Which sounds like a more successful business to you – one that understands that offering flexible working practices is vital to attracting and retaining employees, or one that views the number of hours an employee sits at their desk (regardless of what they are actually doing) as a key performance indicator? You could be doing anything from legitimate work to paying your electricity bill online or emailing your best friend - so long as you are “present”, you are a good worker – right?
Once upon a time, this was the philosophy the vast majority of companies believed in and supported. Clock in, clock out. Yet the increasing adoption of “telecommuting” practices in large and small businesses has proven to be a success for both employer and employee, provided it is properly policed and respected. Allowing staff to work flexible hours has offered a generous return for companies – happier, healthier people committed to delivering set outcomes for themselves and their bosses.
The challenge is to turn around the thinking of those companies whose culture refuses to enter the 21st century and the demands it has brought with it. Some are so obsessed with staff physically being in the office within set “business hours” that they lose sight of whether this is actually improving productivity and their bottom line – has the employee who works through their lunch hour really achieved more than the person who has chosen to take the appropriate mental break? It is often not really assessed for fear of the results!
This attitude contributes to the overall culture, atmosphere and morale of staff - the smarter employees of these less flexible companies have figured out that if they simply sit at their desk for an extra fifteen minutes every afternoon, just showing the semblance of attention, they can gain bonus brownie points with the boss. They are really just surfing the Internet but so long as they “look busy” who is to know?
So then, is it fair to accuse those who work best as a telecommuter of being less committed and focused? Surely they spend their time hanging out the washing, not answering emails! Many research studies have found that sitting at your desk for 10 hours straight does not necessarily mean you achieve more than the person who has only worked half that time. It’s common sense really and the way life is- the less time you have, the more productive you have to be.
RECOMMENDED READINGS
“Telecommuting anyone?”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/telecommuting-anyone/2006/10/18/1160851001037.html
Printer friendly version
Comments
The market will decide
If firms can save money and have happier and more productive workforces by allowing more people to work at home then they'll have lower costs and better margins than their competition. Most productivity growth is from old firms going out of business and new, more efficient firms, taking their place. Firms that refuse to enter the twenty first century will die. The reason managers don't like home working is that it leaves them nothing to do. Individuals can manage their time better than managers and, so long as they hit their deadlines, will do so more efficiently. A firm with lots of home workers needs fewer managers - which is why managers try to keep workers in the office.
If it doesn't matter how, or exactly when work is done, so long as a deadline is met, then homeworking is the way of the future for everyone who works behind a computer all day. In the end though people without children, e.g. men, like going to the office, they have friends and a structure there they'd lack at home. For that reason alone home working will never take over completely.