

Why employees shouldn't have hours - groundCode
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130430145142-5799319-why-employees-shouldn-t-have-hours

======
ColinWright
For some companies, for some types of work, for some contexts, fine. But I'm
getting really tired of people assuming that their limited experience in their
limited world applies universally.

More importantly - be intelligent about your policies. Consider what the work
is, and how people work best. Give them the power and the responsibility to
get things done. Allow them to take control, and make sure they are well
informed about what you're trying to accomplish, and what the various external
forces might be.

But don't tell me not to set hours for my employees. I've consulted with them,
we've worked together, and for our context, with our customers, with our work,
and in our marketplace, we, together, have concluded that regular hours in the
office are the best way to work as a team and get the job done.

Your context will be different - be intelligent about your choices.

~~~
ownagefool
I would be highly suprised if you had consulted all your staff on such issues,
generally such a thing may be discussed early on when policy is set, but it's
unlikely to be reviewed after some staff churn but I'll take your word on it.

Regardless, he's aruging for something that's going against the grain, so he
doesn't need to actually give a balanced approach. We already know the
advantages and hopefully the disadvantages or working set hours, so we don't
need to hear it, we just need a strong argument for his point of view. You
don't generally route for the other side in a debate, so the complaints are
misplaced.

Also it's not surprising as an employer you feel set hours are the right
approach for you. I'm not making a judgment on you, but it's very common for
employers to make leaving at 5 O'clock very awkward and they never seem to
have a problem asking employees to do work out of hours, while generally being
very quiet about policy to get that time back.

Over the short term, abusing your employees in such a way comes with no
disadvantages, so the employers love it. Long term, the same employees will
probably become disheartened, but we live in a society where we'd rather
replace those employees and charge on ahead. If you do any of these things,
you're the type of employer the article is arguing against, if not, then your
morale is probably fine which is the real undertone of such articles.

~~~
ColinWright
We did consult all our staff, with only 25 it wasn't hard. There were
differences of opinion, but a balance was found. Further, we have no churn -
as I write this, no one has left in the last 11 years.

We are explicit about out-of-hours work, because sometimes we have engineers
in the field working in very different time zones. In those cases the staff
decide among themselves who will be providing support, and the company
policies about recompense are clear. The compensation policies were agreed by
all affected staff, and they seem genuinely content.

We take this seriously, not least because it would be possible to abuse our
position.

~~~
ownagefool
Well I'm not super suprised if you actually treat your employees right that
you don't have a lot of staff churn.

Removing abusing your employees, pay them resonably well, and give them
something to do, and you've probably removed 90% of the reasons people move
company, especially considering most employees know it probably won't be the
case if they move elsewhere.

Truly well done if that's the case, it's a shame that such a thing seems to be
the exception from my experience. :)

~~~
onemorepassword
> _such a thing seems to be the exception from my experience_

Here's an interesting thing: from my experience (and I've worked for many
companies over 25+ years) this is _not_ a rare exception.

However, such a culture absolutely requires mature, responsible, reliable and
honest employees. Maintaining such a culture requires everyone's active
effort, not just that of the boss. Companies select for that, those qualities
often carries more weight than skill or experience.

Time and time I've seen people bitching about their work environment in a way
which immediately sets of alarms about that person. I wouldn't hire them, and
I'm guessing neither would ColinWright.

Don't take this personally, I don't know you or your experience, but I think
many people who complain about good employers being rare should take a look in
the mirror.

~~~
ownagefool
I'm not taking it personally, it was a good comment, but i think you could be
off slightly. It really depends how you're finding jobs, where you're working
and how many companies you've worked for, your personality, etc.

You're from a different generation from me and you have much more experience,
so hopefully you're right. On the other hand, I think it's possible that
things have changed and the people out there who'll attempt to exploit youth
could be more common.

Personally I've been offered jobs by people I know who'll treat me right,
that's an option I didn't have when I was 20, but it's a different story now
I'm _almost_ 30. It's probably a bit of both either way though. :)

------
voyou
"It’s time to bring your company into the 19th century."

The 40-hour week isn't "a fossil" from the era of production lines; it exists
because workers fought for it.

~~~
octo_t
Fought and quite literally died for it.

~~~
sigmavirus24
I love how many people don't actually know this. Most of those same people
also hate unions because they don't realize how many of their "rights" were
earned and secured by them.

~~~
derleth
> Most of those same people also hate unions because they don't realize how
> many of their "rights" were earned and secured by them.

 _Were_ earned. _Were_ secured. Continuing to harp on the past is not a
convincing argument for current relevance.

~~~
sigmavirus24
They're the only ones fighting to defend those rights. They're also the only
reason highly political positions, like state and municipality workers, can
not be fired when the new political powers take over and want to provide
patronage.

But I guess if you willfully deal with the government as an employer, that's
your own fault, right?

~~~
derleth
I was talking about private sector unions.

~~~
sigmavirus24
Then specify that because otherwise you're attacking all unions. There are no
perfect unions. There never have been but they still play an important part in
the labor force.

------
gav
The author, Ilya Pozin, has worked in exactly 1 company that he founded for 13
years. This is not a ad hominem attack, I just don't think it's possible to
make such sweeping generalizations with such a narrow range of experience.

There's two reasons hours are useful, internal and external teamwork. Nobody
works alone, if you have somebody in 7-3 and somebody 11-7, there's a
significant period without overlap. This can be even more problematic if your
team doesn't have regular hours at all so that you can't even plan for this.

For external parties, your clients, customers, etc., you want to be responsive
to their needs. Most companies work 9-5, though timeszones can make this
tricky.

~~~
heliodor
Plenty of people say that the most productive time is when there's no one else
in the office. Four hours of overlap should be enough for a range of jobs (at
least software development). At the very least, it will force those people who
need to work together to plan. I agree that there should be a routine and
there probably is. I would think in general young urban folks would prefer to
come to work at 11am or noon while family and older folks would prefer 8 or
9am.

~~~
papsosouid
>Plenty of people say that the most productive time is when there's no one
else in the office.

Yes, but that is not inherent to having other people in the office, it is a
symptom of a bad office. Intellect workers require a quiet space where they
can work without distraction and interruption. In most offices, the only way
to get that is to be there when nobody else is there. In an office where
management isn't clueless, people could get that all the time.

~~~
heliodor
So true. I forgot there's a better way than the typical office!

------
gordaco
Yet another article asking for the abolition of the 40 hour week. It's very
telling that the article stresses disadvantages of the 9-to-5 model for the
enterprise or for getting the work done, but it doesn't list the effect,
disadvantageous or not, on employees.

And then he slips this: _After all, during a big project it’s important your
employees don’t feel inclined to exit as soon as the clock strikes 5 p.m._
Very telling; and also note that time crunching is most often caused by bad
planification than by lack of productivity.

As for the points explained, I strongly disagree with the first, the second
and especially the fourth (not only it doesn't promote teamwork, since not
every one is in the office at a given time: also, it can quickly devolve into
a race to the bottom where everyone tries to do the highest amount of hours,
which is the real productivity killer via burnout). I find the third point
dubious, although it's worth discussing.

------
nkozyra
Not to be terse, but a pretty dumb sentiment, one that generally only applies
well to small teams on small projects in office environments.

The larger the team, the greater the need for interaction between the members.
And that doesn't mean an email response 2 hours after the initial one was sent
because you just woke up.

In some very real ways, 9-5 is archaic. But it serves a purpose today - it
puts everyone in the office at the same time during hours where there's
someone to take care of children.

It's more about consistency and reliability than history.

~~~
ownagefool
It depends what kind of role you're doing, but lets pretend it's pure dev with
no real support criteria. The real reason behind being in the office, 9 times
out of 10 (made up internet stats), is because your manager doesn't know how
to gauge productivity and thus uses the bum's on seat approach.

In my experience, having a technical manager means you're much more likely to
get flexiable hours or remote working, where the manager knows they can check
on your productivity by looking at commit history and project managment tools.
Same deal might happen with non-technical managers after you have built a
relationship of trust.

Exceptions exist of course, but most everyone else doesn't have a clue what
they're doing, so they make sure you show up, tell you what to do, squeeze you
on impossible deadlines, and basically make your life miserable. It's just the
status quo where you have middle management trained to be managers without any
real knowledge in their field they are managing.

That's not to say there aren't any advantages to the 9-5, just my personal
opinion based on anecdotal experiences. :p

~~~
bluedino
> It depends what kind of role you're doing, but lets pretend it's pure dev
> with no real support criteria

How often does this happen where you're not working with a single other
person? Another developer, QA, designers, product managers...

I can see if you're working on your own startup, but if you're on a team of
people it's very unhelpful to have any one person just go off on their own for
days a time.

~~~
ownagefool
I don't know, I've been working from home primarily for the last 3 years. We
use IRC, XMPP, e-mail, version control systems, project managment software,
etc.

With all this tech, it's pretty simple for me to do something and leave it for
someone else to pickup while I sleep, as long as we both go to the effort to
do our parts properly in the first place.

Even in an office, working on a startup, I would often find myself working on
my code, while other people are working on theirs with the expectation I'll do
mine correct.

It just seems to work from my experience, though I'd still much rather prefer
to live close to work to pop in and attend meetings without it being a plane
flight away.

------
dmead
5\. I pay these people, so they shouldn't get to have lives outside the salary
i've bestowed upon them.

My employees don't understand that if i wasn't for their lazy asses we'd be
the next instagram, or reddit or whatever. the only thing standing between me
and striking a huge payday is my employees desire to not constantly be
working.

~~~
thisone
Amen.

After having been abused by employers who didn't understand why an employee
wouldn't want to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end (I'm
not exagerating here) I have a slight skepticism of people looking to abolish
a finite work week.

------
EliRivers
I look forwards to the day that shops open whenever someone happens to be
around to unlock the door and there's someone in who can work the till.
That'll work out great for everyone.

~~~
vacri
"Thank you for calling BigCo. Unfortunately our call-centre staff are all
afternoon people and won't be in until 1pm. Please call back then."

"Sorry bud, the loading dock staff get in at 5 to finish early. Can you come
to pick up the packages tomorrow, a bit earlier this time?"

"An ISP technician will come around to your house to fix the problem between
1am and 4am. He's a bit of a night owl"

Of course, all the people in the comments that are for the abolition of set
hours would likely change their tune if the employees decide to shorten their
weeks. "That project can't be done by then".

------
scott_meade
"during a big project it’s important your employees don’t feel inclined to
exit as soon as the clock strikes 5 p.m." That statement belies so many things
about Mr. Pozin's outlook on employees.

1\. The reason employees bolt for the door is because they have things to do.
Believe it or not employees have lives outside of work. I can't think of any
project that would be "big" enough to miss a daughter's soccer game or son's
concert. And if that means I need to leave the office at a certain time to do
so, then so be it.

2\. By offering flexible hours, employers seem to be able to demand employees
work long upon demand. No thank you.

3\. Working long hours to crunch for a big project is shown time and time
again to not be effective. Why not fight the cause instead of accommodating it
with flex time?

All that said, I'm convinced the best, long-term answer is to not be an
employee. Instead, freelancing will continue to become more and more common.

~~~
gte910h
>big project is shown time and time again to not be effective

The first week, 60 hours works. The second, it's still more productive than 40
hours, but not as much, after that, it isn't, then actively dips below a
constant stream of 40 hour weeks.

So depending on how short your spikes are, it can be fine.

------
shin_lao
For purely "creative" positions, we don't care how, where and when the
employee works. Especially when working on challenging features I understand
that some people like to somehow "retreat" to think (I work like this).

You like to work in the middle of busy café? No problem. You like to work from
home? No problem. You like to work from 9 to 5? No problem. You like a
variation of the above depending on your mood? No problem.

The only thing we ask is to keep the communication open, ie, don't fall into
an autistic "I never show up" way of work.

Which leads me to the following.

When there are meetings, when we're at a customer or when there is any kind of
external constraint we have absolutely no tolerance for lateness or
approximation.

~~~
ownagefool
Yeah, while I'll happily argue against keeping hours or working from home
where appropriate, one of the bigger issues is that some of people arguing for
this are lazy or disorganized.

On the plus side, these people are going to be the same whether they're in
your office or not, thus I've never actually believed keeping them in the
office will serve any real benefit, you need employees you can trust, either
way.

------
Spooky23
If the point is that fixed in stone "arrive at work a 9, leave at 5" hours
don't make sense, sure. Even some of the most regressive government
bureaucracies recognized that in the 80's and have some degree of flexibility.

If the point is that modern work is so special and creative that it is more of
an artistic creation, and thus requires "passion" (translated as work 60 hours
a week), than no, that is a ridiculous assertion and a work practice that
should be illegal.

------
kondro
I have to say, I'm more interested in the job titles of the majority of the
commenters on this article. So LinkedIn is only full of managers, consultants
and recruiters.

------
DanBC
It's a very short article, with a list of benefits. Any potential problems are
very briefly mentioned.

But these problems could be significant, and a discussion of them could have
made the article much more useful and interesting.

For example: people do compare their performance against that of their
colleagues. People do steal credit for work done by other people. How do
managers deal with this? There's the potential for significant ill-will if Ann
is picking up Bob's slack, but not getting the recognition for it. And if Bob
is getting recognition for the work that Ann is doing it's worse. And if Ann's
work is suffering, and she's told people and been ignored, and she's losing
out, then it's even worse.

Management advice often feels superficial. It'd be great if people writing
this advice started making more use of good quality research. I guess it'd be
good if more good quality research was available too.

------
hkarthik
The main problem is that most employers with expectations around work hours
enforce the start time but don't adequately support a reasonable end time.

This is our fault, as we've basically let this happen. I've personally told
developers on my teams to go home on time and I get excuses like "well I'll
just end up watching TV or wasting time."

To this my response has always been "save that energy for when the project
really needs it, because it will. When things are calmer, go have a life."

Unfortunately, I think most business leaders are ignorant about the urgency of
work, or they take the attitude of "push until they push back". This leads to
the burnout, apathy, and overall lack of commitment over time from their
employees.

~~~
onemorepassword
We've pretty much removed all incentive to work long hours, or even just 8
hours, because or "collective" starting time is around 10-ish, but all of
management is usually gone before half past five, and I actively encourage
people to go home. On rare occasions does someone who's really in the zone
stay past six.

The problem I don't have any grip on is people working from home. Because
we're pretty flexible and developers enjoy their work, I often see them
working in the evenings or in the weekend, when there is really no need for
it. Also, people who work from home all day invariable tend to make longer
hours.

This worries me a bit, but I'm not sure how to address that.

~~~
hkarthik
That's awesome, you seem to have a much better grip on this than 99% of your
peers in leadership positions at technology companies. You should put your
contact info your profile as I'm sure lots of people would love to work for
you!

As for the late night work at home, I would recommend you do one-on-ones (or
have their managers do one-on-ones) with the late night workers to make sure
they aren't being overwhelmed without saying anything. Showing that you're
proactive about it helps build that trust.

Another thing I've noticed is that when you have a strong in-office culture
(which it sounds like you have), sometimes it's difficult to stay on top of
individual tasks while you're in the office. There are always side
conversations, ad-hoc discussions, or even a higher frequency of in-person
meetings during the day. These things are important to maintain culture, but
often eat into a person's time so much that they have to get caught up at
night. Sometimes the late night work is simply catching up on emails from the
day or it's finishing up a minor coding task.

But in worst case scenarios, people can't get anything done in the office so
they resort to early morning work (before anyone shows up) or they always work
late regularly. Keeping a pulse on that and handling it before it becomes a
cultural problem is very important.

------
jrochkind1
Plus, if you don't have set hours, and focus only on goals -- then you can
expect your employees to work 50, 80, 100 hours a week in order to accomplish
their goals (which were probably set by you not them), whatever it takes.

------
magoon
I would have a hard time partnering with an organization that allows random &
inconsistent business hours.

This article's points are great in theory, but in a business world it creates
a barrier.

------
lstroud
When it comes to IT, I can buy it. However, ask yourself how you would run a
manufacturing plant when you didn't know when people would be there? Or, how
would customer service work if there was no one to answer the phones?

------
ultimoo
Great idea.

However, is such a policy implementable at a large corporation like Google or
Microsoft? It is certainly within reach of startups that have a dozen or even
a couple of hundred employees.

------
opminion
Assuming an open, liquid job market in which the working hours are an
independent variable.

------
fungi
no worries... if you are paying overtime penalty rates.

