Future of Work

UK Government Recognises Value of Flexible Working

2011-11-12T11:23:00.000Z

It seems that at long last the message might be getting through. Instead of seeing flexible working as just a ‘family friendly’ provision, a government minister has now recognized that it can also deliver massive cost savings.

Eric Pickles, the Local Government Secretary, announced this week that the government could save £15 billion per year by adopting flexible working and home working practices. He based this on a report just published by the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum chaired by Matthew Hancock MP. This group published a report in February 2011, called ‘Leaner and Greener: Delivering Effective Estate Management’, which estimated that public sector organisations could deliver £7 billion in annual savings from decreasing the space they occupy. The latest report ‘Leaner and Greener II’ adds a further £8 billion to the total, based on increased productivity.

The report and its recommendations concentrate on real estate and the way that property costs can be reduced by better utilisation and rationalisation. However it concludes that “Research shows that improvements to the workplace can enhance productivity of employees from between 5%-15%”. Using the bottom of this range they calculate that £8 billion a year can be saved from government expenditure by having more effective workplaces.

While this report is primarily focused on efficiency savings achievable through property, it adds “it is important to emphasise that the relative weightings of property and staff costs … display that the cost of human resources far outstrips property cost. In addition, evidence shows that flexible working opportunities are an important element in retaining a highly skilled workforce and lowering turnover, as employees seek employers able to provide them with work- life balance. Flexible working therefore has significant potential to not only deliver property savings, but can importantly also reduce staff costs.”

So maybe the government need to follow up with a report looking at the potential for savings based on new working practices and not just include it as an afterthought in a report about property.

Future Work - book now published

2011-11-01T20:24:00.003Z

I'm pleased to announce that I am the co-author of a great new book - "Future Work: how businesses can adapt and thrive in the new world of work". It's been almost two years since I teamed up with Alison Maitland and we embarked on this project.

Alison has a background as a journalist, having worked for the FT, and has written many articles about Flexible Working and related management issues. She has also co-written a previous book "Why women mean business". We found that the combination of our background and experience worked well in identifying the key components that contribute to new ways of working.

We decided to call the book, and the new style of working, "Future Work" to differentiate it from Flexible Working or Smart Work which come with their own baggage. We feel that Flexible Working has been too closely associated with 'family friendly' employee benefits and is seen as a burden on business. We point to many examples of Future Work which contribute to the bottom line through increased productivity, lower costs, reduced employee turnover and lower absenteeism.

We identify the 'trust and empower' culture needed to implement Future Work, based on the results of a survey of middle managers carried out for the book. We show that these managers are not happy with their current organisational culture and would like their people to have more autonomy over their working practices.

As we say in the book "We are still in the early stages of the transformation of work, largely because corporate cultures and management styles are not keeping pace with technological advances. This was why we embarked on this book: to help managers and organizations make the necessary shift to more efficient business, better lives and a healthier Earth for the next generation to inherit.
Future work is one of those rare opportunities for all-round benefit. As we have shown through numerous examples in this book, it contributes positively to the bottom line while improving the lives of workers and helping to protect our fragile ecosystem. It is not an option for business any longer. It is a matter of staying competitive."

For more information see www.futureworkbook.com

Social Media - why ban it?

2011-09-29T08:49:00.000+01:00

ACAS have recently issued guidance for employers on social networking and managing performance. They point out that the use of social media is allowing many employees to work remotely, which offers unique challenges for performance management. They also say that it blurs the distinction between work and home life, with many employees available at home and while travelling. This has led some employers to put more emphasis on managing the tasks an employee performs rather than managing the time they work.

The fact that ACAS are not saying ‘ban social media at work’ is encouraging. They point out the benefits and dangers and provide advice on the way forward for employers. They suggest that organisations should have a policy so it is clear to employees what they may, or may not, do. They also recommend that line managers have guidelines on remote/home working and that they focus on end-products rather than managing time too closely.

It does seem that some organisations are now realising that social media can be useful in supporting their business objectives and not assuming that it is all a waste of time. The latest Robert Half Technology survey of 1,400 CIO’s from the US showed that 51% of them now allow employees to use sites like Facebook and Twitter for business purposes compared with 19% in 2009. However the survey also shows that 31% ban social media completely at work and only 4% give people complete freedom.

In the UK, a recent survey of 2,500 businesses showed that 48% of them ban the use of social media completely by their employees at work. So there is a long way to go before most employers trust their people to act responsibly. In most cases the ban is introduced because managers fear that their employees will waste hours of work time chatting to friends on Facebook or tweeting away on Twitter. But the common ownership of smartphones means that the individual can quite happily tweet away from their desk without using the corporate system anyway. So what’s the next move: ask people to leave their mobile phones at the door when they come to the office?

It's Work Wise Week

2011-05-17T09:52:00.002+01:00

It's Work Wise Week in the UK this week. (May 16th - 20th) This is an interesting time to reflect on how we have progressed in the six years since the WorkWise Uk initiative was launched.

I remember being involved in the first year and the organisers coming up with a problem. The Government Minister who was due to launch the week was only available on a Wednesday. So I was one of the people who suggested that this was an opportunity to make a point and start the week on a Wednesday. By doing this it would illustrate that today's work practices are not restricted to Monday to Friday and that a lot of 'Smart Working' goes on at weekends. I see that this year it is only a Monday to Friday week and is a much scaled down affair compared with the first few years.

Does this mean that WorkWise has run its course and that everyone is now working wisely? No, definitely not. It does reflect the recession which has killed off the sponsorship of the event and made people focus more on survival than reviewing their working practices. Although, ironically, flexible working is a great way of surviving a recession. It improves productivity and creates a workforce that can be more responsive to changing customer demands. So now more than ever we need to challenge some of the outdated assumptions about work.

Why does the government insist on linking flexible working with maternity?

2011-05-16T16:51:00.003+01:00

Looking back over my previous blogs, I see that in July 2008 I pointed out the discrepancies between maternity and paternity provisions in the UK and hoped that they would get changed. Today at last I see that the government is starting a consultation process on the idea that parents can share the leave between them. see http://tiny.ly/X7gZ

This looks like a step in the right direction, but included amongst the proposals is the extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just parents and carers. Whilst this is a welcome development, one I have argued for over the years, it is a pity to see it bound up in a package of 'family friendly' provisions and still firmly in the 'employee benefit' camp. Inevitably some employers will see this as yet another imposition on business and will equate flexible working with other parental rights that are an additional burden.

In practice there is overwhelming evidence that flexible working makes people more productive, reduces absenteeism and lowers employee turnover. Let's see it promoted as good business sense that also happens to be an employee benefit, not the other way round.

To be fair to Vince Cable, he is quoted as saying "But I’m also confident that we have a good case to make on the wider benefits to business - not least from a motivated and flexible workforce and we will be making this case to employers over the next few years before these changes are introduced." However this still comes as an afterthought not the main argument.

The Book is Written

2011-05-16T15:15:00.003+01:00

I've been quiet on this blog for the past year whilst I've been busy writing a book.

I teamed up with Alison Maitland who has an excellent record as a journalist (ex - FT) and co-author of another book 'Why Women mean Business". Together we took most of a year to gather together the information and write it up. We interviewed over 60 people, mostly senior leaders in major organisations and have included many cases studies in the book. We also carried out a survey of managers to find out more about the organisational culture that they are working in and how it compares with their ideal. We asked them about the prevalence of flexible working in their business and found that there is a disctinct management culture that seems to go along with new working practices.

The result is "Future Work: how businesses can adapt and thrive in the new world of work" which will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October. It's now just a frustrating time waiting for the book to come out but meanwhile you can find out more about it at www.futureworkbook.com. This website has a discussion forum which is initially only being opened to the participants in the survey and invited guests. If however, you are interested in the future of work and how organisations need to adapt to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, then let me know and I will get you an invite.

World Cup Fever

2010-06-01T16:29:00.002+01:00

Earlier this year we had travel chaos in the UK because of a few inches of snow. Businesses closed down for several days, and industries started counting up the cost of the disruption. Then as the sun shone through we soon forgot the snow and went back to business as usual. Some people learned a lesson and thought about contingency plans for the next time it happens but many just decided we have to live with it.

Soon after this, Washington DC suffered a major blizzard and many people had difficulty getting to work. The federal government had already started a telework programme and this gave it a great boost. So on May 24 the Senate passed the Telework Enhancement Act by unanimous consent. The bill grants federal employees presumptive eligibility to telework and would require that all federal agencies establish telework policies, designate a telework manager and ensure that telework is part of continuity-of-operations planning.

As the spring arrived we encountered a different disruption to travel; this time an Icelandic volcano. Again employers were faced with people unable to travel, stuck awaiting a flight home. So the question comes up again "What do we do when this happens?". Do employees get unpaid leave, paid leave, deductions from their annual holiday allowance or a request to make up the lost time? As if this wasn't enough of a disruption to air travel, British Airways cabin crew then decide to run a series of 5 day strikes.

So by now you would assume that most employers are aware what to do when employees can't come to work. Maybe they have arrangements that allow people to work from home? Maybe they have flexible hours arrangements? Maybe they measure people by results and allow then to choose their own hours? Well, it doesn't seem so based on the latest concern - The Football World Cup. There are now concerns about how to manage absence during this tournament when key games are televised during normal working hours.

This again raises the question of what work/jobs have to be performed at a specific place and time and what work can be done flexibly to fit around the individual's personal life. Allowing people to take time off to watch a football match where possible and getting them to compensate with more work at another time seems reasonable. It hopefully removes the temptation to take sick leave on match days. Discussing this openly with employees shows that you are prepared to be flexible and it might even produce some football-hating employees who will be happy to cover for the fans!

Obama promotes flexible working

2010-04-02T11:34:00.002+01:00

This week the White House hosted a Forum on Workplace Flexibility. Michele Obama started it off giving some of her personal experiences in trying to balance family pressures and a career. There was then a panel discussion and the event ended with a great speech from the President pointing out the benefits of flexible working, not just for individuals but for employers as well.

It can all be found on YouTube ( see http://bit.ly/ObamaFlexibility )and there is a report from the Council of Economic Advisers called "The Economics of Workplace Flexibility" (http://bit.ly/WorkplaceFlexibility). The text of Barak Obama's speech can be found at http://bit.ly/ObamaWFtext.

What we need now is a similar lead from the Prime Minister in the UK and fom the EU for Europe. Promotion of new ways of working as a BUSINESS BENFIT not just a social policy.

Here are some quotes from his speech...

".. we as a society still see workplace flexibility policies as a special perk for women rather than a critical part of a workplace that can help all of us."

"And as for how this issue affects companies’ bottom lines, a report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers that we’re releasing today found that companies with flexible work arrangements can actually have lower turnover and absenteeism, and higher productivity, and healthier workers.

So let’s be clear: Workplace flexibility isn’t just a women’s issue. It’s an issue that affects the well-being of our families and the success of our businesses. It affects the strength of our economy -- whether we’ll create the workplaces and jobs of the future we need to compete in today’s global economy.

And ultimately, it reflects our priorities as a society -- our belief that no matter what each of us does for a living, caring for our loved ones and raising the next generation is the single most important job that we have. I think it’s time we started making that job a little easier for folks."

"Many of you here represent companies and workplaces that are already doing just that -- embracing telecommuting, flextime, compressed work weeks, job sharing, flexible start and end times, and helping your employees generally find quality childcare and eldercare. And if you’re doing this not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because you’ve found that what’s good for your workers and is good for your families can be good for your bottom lines and your shareholders as well, then you need to spread the word."

"And that’s why John is working ... to provide opportunities for federal employees ...to telework on a regular basis. Where regulations are in the way, we’ll see what we can do to change them. Where new technology can help, we’ll find a secure, cost-effective way to install it. Where training is needed to help managers and workers embrace this approach, we’ll adopt the best practices from the private sector."

"It’s about attracting and retaining top talent in the federal workforce and empowering them to do their jobs, and judging their success by the results that they get -- not by how many meetings they attend, or how much face-time they log, or how many hours are spent on airplanes. It’s about creating a culture where, as Martha Johnson puts it, “Work is what you do, not where you are.”"

Let's hope some of these messages get through to the Public Sector in the UK. Given the current emphasis on improving efficiency this seems like a good place to start.

Productivity of Home Working

2010-03-22T21:10:00.007Z

I've recently carried out some research into the productivity of people working at home. The results are fascinating and challenge conventional thinking about telework.

Rather than try to explain it all here you can either get the report from here or better still if you have 10 minutes to spare hear me giving a presentation with slides of the results here.

MPs' Expenses - A solution

2009-05-11T17:33:00.005+01:00

The topic of MPs' expenses has gripped the nation, or certainly given the media a timely distraction from depressing news about the recession. It seems to me that the whole idea of paying for second homes is out of line with 21st century working practices.

The argument for the allowances is that MPs have to work in two places and therefore need two homes. This might have been true in the 19th and maybe the 20th Centuries when they had to meet constituents face-to-face and also be present at Westminster. But now people can contact their MPs over the phone, meet them face to face on Skype, send them questions by email, contact them through facebook and comment on their blog. MPs are teleworkers and should be able to work satisfactorily from one base with occasional visits to the other when they have to be face-to-face.

Looking at the Commons chamber on an average day, the argument that MPs need to be ther for the debates is clearly rubbish. Except for times like PM's questions or a really close vote very few MPs are present. When they are in the building they listen for the division bell and then rush into the chamber to vote, usually following instructions from the whips.

So what we need is an Internet age work pattern for MPs. They should be able to vote remotely, engage in debates over the Internet and should keep their constituents informed by having a blog. Using video, they can hold face to face consultations and meetings and avoid excessive travel as well as second home allowances. There are plenty of people who do real jobs who have to travel to customers but who don't get a second home allowance.

But the real indication that Gordon Brown and other MPs of his generation are out of touch with the modern workplace came from his solution to the problem. He proposed an attendance allowance which would be paid for every day that an MP came into the palace of Westminster. This is 19th century thinking about work. It assumes that people can only work when they are in a particular building and completely ignores the way many people, including MPs, now organise their working lives.

To add insult to injury, Gordon Brown chose to make the announcement about this clever solution on YouTube. This is one of the new media that allow people to communicate without having to be in the same place and is an icon of 'Generation Y' who don't see why we have these antiquated work practices that are based on presenteeism.

So we can continue to try to solve the 'allowance problem' by tweaking the payments system, or we can use this opportunity to make a more fundamental change in the working practices of MPs and bring them into the Information Age. Nobody needs an allowance for a second home, because nobody needs a second home. They can have one home and stay in a hotel on expenses for those days they really need to be away. I suggest the government block books the hotel in County Hall across the river from the houses of parliament and uses that. Meanwhile MPs can set an example to the rest of the nation by using technology instead of travelling so much, thus saving the economy a fortune and saving the planet at the same time.

Peter

Business Friendly or Family Friendly?

2009-03-24T08:24:00.002Z

On April 1st in the UK we are extending the legal right to request flexible working from parents of children up to age 6 to parents of children up to 16. As someone who promotes flexible working you might think this is a time for me to celebrate but in many ways I see it as a backward step.

If we introduce rights for parents and we don't give those to other employees what does that tell us about flexible working. It is obviously seen as an employee benefit which is given to parents because they have to manage the conflicting pressures of caring for children and working for a living. It puts it firmly in the 'family friendly' category and associates it closely with maternity leave as another major imposition on business. So it is hardly surprising that many businesses see the new legislation as yet further government red tape designed to help families at the expense of productivity and effectiveness at work.

This legislation also encourages a form of discrimination in the workplace. It says that people who have caring responsibilities should be treated differently from other employees. If there is any flexibility available it should go to them and not to others. It means that employers are encouraged to make a value judgement about the personal lives of their employees, implying that rearing children is a more worthy use of people's time than other activities like playing sports or enjoying the arts. If the new right is given only to parents and carers it can result in resentment and low morale from other employees who feel left out.

But by classifying flexible working as 'family friendly' makes people assume that it is not 'business friendly'. If it is an employee right that has to be forced on employers by legislation it must be something that is a cost to business. Presumably it means that people are less productive, less reliable, less loyal and absent more often? Well, the answer is 'no', 'no', 'no' and 'no'.

All the research into the impact of flexible working practices shows that employees are MORE productive, MORE reliable, MORE loyal and have LESS absenteeism. After all there is no reason why something that is good for employees had to be bad for business. In this case it's a win-win.

People who can get a better balance between home life and work life are likely to be less stressed and to choose working times when they are able to concentrate and feel motivated. If they are able to work at home or closer to home for part of their time they may avoid time-wasting, stress-inducing commuting. It is often the case that the home offers a more productive environment for work without some of the interruptions and distractions in the office. With today's technology and broadband connections many people can do large parts of their job without leaving home.

Employees are also likely to appreciate that their employer is prepared to trust them to manage their working time and repay this trust with more effort and dedication. They are less likely to leave to join another employer and are also less likely to take days off sick. Even if they are not feeling 100% they may be able to do work at home on days they are unable to get to the office.

So any sensible employer will not just implement the divisive new legislation but will recognise that this is an opportunity to implement a win-win solution. Offering everyone the right to request flexible working is not a recipe for chaos but a way of enhancing business productivity. A recent government survey showed the 90% of the employers who have had requests from employees approved 100% of the requests. So people are not being irresponsible but are coming up with solutions that work for them and the business.

At a time of economic pressure we need to increase productivity and also retain our best people. For some businesses this will be the key to survival. If they miss out on the opportunity to use flexible working as a way of combating the recession they just may end up becoming one of the casualties.

Beyond Flexible Working

2008-09-08T08:17:00.002+01:00

Since the turn of the 21st Century we have seen a massive growth in interest in new working practices generally under the umbrella of ‘Flexible Working’. The topic has moved from being a curiosity to being a part of business strategy and from an HR issue to being the concern of all managers. But despite that evolution, flexible working is still seen as an employee benefit alongside maternity leave and other ‘family friendly’ policies. This situation is endorsed by UK legislation that gives the ‘right to request’ flexible working to parents of young children and carers for other dependents.

So ‘normal’ working patterns are still seen to be a version of the ‘fixed time and place’ model established in the Industrial revolution and perfected over the next 200 years. ‘Flexible Working’ is something that is by definition abnormal since people have to request to change to it from their existing pattern. Granting this privilege is therefore seen as a management responsibility and the UK legislation very kindly gives employers a whole list of reasons they can use for turning down an employee’s request. So there is still a fundamental assumption in our approach to work, that it has to be done at a time and place dictated by an employer and that some flexibility may be generously given to employees if the management chooses to do so.

The model of work that we are still using today is essentially based on time. If you give me your time to perform a job, I will reward you per hour. If you are a ‘part-time’ person and work less than the normal hours you will be rewarded pro-rata. In many business cultures it is expected that people will work much longer that the contracted hours and are seen to be ‘loyal’, ‘dedicated’ and ‘hard working’ so they consequently get recognised, rewarded and promoted. What we are doing is rewarding effort rather than rewarding outcomes.

Paying people by the hour is the opposite of rewarding productivity. If you work slowly to perform a task you will get paid more than if you work quickly. If my solicitor takes 2 hours to sort out my legal problem I pay her twice as much as one who fixes it in an hour. If my plumber takes three hours to fix a leak he gets paid more than the efficient one who does it in an hour. We even encourage people to slow down their rate of work during ‘normal’ hours so a job runs over into ‘unsocial’ hours and we pay a higher rate to compensate. When people are paid for a fixed number of hours per week, as is the situation for the vast majority of employees, working efficiently and completing tasks quickly simply results in being given more to do to fill up the hours.

So whilst the current trend towards ‘flexible working’ is a step towards a more sensible approach to work it still misses a fundamental point. Who is responsible for getting work done? If management divides work into jobs and allocates them to people in return for a number of hours of their labour we stay with the current ‘industrial age’ model of work. If a group of people agree what they are going to achieve then each carry out the tasks necessary to provide the results required, we have a different view of work more appropriate for the ‘information age’. So by allowing individuals to take responsibility for producing results and rewarding them for outputs not inputs we have a new approach to work. This ‘Results Only Work Environment’ or ROWE for short, has been adopted very successfully by Best Buy, a Fortune 100 company employing 140,000 people worldwide. This proves that this is not just a fad amongst a few small companies but is a serious business strategy with outstanding results.

For more information about the Best Buy experience read the book 'Why Work Sucks and How to Fix it' by Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson

Common Sense re Maternity

2008-07-21T19:17:00.002+01:00

I had the pleasure last week to attend the session run by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission where Nicola Brewer pointed out that extending the maternity rights for women was having the effect of encouraging employers to discriminate against women. At last someone has had the nerve to push back on political correctness and say something that is obvious.

I remember a couple of years ago an MEP (male) saying something similar and being immediately branded 'sexist' and out of date. Now someone else has pointed out the obvious it may be taken more seriously.

It seems to me that in an equal opportunities world we should not have such a massive difference between maternity and paternity benefits. If we have something approaching equal pay there is a 50% chance that the mother of a child is the higher earner in the relationship and for economic reasons should return to work as soon as possible leaving the father to have the major childcare responsibility.

However there are reasons other than money that will influence who takes which share of the childcare. So why not treat parents like adults and let them decide between them who takes the time (and money) for looking after a baby. Some other countries do this successfully so there is no reason why we shouldn't. It would then become more socially acceptable for fathers to become carers and some of the current gender differences and stereotypes would be eroded.

As long as we have a massive difference between maternity and paternity provisions we reinforce the steroetype of women having children and men having careers. This is a 19th century view of work which is totally inappropriate for the 21st century. Let's hope the politicians will now catch up!!

Flexible Working Good for Business

2007-06-15T12:31:00.000+01:00

This week I attended the launch of a report from the CIPD and British Chambers of Commerce entitled 'Flexible Working: Good Business' which reinforced the message that new ways of working are not just 'Family Friendly' but also good for the bottom line. The report ( http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1E768AF2-4E20-4ADC-B4A4-90E8F105FCB7/0/flexwrkgudbus.pdf ) was launched by the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, which shows that this topic is getting attention at a high level in political circles.

I pointed out to George that current legislation only gives the right to request flexible working to carers and that this gives out the wrong message (ie it is good for work-life balance not that it is good for the bottom line). I asked if a Conservative government would either remove the current right or extend it to all employees. He responded that they would not be removing the current right and that David Cameron would be making an announcement later this week about extending it.

Yesterday David Cameron made his announcement at the launch of the Equal Opportunities Commission report 'Enter the Timelords'. He stopped short of saying he would extend the right to all employees and just said he would extend it to all parents, so he hasn't quite got the message yet!! ( see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JJL4JX4DVO1PXQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/14/nparents114.xml )

However the EOC report is BRILLIANT. It's the best summary I've seen about the state of flexible working in the UK and the benefits it can bring. It splits flexible workers into four types Timelords, Remote Controllers, Shift-Shapers and Time Stretchers. It is a very readable report and despite the fact that it quotes me in several places is a very persuasive tool to promote flexible working!!

DO read it NOW ( http://www.eoc.org.uk/PDF/Transformation_timelords_report.pdf )

Peter

Flexible Work For All

2007-02-13T08:50:00.000Z

Yesterday the UK press were covering the issue of extending the legal right to request flexible working to all employees. Beverley Hughes, the Minister for Children, was suggesting changes to reflect the growing demand of people to be able to work flexibly. Her proposal is that all jobs be advertised as possible part-time or flexitime positions, unless there is a sound business case not to.

This raised objections both from the CBI representing large businesses and the Federation of Small Businesses. They are arguing that "The needs of business have got to be respected” and are making tha assumption that it is good business practice to continue with the current situation or to introduce the right for all empoloyees over a much longer period.

At present carers for young children have the right to ask if they can work flexibly, they have no right to actually get it if the employer states that it is bad for business. This right extends to other carers (eg people with elderly parents) in April.

So at the moment employers who implement the minimum legal requirement are effectively saying that they give a right to employees who are carers but not to others. So they are discriminating against people who don't have children or other dependents. They have taken the view that caring is a more valuable use of their employees personal time than say working for a charity and are prepared to adapt working practices to fit in with some employees lives and not others.

If the employee has to show that their job can still be done with a different pattern of work then why would't every employer offer this to every employee? Instead of having a division between carers and others why not give all employees the opportunity to work flexibly? By definition it will only be done in the job doesn't suffer, and the employer can define and monitor this. In fact employees who work flexibly have a better work-life balance, are less stressed and more productive than those forced to work fixed patterns. So this is a WIN-WIN, for employer and employee.

Because the Government has introduced legislation as 'Family Friendly', they have convinced business that this is good for employees and bad for business. Actually it should be introduced as 'Business Friendly' since it is a sensible way to maximise the productivity of human resources.

The suggestion that the right to request should be introduced slowly is not sensible. In any organsation there is a limit to the flexibility available for employees without the business suffering. If the first people in the queue take up the available options then the people further back will be left with little choice. It is good business sense to offer all employees the right to request now and not wait to be forced by some future legislation.

Peter

Road Charges

2006-12-16T14:41:00.000Z

I recently had a request to sign a petition about potential road charges in the UK. the email concerned said " The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly bill to use it. The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a recent study by the BBC, the lowest monthly bill was £28 for a rural florist and £194 for a delivery driver. A non working Mum who used the car to take the kids to school paid £86 in one month. On top of this massive increase in tax, you will be tracked."

Whilst I hate the idea of paying more tax, particularly when none of it will be used to improve the roads, I'm not sure I should sign the petition. If the pricing system discourages people from all travelling at the same time, in the rush hour, then it might be a good thing. Since employers are not rushing to introduce flexible working and therefore insist their employees travel at the most congested times, maybe some financial disincentive will work. I guess outraged employees will approach their bosses and ask more forcibly for the ability to flex their hours or to work some of the time from home.

There was an uproar when the congestion charge was first inroduced in London but now everyone accepts it and it has reduced the traffic jams on the roads. I guess we wil have the same objections to road charging but ultimately accept that if we insist on travelling in the rush hour we will have to pay for it.

Peter

Working in a Carbon Conscious World

2006-11-05T15:20:00.000Z

Thie week has seen the publication of the Stern Review on Global Warming. This has pointed out that we have to act now on carbon emissions and recommended that we should be investing 1% of GDP to avoid the damaging effects of continued global warming. As well as pointing to technological solutions, the report identifies that there are currently barriers to behavioural change that are preventing the take-up of energy efficiency actions. It recommends regulation and taxation as ways to change behaviour and education as a way of influencing those still at school.

One of the behaviours that is a major cause of carbon emissions is the use of transport
associated with people at work, both commuting and business travel. We have people sitting in gridlocked traffic or crammed into public transport all trying to get to work at the same time, polluting the planet and getting stressed out in the process. We have people travelling to see others face to face when there are technologies available that can substitute for a high percentage of these meetings and save wasted time as well as carbon.

The Stern report is not very explicit about the way we can change these behaviours other than through taxation that makes the cost of transport prohibitive. However there is a much more effective solution waiting to be implemented if we can only get out of some working habits we have acquired over the last 200 years. If employers are prepared to be more flexible about when and where work is performed they can significantly reduce the amount of commuting endured by their employees. If they are also prepared to embrace technologies such as video-conferencing they can save the cost and time of business travel and improve their business results as well as add to their green credentials.

So, why do we still insist that people travel to work and then sit at a desk all day when they could do much of their work from a distance electronically? We are still wed to working patterns that were set up in the Industrial Revolution and we are struggling to adopt those appropriate to the Information Revolution. The internet has changed our habits as consumers and we expect the retail sector to have extended hours but we still have a high percentage of our information workers on a nine-to-five, Monday to Friday routine. The problem is bad management.

Despite a growing body of evidence that shows that people working flexibly are more productive and despite the cost savings and reduction in employee turnover and absenteeism, managers are still reluctant to let go of the current work practices. We have a ‘presenteeism’ culture in the UK that not only expects people to be at their desk to be seen to be working but also puts us at the top of the league in working hours but well down the list in productivity. The reason for this is that managers struggle to define the output of their workers and therefore have to manage by input. If they can’t measure results at leas they can measure the hours that someone works and pay them accordingly. But to be sure people are working they have to be seen at their desk, otherwise how can managers be in control?

So the new focus on global warming through the Stern Review should be a wake-up call to all employers to review their working practices. If their employees can spend one day a week working from home, or perhaps work four longer days and take the fifth off, we can immediately save 20% of the carbon emissions from commuting (at least by car). This also has the added benefit of improved work-life balance for the employee. If employers can replace half their face-to-face meetings with audio or video conferences they will save the time and cost of unnecessary travel and find the time wasted in the meetings also reduces. But to do this, managers will need to step outside their comfort zone of watching over people while they work and empower employees to manage their own work pattern. They will need to trust that people will not abuse this freedom and should provide a motivational environment that encourages productive work not long hours.

This contribution to the carbon emissions issue does not involve painful taxes or investment in new technologies. The office technology is there already to allow people to work at a distance and communicate effectively without travelling. So this solution is good for the environment by reducing travel, good for the economy by improving productivity and good for society by improving the quality of life for employees. By moving managers into the 21st century we can make a fundamental change in the amount of travel associated with work. In a low carbon economy we are going to have to use technology to address the demands for travel and tackle one of the key causes of global warming; not just minimise the effects of the problem through lower emission technologies.

Peter

Distance Working

2006-10-24T20:52:00.000+01:00

I had an interesting discussion today with someone planning to make a TV documentary about people working from a distance. In particular they were looking at the trend towards living in France and Spain whilst still working in the UK.

Because air fares are so cheap (at least if you book well in advance) it is economical to live in the south of France and work in London, or other parts of the UK. With an increasing number of jobs involving electronic communications and a minimum of face-to-face contact it seems entirely reasonable to take advantage of better weather and a cheaper cost of living somewhere around the Mediterranean and commute back two or three times a month to the UK for meetings.

However it seems that most of the people who do this are self-employed or running their own business so they don't have a boss to answer to. Once management gets involved there are all sorts of reasons produced as to why this mode of working is totally impractical. When will organisations realise that they are only going to keep their talent if they have a broader view of how work gets done?

There is an argument that we are living in a temporary period of low air fares and they will have to rise with increasing costs of fuel and environmental taxes. But even so, the cost of traveling from France to the UK is likely to be less than 5 times more than the cost of commuting to working the UK (particularly in London). So if people only come to the office once a week instead of 5 times, they are still better off even if air prices do take off (excuse the pun!!).

But we would need to organise work so people are not expected to attend meetings at short notice. Is it just lazy management that we expect people to be available at short notice for meetings or is work so unpredictable that we cannot be organised in advance?

Peter

Video Meetings

2006-10-18T22:47:00.000+01:00

Just had a fascinating workshop at Henley entitled 'Tools to support the virtual team' where we looked at various ways that people are communicating in distributed teams. We covered Instant Messaging and other text-based media and then went on to video conferencing. Our discussion was around how these technologies can make teams/meetings more effective and contribute to the business bottom line.

There was common agreement that a lot of wasted travel time and cost could be saved in cutting back on the number of face-to-face meetings and using video instead. However there seems to be a reluctance to adopt the technologies. Is this just technophobia, which will disappear with a new generation of managers/employees coming in, or is it that the technology is just too poor a substitute for the 'real thing'? Since the technology has not been tried on a widespread basis it looks like there must be some significant inertia built into our current working habits.

With environmental pressures increasing and the cost of travel rising there will be an increasing need to look at the need for so many meetings. Why do we need to travel for one or two hours to get to meet someone in person who we can see them on a screen with out the travel?

There is a lack of good case studies and cost-benefit analyses to show why businesses need video technologies. It is often assumed that you have to invest in thousands of pounds of kit in order to use videoconferencing and then have dedicated ISDN lines. However, today I've seen a demonstration of a video meeting using broadband/internet connections with four people happily participating. This was based on Microsoft's Livemeeting so it had whiteboarding and application sharing and it was combined with Arel anywhere video software. The clever thing about this setup was that the user just needs a PC, webcam and to download two small pieces of software. They can then log in to the servers (one button operation from Outlook) and use the meeting room. As with a physical meeting room it has to be booked and costs Â£50 per hour which is comparable to the cost of renting meeting space for a face to face meeting. Or for Â£6k per year you can have your own meeting room available whenever you wish.

I think this is the future! We will all think twice aboutravelingng to meet people if we can have a virtual meeting instead. But back to the present; we need to find ways of helping people to see the potential of virtual meetings and to try working differentlyUnfortunatelyey IT suppliers are often too busexplainingng the features of the product and thedon'tnt get to talk about the benefits for the user. Also IT departments can get in the way, refusing to let video traffic through the firewall and only allowing a standard package oapplicationsns on PC's. Then there are managers who don't want to let their people work remotely and HR people putting policies in the way of progress.

Despite the inertia I reckon we will all be using video calls/meetings in 5 years time.

Peter

Age Discrimination

2006-10-16T22:21:00.000+01:00

It seems that Age Discrimination has hit the headlines in the UK recently with the introduction of legislation. Suddenly people are aware that older workers may still have something to contribute to the economy and need not be put out to graze in their 50's and 60's.

I think the emphasis is still too much on the 'fairness' issue, giving individual rights to be treated without discrimination. Employers shouldn't need to be forced by legislation to consider older workers, they should be encouraged to recognise that there is a pool of highly talented and able people who would like to work and who would be highly productive.

The problem is that older workers are often seen as more expensive than their younger colleagues. This comes from the hierarchical way we look at jobs in organisations. The longer you've been around, the more you get paid until you are eventually too expensive. There is very little opportunity to 'downshift' within organisations so people have to leave and find a 'lower level' job elsewhere.

Why can't employers encourage older employees to stay on and transition slowly to retirement over a number of years? It is ridiculous to say that one day before someone's 60th or 65th birthday they are fully employed and one day after they are no longer of any use. It is only because we have a rigid view of work that this happens.

With the demise of many pension schemes people will need to work longer to be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement. Why not have people working one or two day a week into their 80's? If they are going to live well into their 90's they will still have plenty of time for retirement! In 1948 we introduced retirement for males at 65 and females at 60. A man of 65 then would live on average for a further 12 years and now will live for 16; so to keep the length of retirement constant the state pension age should already be 69 for men. To meet our current drive for equality and have identical lengths of retirement, women should now be retiring at 72!

This is not just a financial issue. It also doesn’t make sense from a life cycle point of view. It is ridiculous that people work flat out during their 20s 30s and 40s at the same time as bringing up a family and then continue to work hard during their 40s and 50s at a time their own parents may need more care and attention. Then, just as these responsibilities disappear, they leave the workforce and enter a life of full-time leisure. Wouldn’t it make more sense if people enjoyed more time with their families during the earlier years and spread their working lives out a bit thinner. So instead of cramming work into 30 years why not spread it out over 50 or 60 and take life at a more leisurely pace?

2006-09-29T00:11:00.000+01:00

2006-09-29T00:08:00.000+01:00

Welcome

2006-09-28T23:29:00.000+01:00

Welcome to my blog where I will be giving my views on the Future of Work.

This is a subject I've been passionate about for the last 20 years, having first seen the preview of new working practices using technology back in the 70's and 80's whilst working for Digital Equipment. Now we are living in the age of mobile technology we are seeing a massive change in the way information work can be achieved. But our ability to adopt new ways of working is dependent on human factors and inertia based on 200 years of working in the Industrial Age.

In this blog I will give my views on why we are reluctant to adopt new ways of working and invite comments in response. I hope it will be a lively debate or a least people will enjoy my thoughts on the topic.

Peter