categorised as.

Employee retention and loyalty: Studies highlight that employees are more likely to be satisfied with flexible scheduling than with additional pay, illustrating that the policy contributes more to long-term retention efforts (Dangaiso et al., 2024; Silcox, 2023). This thus improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover rates, which is crucial for frontline roles like retail and hospitality (Cortis et al., 2024; Ghani et al., 2022). Some studies point out the way flexible policies help in maintaining experienced staff and delivering quality services, especially in high-stress environments like hospitals (Chow et al., 2020; Silverio et al., 2023; Thorne et al., 2023; Sriharan et al., 2024). This is vital in sectors like healthcare, hospitality, where burnout is high and employee retention is crucial to maintain the quality of services (Fox et al., 2022; Ghani et al., 2022).

Improved productivity and engagement: FWAs, particularly in stressful frontline roles like healthcare and hospitality, also help ensure staff retention by improving job satisfaction and engagement (Al Otaibi et al., 2023; Fox et al., 2022; Jung and Yoon, 2021). Flexible work conditions help enhance employee engagement. Employees become more productive and effective when they are provided with the flexibility and autonomy to manage their time, and this ultimately works for the organisation (Haemi et al., 2018; Rakotoarizaka et al., 2022; Malik and Shankar, 2023; Dangaiso et al., 2024).

Cost efficiency: Organisations that adopt flexible work policies can reduce costs associated with absenteeism and burnout, as these arrangements help employees to manage stress effectively. Flexible working has been shown to reduce presenteeism (working while unwell) and improve overall workplace well-being (Allanic et al., 2021; Laranjeira et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2020). Self-scheduling, one of the characteristics of FWAs, has been found to reduce the time spent by nurse managers in creating the monthly schedule (Gillen et al., 2022).

Positive organisational culture: A positive environment with flexible work options enhances a healthier organisational culture (Tremblay and Nogues, 2019; Sok et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2022; Armoon et al., 2024). For instance, self-scheduling has been shown to possess a variety of possible benefits, such as improved job satisfaction through greater autonomy over working hours, more effective recruitment and selection by making posts more appealing to prospective applicants and reduced absenteeism by allowing for tailored needs and enhancing work–life balance (Darbyshire, 2022; Karakhan et al., 2023). When employees feel valued through such initiatives, they are more likely to stay committed, reducing recruitment and training costs (Jackson et al., 2023; Jerg-Bretzke et al., 2021; Jia and Li, 2022; Lunt et al., 2022; Gadsby et al., 2022).

Work–life balance and employee well-being: Various studies emphasise the importance of work–life balance in promoting employee satisfaction and well-being (Dangaiso et al., 2024; Khoo et al., 2021; Jo-Hui et al., 2022; Máiz-Mazuela et al., 2023; Neill et al., 2022). For instance, Mansour and Tremblay’s (2018) study found that FWAs in the hotel industry, such as compressed workweeks and remote work, allow workers to balance family and work responsibilities better, thus reducing stress and burnout. These benefits collectively highlight how flexible work policies can create a win-win situation for both employers and frontline staff by increasing satisfaction, retention and productivity (Tan et al., 2024; González-Mesa et al., 2021; Dillon et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2022; Darbyshire, 2022).

Some studies have also highlighted the organisational challenges associated with implementing FWAs for frontline workers.

Scheduling complexity and operational disruptions: Turner et al. (2021) and McGuinness et al. (2024) discovered that the implementation of FWAs raises the logistical complexity in scheduling shifts, particularly in the healthcare industry, resulting in disruptions in patient care continuity and increasing the likelihood of staff shortages during peak periods, as experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic​. This challenge is reaffirmed by Allanic et al. (2021), who concluded that achieving optimal scheduling with FWAs is achievable by balancing labour efficiency with adequate levels of staff to meet service demands.

Resource and financial constraints: The financial implications of FWAs, i.e. having sufficient staff without an excess of cost, can become challenging. Aykanian (2023) described how flexible arrangements can prove to be costly, especially in demand-intensive sectors such as homeless services, as organisations need to deliver quality services without going beyond the allocated budget. This is more so in the health (Oates et al., 2021) and retail (Cortis et al., 2024) sectors where continuous services are required, where balancing employee preferences with operational demands becomes critical. The need for technology upgrades, employee training and process changes further contributes to financial cost, and thus the need for strategic planning to align flexibility with budget constraints becomes critical​ (Aloisi and de Stefano, 2022; Chan et al., 2023; Kaur et al., 2022).

Impact on service quality and client engagement: FWAs present unique challenges in frontline, client-facing sectors since they can disrupt service continuity and client relationships (Murray et al., 2021). Aykanian (2023) recognised that FWAs may lead to variable staffing, often the byproduct of flexible scheduling accommodation, negatively impacting service quality and client relations by creating gaps in service delivery or reducing skilled workers’ presence during peak periods (Aboutaleb et al., 2024). Similarly, Weisberg and Dent (2016) found that within non-profit organisations, the flexibility intended to help workers impairs the excellence of client service when there is inadequate staffing. Adequate staffing with flexibility requires resource allocation and planning to maintain the harmony between staff support and service excellence (Thrysoee et al., 2022).

Increased supervision and monitoring needs: The rapid shift to digital solutions and remote work has caused increased digital monitoring that produces privacy issues and may cause conflict between management and employees. Aloisi and De Stefano (2022) stated that monitoring to ensure productivity produces a managerial dilemma, making it challenging to balance supervision and the autonomy of employees.

Challenges in crisis preparedness and workforce retention: Organisations have found it challenging to maintain workforce resilience and retention during crisis (Banerjee et al., 2021; Leppäkoski et al., 2023). Virkstis et al. (2021) revealed that the pandemic intensified the demand for FWAs among nursing and even exposed gaps in crisis preparedness, thereby subjecting healthcare systems globally to pressures. Studies by Ní Léime and O'Neill (2021), Busch et al. (2021) and Banerjee et al. (2021) identified that in a crisis period like the pandemic, a combination of several factors, including stress and health impact on frontline workers, leads them to prioritise their family and own health, leading to early retirement decisions made by the late-career workers.

In the subsequent section, we outline the key strategies reported in studies for FWAs for the frontline workforce.

Flexible work scheduling: Many studies highlight how flexible work schedules and shift work, especially in healthcare and service industries, positively influence employee satisfaction, engagement and retention (Allanic et al., 2021; Garcia et al., 2021; Khoo et al., 2021; Salehi et al., 2021). Flexible work options that align with employee needs include offering preferred work hours, compressed workweeks and flexible shifts (Unsal-Akbiyik and Zeytinoglu, 2018; González-Mesa et al., 2021; Cortis et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2022). Studies in education (Dangaiso et al., 2024) and hospitality (Jung and Yoon, 2021) found that remote working and flexible scheduling have positively impacted job satisfaction, loyalty and employee retention, especially in the context of post-pandemic shifts.

Autonomy in scheduling: Granting staff autonomy in scheduling their work is yet another important strategy. It can include self-scheduling shifts or input in work timings, leading to less burnout and higher job satisfaction (Aboutaleb et al., 2024; Dangaiso et al., 2024). Allowing frontline workers the ability to choose their shifts or ownership of their schedules can result in increased involvement, job satisfaction and retention (Hockenberry and Becker, 2016; Jin-Soo et al., 2015; Jo-Hui et al., 2022; Malik and Shankar, 2023; Gadsby et al., 2022).

Digital and remote work tools: The experience of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the growth of digital tools (Aloisi and De Stefano, 2022; Ballard et al., 2024; Jackson et al., 2022; Shroff et al., 2022), which has revealed a preference from employees for ongoing flexible work options and remote work in favour of additional benefits in roles associated with education (Dangaiso et al., 2024), healthcare (Plater et al., 2022) and library (Singh and Bossaller, 2022). Digital technologies were used in staff planning and leveraging resources during the pandemic in essential service industries such as the healthcare industry (Aloisi and De Stefano, 2022; Shroff et al., 2022), education (Dangaiso et al., 2024), construction (Karakhan et al., 2023) and retail (Cortis et al., 2024). Leveraging technology to provide services allows frontline employees in sectors like education and healthcare to be flexible at work without sacrificing the quality of service (Murray et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2022; Shroff et al., 2022).

Training and upskilling via online platforms: Creation of online education and training modules for frontline staff is another strategy (Murray et al., 2021). Providing training and upskilling opportunities in an open-learning environment, such as online modules, allows employees to improve their competencies without compromising their work–life balance (Jackson et al., 2022). For instance, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, upskilling programmes for nurses were conducted online to meet the urgent need for critical care competence. This open and flexible learning programme allowed healthcare professionals to increase their skills without congesting their work schedules (Jarden et al., 2022; Kaur et al., 2022).

Our findings align with the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) that provides a useful lens for understanding how well-designed FWAs function as job resources that reduce demands and enhance engagement, while poorly implemented arrangements can paradoxically increase strain. Consistent with Kalleberg's (2003) employment systems perspective and the work of Osterman (2013) and Rubery and Grimshaw (2015), confirming that FWA effectiveness is fundamentally shaped by institutional arrangements, organisational structures and broader employment contexts that determine equity and sustainability outcomes for frontline workers.

This review demonstrates a growing body of evidence supporting the implementation of flexible work arrangements for frontline workforces. The benefits include improved retention, engagement, productivity and well-being, which are substantial for both employees and organisations and the challenges, while real, are not insurmountable. Flexibility for the frontline is increasingly a question of “when”, not “if”, as employee expectations shift and the business case for FWAs strengthens. Clear communication, robust digital infrastructure and results-based accountability can address issues of collaboration, resource constraints and supervision that arise with flexibility. FWAs have significant benefits, but success is far from guaranteed and often depends on organisational conditions. Inadequate infrastructure, cultural resistance, staff shortages or limited digital availability can all undermine their adoption.

The predominance of health sector studies offers valuable guidance into the implementation and outcomes of FWAs for frontline workers. The strategies and lessons identified, such as self-scheduling, digital tools and flexible training, are highly transferable to other frontline contexts. Sectors like retail, manufacturing and construction, which similarly rely on physically present, task-oriented labour, can leverage these findings to enhance workforce resilience, improve employee satisfaction and sustain productivity under varying work conditions. However, it entails delicate attention to sector-specific subtleties of working, a domain of emerging research that requires emphasis.

A key practical implication is the need to avoid the “out of reach” trap, where organisations hesitate to introduce FWAs due to current resourcing constraints, yet the lack of flexibility itself contributes to ongoing staffing shortages. Start with small-scale pilots in well-resourced teams and then gradually expand as benefits become evident and organisational confidence grows.

In summary, successful implementation of FWAs for frontline workers requires a balanced approach, where strategies are continuously refined to maximise benefits while proactively addressing emerging challenges.

Despite thorough searches across the academic databases, there is still a chance that some relevant studies were left out. This could be due to the large amount of literature, inconsistent indexing or publication bias. Although no formal quality appraisal tool (e.g. CASP, AMSTAR and MMAT) was applied, study quality was indirectly addressed through strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. These steps aimed to reduce bias in the synthesis and interpretation of findings; however, the potential exclusion of grey literature or studies in non-English languages remains a limitation.

Another limitation is that most studies come from the healthcare sector and a limited number of countries. While these sources provided useful insights into the benefits, challenges and strategies for implementing FWAs for frontline workers, they may not show the full diversity across different sectors and contexts. Future research should strive to include a wider range of sectors and cultural contexts to better capture the differences in FWA adoption and outcomes. Comparative studies across various industries or long-term studies looking at changing FWA practices could also offer greater insights into the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of these arrangements.