Richard Branson recently released a letter stating he would be following the Netflix employee leave policy - there would be no limit on the leave his employees want to take, as long as they make sure they've taken care of their responsibilities. This policy from two forward-thinking companies is diametrically opposed to the prevailing thinking today that staff needs to be monitored and kept track of.
Conducting a Google search for 'monitoring staff' will reveal a wealth of articles on 'Five steps to...' and 'Three tips for legally and ethically...'. Technology has provided employers with a wealth of ways to keep tabs on the people who work for them - from relatively simple door tags to complex keyboard-logging and analysis.
If you're Big Brother, the surveillance playthings that fill your technical toy box are extensive, effective and powerful. The only problem is that, like so many technological solutions that have gone before, the potential for dehumanising your workforce is vast. It becomes easy to see each individual as a cog in a machine, constantly being monitored for performance errors or downtime.
Even worse, having such monitoring technologies in place sends a clear message to your staff that you don't trust them. "The traditional understanding in South Africa is that people need to be monitored because they're intrinsically lazy," says Rod Charlton, a performance psychologist who specialises in creating high-performance cultures. "While this approach has certain merits, generally speaking, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy."
Keeping track of time
He says what managers expect will be reaffirmed through what they notice, placing them in the comfortable position of being able to say, 'I told you so'. At the same time, any evidence that contradicts expectation will be seen as the exception. This becomes a problem in the workplace. "People are motivated by the way they're treated and influenced by what people believe about them," he says.
Obviously, there are certain environments in which monitoring staff activity is necessary. For instance, in the legal profession, in which clients are billed for every minute spent on their case, research carried out and faxes sent, it's necessary to keep track of the minutiae of what every legal secretary does. The distinction here, though, is that the monitoring takes place for a specific functional reason, rather than because staff isn't trusted.
Says Grant Finnemore, CEO of Java developer collective Guruhut, who is both a user and creator of timekeeping solutions. "We have to have a timekeeping solution in place because our developers are usually contracted out to large clients and work at their premise. We're also flexible about starting and ending times, as long as the job is done, but, of course, we need to keep track of all of this so we can bill."
We should focus on what people get done, not on how many hours or days worked. Just as we don't have a nine-to-five policy, we don't need a vacation policy.
Netflix
Finnemore found that all the timekeeping products he and his team tried out were overly complex and not user-friendly. Eventually they developed their own, crono.biz, and began selling it on to clients. "By using it ourselves, and by implementing it at clients' offices, we learnt a lot of valuable lessons about how to roll out a time-monitoring solution," he says.
Keep systems lean
The one key finding is that there is always initial resistance. Finnemore points out that it's vitally important that employers communicate the reason why a monitoring solution is being implemented. "If you explain to your staff that timekeeping is essential for accurate billing and ultimately the company's profitability, it's easier for them to come to terms with it."
He adds, however, that if the reason is only that you want to monitor their time and performance, they're going to feel mistrusted. "If you've employed people you have faith in, you shouldn't have to keep tabs on what they're doing every second of the day," he says. "That kind of trust shows, and people want to continue to earn it."
He says it's also important not to bog people down in unnecessary bureaucracy. "People will resist using a system that takes too long, is too clunky, and has endless complex job codes and multiple fields. Whatever solution you're using, make sure you only ask your staff for the minimum information you need, so that timekeeping becomes an easy task rather than an onerous chore."
Charlton adds that software can never replace good leadership. "If people understand that compliance is for their own good, for instance in the case of security procedures and checks, they'll go out of their way to comply and make sure their environment is safe."
Charlton even believes that monitoring hours isn't a meaningful approach to staff management, because the same person can have very different outputs in two different hours in two different locations or on two different days. "What's more significant is the move towards energy management as much more important than time management."
A focus on output
To a certain extent, this echoes Netflix's policy: 'We should focus on what people get done, not on how many hours or days worked. Just as we don't have a nine-to-five policy, we don't need a vacation policy.'
Of course, while energy management and output measurement may be better ways to get the most out of staff, these metrics are difficult to measure, so the corporate world will probably be stuck in a per-hour billing structure for many years to come. Managers should simply be sure that any staff monitoring they do carry out is for the right reasons.
First published in the November 2014 issue of ITWeb Brainstorm magazine.
Share