Flexible work was supposed to free employees from the office. It may have made the workday harder to end.
A laptop can close at 6 p.m., while work keeps coming in via Slack. The office WhatsApp group can light up over dinner. A manager in New York can send a perfectly reasonable morning request that reaches a colleague in Singapore late at night.
None of these messages has to say, “Reply immediately.” The notification itself can create that expectation.
That is why the right to disconnect is becoming a serious management question rather than simply an employee benefit. The challenge is not whether businesses should stop communicating after 5 p.m. Global companies cannot work that way.
The harder question is whether employees should be expected to remain psychologically available simply because technology makes them reachable.
The Flexible Workday Is Quietly Becoming the Endless Workday
Digital tools removed many useful boundaries along with the inconvenient ones.
Employees gained more freedom over where and sometimes when they worked. But the same tools that made flexible work possible also made it extremely easy to extend work into mornings, evenings, and weekends.
Microsoft’s 2025 Work Trend Index found that chats outside the traditional 9-to-5 workday had risen 15% year over year, with employees receiving an average of 58 messages before or after regular working hours. Meetings after 8 p.m. were also up 16%, partly because more teams now operate across time zones.
The problem continues during the workday. Microsoft found employees were interrupted by meetings, emails or chats roughly every two minutes during core working hours, while 48% described their work as chaotic and fragmented.
Now extend that communication pattern beyond working hours. The result is not necessarily more productive work. It is a workday without a clear finishing point.
Right to Disconnect Does Not Mean Nobody Can Send a Message
The right-to-disconnect debate is often more practical than it sounds.
The question is not whether employees should ignore every message after work, or whether managers should expect instant replies at any hour. The real issue is deciding what genuinely needs attention and what can wait.
Australia takes a more balanced approach. Its rules allow employees to ignore work-related contact outside normal hours when refusing would be reasonable. That judgement can depend on the reason for the contact, how disruptive it is, the employee’s role, and whether being available is part of their pay.
A major system failure may justify calling a senior technology leader late at night. Asking an analyst to review slides for next week probably does not.
Clear policies should help employees know the difference without having to guess
Global Teams Need Rules, Not Permanent Availability
Global teams make after-hours communication more complicated because someone, somewhere, is usually still working.
A manager in London may send a message at the end of the day. It reaches a colleague in California during office hours, but someone in India may see it late at night.
The problem is not the message itself. It is the assumption that sending it also creates an immediate obligation to reply.
Teams can avoid that by setting a clear rule: people can send messages when it suits them, but responses are expected during the recipient’s normal working hours unless the issue is urgent.
Delayed-send tools can help with routine communication. For genuine emergencies, use a separate route such as a phone call.
Employees should not have to guess whether every notification needs an immediate response.
Europe and Australia Are Turning Disconnection Into a Policy Issue
Governments are starting to treat after-hours availability as a workplace issue, not just a personal preference.
Eurofound reported in 2026 that 13 EU member states had introduced some form of right-to-disconnect rules, including France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Luxembourg. The details differ from country to country. Some rules apply across much of the private sector, while others are aimed mainly at remote and teleworking arrangements.
There is still no single EU-wide law that creates a specific right to disconnect, but the issue remains part of wider discussions around remote work and working conditions.
Australia has taken a broader approach. Its rules began applying to larger employers in August 2024 and were extended to small businesses in August 2025.
The wider point is difficult to ignore. If governments feel the need to define when employees can stop answering work messages, many companies may already have allowed availability to become an expectation rather than a choice.
The Real Problem Is Usually Manager Behaviour
Companies often respond to communication overload by writing another policy. That will not help much if managers continue rewarding the people who reply fastest at night.
Employees learn workplace expectations from behaviour, not employee handbooks.
Imagine two workers receive the same 9:30 p.m. message. One replies immediately. The other responds at 9 a.m. If the first person is repeatedly praised for being “committed” while the second is quietly judged as less responsive, the company has created an after-hours rule without ever writing one.
Managers should make expectations explicit. Tell employees which roles genuinely require availability. Define what qualifies as urgent. Establish reasonable response windows. Make sure people taking leave know whether they are actually expected to disconnect.
And managers should examine their own habits. A leader may send late-night messages because that is when they prefer to work. Employees may interpret those messages as instructions to work late. Intent does not erase the signal.
A Better Right-to-Disconnect Policy Starts With Four Questions
Companies do not need to ban after-hours messages to create healthier boundaries. They need answers to four practical questions:
When is a response actually expected?
“Whenever you see it” is not a policy.
What qualifies as urgent?
Customer emergencies, safety problems, and critical outages are different from ordinary updates.
Who is genuinely on call?
If availability is part of someone’s job, define it and compensate it appropriately rather than relying on informal goodwill.
Which channel should be used?
A true emergency should not look identical to a routine message buried among 40 WhatsApp notifications.
These rules become even more important for founders and senior executives. Leaders often have greater control over their own hours, but employees further down the organisation may not feel they have the same freedom to ignore a message from the boss.
A message that feels optional to the sender can feel compulsory to the person receiving it.
Good Flexibility Should Give Employees More Control
The right to disconnect is not about forcing everyone into the same working hours.
Some employees prefer to answer emails in the evening so they can handle personal responsibilities earlier in the day. Others are more productive in the morning. Global teams also need some overlap across time zones and occasional flexibility when something urgent comes up.
That is flexible work. Being expected to stay reachable all the time is different. The real issue is control.
Employees should know when their day is finished, when a late message truly needs attention, and when it can wait.
Technology makes constant contact easy. Leaders still have to decide when contact is actually necessary.
Stay connected with Business Herald for the latest business news, insights, and updates.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
Join our growing community on WhatsApp and Telegram for real-time updates delivered directly to you.
