Dr Louise Ashley, Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, comments on the BBC article – Teleworking: The myth of working from home
Home working has been in the news lately, following a decision by Yahoo!’s chief executive Marissa Meyer to ban the practice for her staff. Ever since the development of technology which has enabled people to work remotely, the practice has been the subject of jokes and sometimes derision. Whilst at some organizations, home working is an accepted and legitimate part of the corporate culture, at others it is seen by employers and co-workers as a barely concealed euphemism for an unauthorised “duvet day” or time spent at home with the kids. It appears that Marissa Meyer may be in the latter camp.
In reality however, like any other management practice, working from home has both pros and cons, both for the individual worker and for the organization. A great deal of evidence can be marshalled to suggest that working from home results in greater productivity and higher commitment amongst employees. Yet similar quantities of research may also suggest the opposite. There is little doubt that certain jobs are less suited to home working than others. For example, retail, manufacturing and some jobs in the financial sector, such as City traders, require the employee’s physical presence in the workplace. Many others though require nothing more than an internet connection and a phone.
The key to this debate is of course that there is not ‘one-best-way’ to approach home working, for either an organization or an individual worker. However, a blanket ban for organizations where there are no practical barriers to home working may indicate problems not with employees but with the management style employed by that firm. This negative attitude to home working suggests that management do not trust their employees to perform their role to a high standard without close supervision. It may also reveal an emphasis on management exerting employee control rather than encouraging employee commitment. And, it may suggest a strong focus on inputs rather than outputs, or in other words a sense that the employer has bought that person’s time rather than focusing on their skills. In a vicious cycle, each of these factors may contribute to a lower level of motivation amongst employees, whether they are ‘working’ in the office or elsewhere.
Of course, home working is not for everybody. It’s not for every job, and it may not be for every day. Nevertheless, as part of the package of benefits offered to employees in many organizations, home working surely has a role. Although in the interests of balance perhaps I should reveal that I wrote this – at home.