Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:12. Probably less than half of employees in my org cannot work independently, or have jobs that require they are physically present due to the nature of the job.

The idea that all, or even most, employees are capable of sustained output while at home is silly. Most employees are just that--employees. They work hard, but you must hold them accountable.

I guess this depends on the nature of your work, so I can't judge whether you are presumptuous or correct. I am a law firm lawyer and yes, we could all work from home.

10:12 here ... I would distinguish between whether you "could" all work from home and whether that would be the best way to do it. I worked from home 100% for 4 months years back due to a "sick building" situation. I "could" do it but it was isolating, did not foster teamwork and collaboration (no matter what techno aids we have), etc.

So I'm in the camp of less than 100% being optimal for most. In addition, it is very hard for the 100% teleworker to have a productive relationship with those (e.g., admin support) who cannot telework much, if at all. That also undermines cohesiveness & team building.

I'm a big supporter of telework where it works but it's the rare case where 100% telework does work.

I think some people are missing the point. This is not about 9 to 5 telework replacing the traditional in the office from 9 to 5. This is about the total separation of time from work. It's about eradicating the importance that office culture places on anything except the work and the results of that work. No more 40 hours "work" for your salary. No more justifying time away from your desk. No more keeping tabs on others' whereabouts. No more meetings where you have to say something just to show how important you are to the project.

The word really is REVOLUTION. I don't know if people get it and truly believe it can't work, or if they're too narrow-minded to grasp the completeness of the change.

For the PP whose work requires access to paper files: That is your job. You do what you have to do to deliver results. For you, that seems to mean spending at least some time in a physical office. But it does not have to mean sitting in a specific chair during specific hours. Don't you ever do any work that does NOT require access to those files? My job requires access to physical files as well as access to a secured computer terminal that sits on a desk in an office downtown. But I only need those things for about 30% of my overall job. And that 30% usually takes place at certain times in the financial cycle. It's not from 9am to 12pm Monday through Friday 52 weeks a year without fail-- it's more like a solid week at the end of each month, and a solid month at the end of the fiscal year. When I'm not doing those particular tasks, why should I be at that desk? I have a laptop and a cell phone. People who need me can reach me. I can send emails and edit reports from anywhere, at any time. As long as I get it done by deadline, why should anyone care where I was sitting when I was doing it? Yes, I go to an office. I do it when my work requires it, not on some anachronistic schedule. Not like I'm assembling widgets on a conveyor belt which is connected to a machine which sits in a factory.

And for the PP whose employees would do "fuck all" if not for her physical oversight... does that speak to the employees' abilities, or the manager's attitude and preference for control? Why is it working for other companies (like my company, for example, or all of Best Buy Corporate, where the ROWE model was developed and has been in place for years?), but it wouldn't work for your employees?

Anyway, I've rambled on too long. I just get so frustrated on behalf of posters here, and people in my real life, who stress about coming in 15 minutes late because of a drop-off snafu, or who have to squirrel away "personal leave" time in order to take their kid to the doctor. We are professionals who worked hard to earn the knowledge and credentials that qualify us to do our jobs. We beat out dozens (or hundreds!) of other candidates because we're good at what we do and we're interested in doing it. Why on earth should we be treated in a way that suggests the exact opposite, the minute we're hired?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:12. Probably less than half of employees in my org cannot work independently, or have jobs that require they are physically present due to the nature of the job.

The idea that all, or even most, employees are capable of sustained output while at home is silly. Most employees are just that--employees. They work hard, but you must hold them accountable.

I guess this depends on the nature of your work, so I can't judge whether you are presumptuous or correct. I am a law firm lawyer and yes, we could all work from home.

Lol. Used to work in a big law firm. Would say its pretty easy to measure productivity there, dontcha think? Do you comprehend that there are plenty of workplaces where it's not so easy.

Look, ladies, bleat about work life balance all you want. When the ax falls, it falls on the people you don't have to face in the office.

Varies by office. Those of us who really do embrace the culture, I dont think thats true. We laid off people last year. I worked from home 4 days a week on average. I got a $50K bonus. Sometimes, results really truly is all that matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:12. Probably less than half of employees in my org cannot work independently, or have jobs that require they are physically present due to the nature of the job.

The idea that all, or even most, employees are capable of sustained output while at home is silly. Most employees are just that--employees. They work hard, but you must hold them accountable.

I guess this depends on the nature of your work, so I can't judge whether you are presumptuous or correct. I am a law firm lawyer and yes, we could all work from home.

Lol. Used to work in a big law firm. Would say its pretty easy to measure productivity there, dontcha think? Do you comprehend that there are plenty of workplaces where it's not so easy.

Look, ladies, bleat about work life balance all you want. When the ax falls, it falls on the people you don't have to face in the office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:12. Probably less than half of employees in my org cannot work independently, or have jobs that require they are physically present due to the nature of the job.

The idea that all, or even most, employees are capable of sustained output while at home is silly. Most employees are just that--employees. They work hard, but you must hold them accountable.

OP here. Who said anything about not holding employees accountable?? They are in fact MORE accountable, because they can't point to all that dedicated coming in early and staying late to get them through a rough review. It is only the work that matters. And I think you might be surprised how many people would step up to the challenge, in order to have this level of freedom. In any case, folks CAN choose to work from the office, for the parts of their job that require that, or for the structure that it offers. In my company, I'd say three-quarters of our staff is in the office at least three days out of five, during "normal" work hours. A couple are there every day, without fail. A lot of us find it valuable to get away from the house. For my own job, I need certain physical files that live in the office, so I'm in about every other day.

Also, you will attract a better quality of employee if you show that you respect and trust them to deliver. You can get rid of those that are basically just warming a chair, and replace them with people who work.

Look, hon, there are plenty of hardworking employees who would do fuck all while teleworking. Not interested in firing them, think I will just keep them in the office and happy, instead of unemployed.

It would be difficult for me to work from home more than one or two days a week because my job (gov attorney) is very paper-centric. Many of our files are not electronic, and even if they were, we'd still have to cite to the official paper file with its tabs, page numbers, and other info that doesn't get transferred when the file is scanned. I can't haul home 6 or 7 files every day, at least not on the metro. Maybe if I drove I could do it, but I don't. And to take a week's worth of files home would be insane. Plus, I really like the office atmosphere and comparing notes with my colleagues -- probably because so much of what we do is solitary. I do like the flexible hours though. We have to do 80 hours in a 2-week period, but when we do them is largely up to us. The one thing I wish we had was the ability to split our time -- 6 hours at work and 2 hours at home in the same day, for example. We can telework, but it's an all or nothing proposition -- an entire day in the office or an entire day at home. No splitting.

For all of the objections commonly raised (the book has sections titled "Yeah, but..." to address those!) about how it wouldn't work in my industry, or how my employees wouldn't be able to handle it... I have yet to hear of a case where it has been tried and failed. Yes, some individuals will fail. (And as previous posters have demonstrated, there will be a line out the door to replace them.) But for overall productivity and bottom line, it seems to be a universal success... for those companies that have the guts to implement.

My company allows complete and total work life balance with virtually no limitations. People work from the beach, or the mountains, or even while "psuedo vacationing" at length somewhere else (i.e. people who go see family in Europe for 1 or 2 months at a time), many of us work from home 3, 4 or even 5 days a week. Myself included. I work from my beach house almost every Friday and Monday, and usually only go to the office Tuesday or Wednesday.

Hours are what you want them to be - some people work oddball hours cause that suits them, others work a more standard 9 to 5, several work split schedules - come in at 10am, work till 3pm, go home hang out with the kids, sign back on at 7m, finish up. One guy I know even spent a year working from 5pm to midnight because it suited his schedule better.

We have unlimited sick and a take what you need vacation policy. Nanny not in? No sweat. Kid sick? Stay home. Got drunk last night and feel a little hungover? Sleep in. Want to change office locations? Pick up your stuff and move across the country. Don't ask your boss, don't' even tell your boss if you don't want to. Want to live in NYC and work on a team based on Seattle? Go ahead.

People REALLY struggle with this when they first join... what do you mean I dont have to ask to take a day off? What do you mean I can come in at 10am if it suits my daughter's drop off schedule? What do you mean I can just go shopping or take a 2 hour lunch if I want to? It takes people time to accept that this is really OK....

And its how I run my team as well: I tell them that they will get zero credit for working 80 hours in the office; in fact, doing that usually raises questions about your ability to manage your time in your performance evaluations. As long as the work gets done and the results are there, no one cares. Do good work and I'll make sure you get a big fat bonus, work your ass off and achieve nothing, you'll get nothing. Results is all I care about.

And you know what? People appreciate it a ton. They feel empowered, they feel valued, they feel autonomous. They love that face time, age, and office politics are almost entirely stripped away from performance evaluations. If we have a late night because of some project, no one puts up a stink because everyone knows it just means they'll cut off a few hours early the next day, or whatever extra they put in this week, they'll get back next.

I make about $200K a year now and I figure I could make $250K if i left, but it just doesn't seem worth it.

My federal job allows telework and flex time and my manager will not approve anyone on his team to do either agency approved program. It is really bad moral but also other agencies/groups do allow it so that will be a consideration in making long term career plans.

Anonymous wrote:Well some of us can't take the work home as that is not a a place to keep sensitive information or send it over email.
I do agree with the OP that so much can be moved to a deliverable and product concept instead of face time. Unfortunately you need really good managers to structure that and be secure in letting their employees accomplish tasks without micromanaging.
On the other hand, I do enjoy the flexibility of going to a colleagues office and discussing a challenge and drawing on the whiteboard, easier than email for me but that may be the type of industry I'm in.

I agree with OP on some level. My job has peaks and valleys and depends very much on the marketplace. There are some weeks where I have barely 20 hours of work but still need to be in the office (which is why I'm able to post this right now) and other weeks where I take work home every night to do after the kids are asleep. But the bolded above is my office. I am productive when I work from home, but there are a lot of times where my team learns so much more by physically being in the same place and being able to discuss things that come up that would be more difficult to do over email, IM or phone. I have learned so much that way and I think it's really helpful for my department to be able to do.

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately you need really good managers to structure that and be secure in letting their employees accomplish tasks without micromanaging.

A good manager doesn't micromanage. A good manager should hire someone able to be trusted, keep up with workflow, and empower an employee to do their best - and to WANT to do their best.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, you will attract a better quality of employee if you show that you respect and trust them to deliver. You can get rid of those that are basically just warming a chair, and replace them with people who work.

Ding!
I'd LOVE to come work in your office!

I hate being micromanaged for the sake of my boss feeling important.
Most young employees today are not in the 9-5 mindset. Then again, neither are employers - you're paying us, in theory, for a 40 hour work week...then checking up on us over Blackberry 24/7. If you're going to trust us to be in touch outside of our "core hours" that you don't pay us for or on our vacations, why the shift in how you feel during the day?

With how connected we can all be, you can either choose to trust your employees to come to work and get their tasks done, or stay home and get their tasks done....or, you can choose to monitor your employees and ultimately make them feel like they're being babysat. That's how I feel a good part of the day.

OP, hire me!

Anonymous wrote:To the OP - your company sounds great! I'm guessing you don't want to reveal the name, but can you at least share the industry? Are you hiring?

It's a consulting/ analysis company. We're not hiring, because no one ever leaves! This, btw, leads to time/cost savings, because in the last year, we have not had to hire/ train any new employees.

Also, I will note that it's not just for the managers, senior analysts and other higher-ups. Every person in our office operates under this model, right down to the admins and the research interns.

Anonymous wrote:What the OP describes is what is called a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE). I have friends with such workplaces and they all rave about it.

Yes, we started out by having every employee read the book "Why Work Sucks (and How to Fix It)", which describes the ROWE. We tweaked the model a little, but it's essentially the same. And it's awesome. I recommend the book to any manager who has the ability to give his or her team a better environment, and isn't too controlling to allow it. There's also one for managers-- Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix it.

What the OP describes is what is called a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE). I have friends with such workplaces and they all rave about it.