Employers that understand the concept of flex hours seem to get it.
But it's a big leap for a lot of companies. It requires placing faith in employees and hoping for the best from them (i.e., that they'll tailor their schedules to their peak performance hours), rather than mistrusting them and fearing the worst (i.e., that they'll just slack off).
Incidentally, companies entrenched in that latter mindset -- those that fear the worst from their employees -- usually end up getting the worst from their employees. So it becomes a vicious cycle: company treats employees like dirt; employees feel demotivated; company sees demotivated employees and decides its lack of faith in them is justified; rinse and repeat.
It requires placing faith in employees and hoping for the best from them
This seems completely ridiculous to me, as do some of the replies. The idea that you don't know whether or not you're getting the employee's 'best' or if the employee is 'slacking off' is frankly your problem at best. More accurately, it's irrelevant.
I think this is one of the ideas that remote work can help improve. I'd like to be paid for the value of my work, not for your impression of the amount of my potential that I appear to be exercising in your favor... and that's what it is, right? If the employee is in the office you determine whether he/she is 'slacking off' by whether you see them browsing facebook (or HN?)... That's a flawed way to evaluate someone's worth as your employee. I find it interesting and compelling that remote employment forces us to change that dynamic.
I don't think you and I are in any general disagreement here.
Perhaps I should clarify: when I say that adopting flex time requires a leap of faith for certain companies, I'm simply making an observation. I don't condone that mindset. In fact, I think it's every bit as ridiculous and antiquated as you do. But a lot of employers are old-school that way: they don't trust their employees, and opening up to a concept like flex time is inherently going to require a bit of a leap of faith for them.
My entire point was that such companies -- as it so happens, a lot of companies -- still view their employees from an inherent place of mistrust or wariness. Yes, it's their problem. And yes, it will prevent them from getting the best and brightest. No argument there. I was simply pointing out that such a mindset exists and that it is still fairly prevalent. I was not in any way justifying it or lending credence to it.
In a perfect world, I agree: it should not have to be a leap of faith. But in the world as it exists, it's still a big jump for many, many employers.
Gotcha, totally. Sorry for misinterpreting your observation as agreement :)
You're right, it's rampant and in some markets it's hard to find an opportunity to work for a company while avoiding this kind of attitude. Shame. I've thought a lot about turning to contracting to 'solve' this problem. I'd rather have a dispassionate agreement based on what I think an hour of my time is worth than a personal one about how much of my available time I'm giving to an employer incapable or uninterested in evaluating my work product.
Fortunately, at present I'm on a ridiculously amazing team at an awesome startup and this isn't a problem I'm currently faced with.. but I've seen quite a bit of it in the past, and I expect to come across more in the future.
I run a software company. I was, in a previous life, a programmer.
I do not judge employee worth by whether or not I can see them working/goofing off. I judge them by whether or not they produce the goods on time and to spec.
That said I have a remote worker and it is a constant battle to see whether or not I am getting what I need out of him. He is poor at communications and so the rest of the team feel as if they do not know what he is doing at any time (so they assume, in the absence of any other data, that he is not pulling his weight).
I am sure that he works long hours and does indeed try to produce the goods but that doesn't take away the perception (if he cannot be contacted at 1000 people assume he is still in bed (and he might be for all I know)). If he comes into the office and spends time talking to people they see it as interference (with a dollop of "why is he sat here chatting to me instead of getting on with the work we are trying to complete").
I think it takes a very disciplined person to work remotely and those disciplines are: working at home as if you were going to the office; be fanatical about communicating with your colleagues; make sure everyone knows what your routine is (if it isn't the same as theirs) so that they understand why you cannot be contacted at 1000 in the morning.
I think it's important to make the distinction between remote employees and remote teams. I think having a remote employee or two on a non-remote team is a challenge... I don't think the qualities required to work remotely are all that rare or require that much discipline. You could argue that it requires loads of discipline to come into work every day.. but you wouldn't, because it's second nature to us.. because we're judged on showing up.
Anyways, like I said.. being a remote worker on a non-remote team is pretty tricky. I've dealt with this challenge in the past and the best advice I can give is to allow/encourage your local employees to telecommute occasionally. The last team I was on that dealt with that virtually everyone started working from home one day a week and the group pretty quickly started adapting to different practices in terms of communication, expectations, and handing off work products. Was really beneficial all the way around, and it makes the odd completely-remote employee way less of a perceived rogue.
The problem is that most people will slack off. To work remotely, you almost have to have the same discipline that you do when you work for yourself. Most people don't have this type of discipline.
This isn't much different than many people who go to an office each day. The problem is the management/job that puts attendance over performance. If employers would put performance over all else, it wouldn't matter where someone worked as long as the work was done.
This is true. So it requires managers who, well, manage their teams and allow flex-time/remote privileges appropriately. That's how my employer works--do you get your work done while working remotely or at different hours? Great. Keep it up. Does it seem you're slacking off? In that case, you are going to be asked to adjust your schedule for awhile to get back on track.
True, but that's why flex time and/or remote work should be a two-way street. Almost an unwritten, social contract of sorts. In exchange for the flexibility and freedom to work in a self-directed fashion, the employee must demonstrate that he or she performs under self-direction.
Flex hours/location isn't for everyone. Personally speaking, I believe companies should offer it to everyone and not necessarily restrict it...BUT...let the buyer beware, so to speak. If an employee wants to take up a customized schedule, he or she had better be prepared to do good work under it.
Does anyone know where I could find resources (case studies, testimonials, etc) to promote remote work? 'Hard' data would certainly help convince the boss. Stories like this are great, but they'll need more concrete evidence to back it up.
It's not directly on remote work, but I just finished reading "Why Work Sucks and How To Fix It", written by two of the people that helped institute Best Buy's Results Only Work Environment (ROWE). It's a great summary of ROWE, a lot of the troubles they had with corporate culture and perception, as well as ways to make an argument for ROWE in your own workplace.
lately there's been a big push in the US government for an increase in teleworking. if you need specific examples, a 2010 telework report is available on this page: http://www.telework.gov/. There may be other public studies too with some hard data in them.
full disclosure: i work at www.lifesize.com and we do eat our own dog food. One of my team members has been working remotely in another state for several months and many of our team often work from home.
But it's a big leap for a lot of companies. It requires placing faith in employees and hoping for the best from them (i.e., that they'll tailor their schedules to their peak performance hours), rather than mistrusting them and fearing the worst (i.e., that they'll just slack off).
Incidentally, companies entrenched in that latter mindset -- those that fear the worst from their employees -- usually end up getting the worst from their employees. So it becomes a vicious cycle: company treats employees like dirt; employees feel demotivated; company sees demotivated employees and decides its lack of faith in them is justified; rinse and repeat.