There has been a lot of news and comment recently about Yahoo CEO
Marissa Mayer's new policy of requiring all its workers to work from the
office. People have commented that perhaps this is a way of
"right-sizing" the company. Apparently many of the workers are pretty
much permanently working from home.
It is a subject close to my heart - I
used to work at an organisation that was very much mission orientated -
even junior managers applied large amounts of discretion when people
needed to work from home. Indeed it was frequently a management tool - a
solid day at home can accomplish quantities of work that take weeks in
the office - for example in preparing a design document, strategy or any
other thought intensive task that is frequently disturbed at work!
Talking to friends it seems sadly that many organisations are becoming more
draconian in their outlook.
I do agree with the statements made by Yahoo that meeting colleagues
known and unknown is a fruitful process that generates cooperation and
ideas. But, let's be honest it also generates useless conversation about
last night's sport, next weekend's plans or the state of snow on the
ski slope. Clearly, these are important human interactions that make
life and work more pleasant - but, they can be missed occasionally in
the interests of concentrated work.
I also think that managers need to
cleverly manage their workers wherever they are located to get the best
return on their investment - this is probably "easier" in the perception
of many weak managers if the worker is chained in their cubicle.
However, I am a firm believer in the value of working from home.
First and foremost, our workers are the key differentiator that we
put into our products. In return for asking them for the extra
commitment to make a real difference; this means being sensitive to
their needs. If I need them to put in extra time to simply make it
happen, then I should allow them to do so from home (assuming no
security concerns and practical issues.) In addition, if the same worker needs to spend time
at home a few days later with their kids, getting the washing machine
fixed, or just to avoid rush hour commuting then I need to offer (within
reason) the same flexibility that I asked of them when it was convenient for me. My employees will only go the extra mile
if I understand that there is a two way process - or if I pay them so
much that.... but this is not going to happen! (In fact it is almost
impossible - we always want more.)
I need to trust my workers - their potential to do damage with poor
product design, a mistake in front of t he customer is well above their
hourly or even annual wage. I need to train, encourage and trust them as
their manager - so if I trust them with a few millions of sales or
company assets I can probably trust them not to fiddle a few hours of
timesheets. Guess what - if they under perform then I need to correct
and perhaps eventually fire them - independent of where they work. I need to give them clear productivity targets and KPIs and the tools and the guidance to achieve on time and with high quality.
As
their manager I need to develop a greater skill set if they are not down
the corridor, that is a challenge not a threat - I will be a better
manager in a whole variety of ways and circumstances. In fact I need to show then my leadership and not my weakness.
We live in the twenty first century! This has many impacts. It wouldn't do
any harm at all if companies reduced their carbon footprint by saving
commuter travels. By the way it saves them quite a lot - if this is a
company car then there is a direct saving in fuel and clever use of
corporate space also cuts down on rentals, heat light etc. This can be
serious money.
There are other elements of the 21st century that impact the debate.
There are endless amounts of technology and products designed just to
make it possible to work in teams even remotely. I know this, because
all companies I have ever worked for expect us to use these technologies
when we are traveling for business. Late at night, jet lagged and
exhausted we try and keep up with the "day job" just so we don't get too
behind and stop other projects because we are not around. On the other
hand, sadly in the 21st century there are plenty of distractions in the
office. Poor workers will waste their time and those of their fellow
workers only too easily. Our job is always to challenge them to do
better.
Working from home removes workspace distractions - no sport, no
accidental team sessions by the water cooler, no pointless meetings
where nobody is very clear why we are meeting and what we plan to
achieve (apart from discussing current events). Most importantly it
provides the space in time and place to really get some concentrated
work done and hit my targets.
So in short - working from home can have tremendous upside in terms
of worker respect and work achieved. It can also save the company
substantial expenses and increase employee happiness. Sure it can be
abused and sure their are distractions at home - but we need to judge
each person by their results and not by corporate dogma. As managers we
need to recognise that like most things there are pros and cons and that there are different people out there with their own needs and their own contribution - we
need to work with our teams to make sure that we get the most from our
policy; it isn't right for every person in every job function every day -
but it works for many people in many situations.
We need to embrace
working from home for our good, the company good and for the good of our
fellow workers.
