Management: Flexible Work Schedules

[SmoothJazz]

I manage 15 people in a middle-manager role for a smallish public agency. Over the past 5-6 years of management experience (and about another 8 as line staff) I have seen the increasing trend toward flexible working hours and its results on the workplace.

I should say at the outset that I am not necessarily "anti-flex" simply because it makes a lot of sense on paper. I myself have a young son and with my wife and I both working understand that leaving during the day or having a day at home occassionally I can be productive with work duties and still attend to my family. When you add in the benefits of less cost for commute and reduced costs for the employer it makes a lot of sense.

But in practice, I've found the reality is a lot different. People being people, over time the "flex day" becomes a day off that is owed to them, no matter what policies say. The employees who "telecommute" once a week probably work 25% of the time (at least in my experience). The theory I've heard espoused over and over is that people would gather personal, medical and other appointments on their flex day, but I find this is rarely the case, people tend to take time off for sick time, medical appointments and other reasons just the same. The example I like to use is that you can't ask an employee to let their car break down on the flex day.

I'm sure we've had experience with the 9/80's, 4/10's, telecommute and other flexible schedules, but as a manager today I can say I've been hesitant to allow my employees to do so. Yes, I will be honest, one of the reasons is that it takes a LOT of my time to manage an employee who has a flexible schedule or telecommute schedule and ensure she is doing her work and has specific deliverables. The investment of my time, I've found, doesn't provide an equal tangible benefit to me or my organization.

Again, people being people, they tend to seek the most benefit for themselves with the least amount of work, and that tends to result in them taking advantage of these types of schedules, and quite often seeking even more time away from the office.

Whether or not it hurts the organization as a whole is difficult (if not impossible) to quantify, but it certainly hasn't shown me any tangible benefit in productivity. If anything I feel like it decreases productivity.

I'm curious though what you've seen in your workplaces and what works well and doesn't work well for flexible scheduling.

 

[daenku32]

When I had my salaried position the work schedule was extremely non-flexible. Ended up having to quit the job to continue with my schooling.

Althought I haven't worked as a manager, I would expect a decent manager to look for the results of the labor rather than how many hours they have worked. If you have a team, and you know what their respective duties are (which is something I did not see often in my job) then the results should speak for themselves.

 

[Pantaz]

Do your employees have specified goals or deadlines?

Your "people being people" phrase engenders some sweeping generalizations. I have worked with, supervised, and managed people that are self-motivating, people that only do the bare minimum required, and people that fall in-between. I tend to get the best results by providing individuals with specific expectations. For example, "I need that testing report Friday, before you leave." The self-motivators tend to finish well before deadline, the slackers scramble at the last minute. One caveat being the first time a slacker is given a hard deadline they may fail, believing the deadline is flexible.

The more reliable folks typically need less direction. I could simply hand them a project and a general target, ("They want this in Production next week"), and know it would be ready.

I haven't had to operate with corporate mandated flex-time rules. At the largest company where I had management responsibilities, my department director was relatively hands-off, so I had considerable discretion in my handling of employee's daily activities. I occasionally had to smooth things over with HR concerning "unusual" time cards, but it always worked out.

 

[madurobob]

The employees who "telecommute" once a week probably work 25% of the time (at least in my experience).

Whoa, really? What line of work? My experience has been exactly the opposite, at least with regards to telecommuting. I work in finance and operations management (of professional SW developers). The transition to telecommuting can take a little hand-holding, both for the employee and the manager, but we find we generally get 150% of the work output from telecommuting employees. One of the reasons being there is no obvious hard start/stop to the day - no morning commute to signal the start of the work day, no 5:00 exodus to the parking lot to signal the end. If you think of something in the middle of the night, you walk into your office and deal with it while its fresh in you mind.

We actively encourage seasoned employees to telecommute at least some of the time. New hires come to the office to establish rapport, put faces to names & voices, etc...

As for flexible hours - I've dealt with a few employees who did this for a while with no problems. But, this is a very solutions-oriented line of work with very little old school micro-management. As long as the work is done, the deadlines met and the deliverables complete you can keep (almost) whatever hours you want. I'm sure the story is different with a different workforce.

 

[Dinwar]

A lot of this depends on the type of work. I mean, my manager has no idea what I do from day to day--unless there's a problem, she generally won't see me for weeks. I have a lot of other people that come to me for help with things, and I get my work that way. And as long as the work gets done (we have very specific deliverables on very non-flexable deadlines) no one cares if I use some PTO I've built up to take the dog to the vet or something. Particularly not after a week in the field, where I put in 12 hours a day that I can charge for and another 6 I can't.

Now, if you're a factory worker, yeah, you're on the line 8 hours a day. Sucks, but that's the nature of the job.

We actively encourage seasoned employees to telecommute at least some of the time. New hires come to the office to establish rapport, put faces to names & voices, etc...

Same with my company. Once you get to a certain level, being in the office doesn't make much sense. We do a lot of environmental work as well, and let's face it, an environmental company looks good when they can lower their carbon footprint or whatever.

Yes, I will be honest, one of the reasons is that it takes a LOT of my time to manage an employee who has a flexible schedule or telecommute schedule and ensure she is doing her work and has specific deliverables. The investment of my time, I've found, doesn't provide an equal tangible benefit to me or my organization.

I think if my manager said that to me I'd be talking to HR immediately. I'm not a kid. I've been responsible for a fairly large crew before, working in high-risk situations (drilling on military bases=not fun....I used to not sleep, worrying about white phosphorous and fiber optic cables). I don't need a manager holding my hand. And in my line of work, they CAN'T hold my hand--none of the managers I have (office manager or various project managers) understand what I do well enough TO hold my hand. The senior guy in my field does, and we talk all the time, but it's less hand-holding and more "Okay, I've got this, if you'll take that, and I have a question about this over here..." I'm there to do my work, work that I'm payed to do because, quite literally, no one else in the company can do. Hand-holding of any sort is going to end badly.

Of course, again, different jobs have different requirements.

 

[SmoothJazz]

I certainly understand a lot of the responses. One of the things that is most interesting to me is finding out the environments where this does work, because as I said I'd very much like to do it.

My suspicion is that the level of dysfunction in my organization, coupled with my own shortcomings, makes this unworkable. I could be the typical boss and say, "Ah it'll never work....these idiots around here..." but if I'm being honest with myself I know it's also some failing of mine as well.

Essentially my employees help consumers of public funds....they provide technical assistance, process paperwork, etc. I'd say about 45% of the job is more clerical, 25% analytical and 30% providing education and problem-solving assistance to customers both internal and external. I know, that's probably not specific enough to help but best I can do at this hour...

What seems to be most common among areas where telecommuting and flexible hours work is a consistent set of defined deliverables. That typically works for us for say 60% of our daily work, but the rest is left to the whim of (as I mentioned) a pretty dysfunctional group of internal stakeholders whose decisions and work (or lack thereof) impact our deliverables and timelines pretty significantly.

Add to the mix the disappointing human element of the boss that strolls through the office and shares his "concern" with myself and another manager that "nobody was up here when I came through at 4:45..." Well yes, it's great to SAY we only care about if the work gets done, but I've found very few people in positions of authority who can actually behave as if they do...

 

[rwguinn]

Some types of work are "telecommuting friendly", others are not. In the government sector, many are not.
The service parts-DMV, HHS, unemployment office, County Clerk, etc-- for example, would not be; you have to deal with the public, face-to-face, answer questions, and move pieces of paper around. you need a minimum number of people on-site every day.
If you are managing investments for retirement funds, overseeing capital improvements, and that sort of thing, telecommuting is almost a necessity.