Sample Work From Home Policy – Is It Okay To Be Inconsistent?

Paul Remington's Profile

Sample Work From Home Policy & Best Practices

We have had a policy for working from home of not allowing employees to work from home.  However, I have discovered under certain circumstances (child sick, bad weather and difficult to come in) some Managers have allowed their employees to work from home instead of requiring the employee to take a PTO day.  We need to be fair to all employees and have a set policy for everyone and not pick and choose what circumstance is an exception and I am wondering how other companies handle this?

Answers

Member's Profile

Good question and I hope we get lots of feedback. Let me tell you our experience. I am generally not in favor of working from home. I am old school and I like face time and I like the opportunity to interact with my collegues. However, we allow our programmers to work from home. The IT manager tells us how hard they work but I have yet to see them finish a project on time, on budget, or on quality. Perhaps it is a reflection of management or employee expertise. But, maybe it is a reflection of no direct interaction with collegues. I would vote to try and keep your current policy intact but I would love to hear success stories and how we may adapt to the changing work environment.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

I worked in a division of a major motion picture/television studio for many, many years. There were about 10 executives. Our President allowed people to work from home when it was necessary for them to be at home for a legitimate reason. It worked spectacularly well. Bear in mind that we were a small group and all of us were extraordinarily dedicated professionals. We consistently worked long hours in the office so the freedom to work at home for a morning, a day or an afternoon seemed entirely rational, given the professionalism, maturity and dedication that we exhibited all year long. We worked at home if we were mildly ill--so that we did not spread illness. We also took calls on our vacations, when absolutely necessary. (This was not encouraged. It was "desperate times call for desperate measures.") I think Steve Belhap's post does not reflect the scenario described in the initial post. No one is talking about "working from home" on a regular basis, as in "telecommuting." The post refers to the occasional circumstance where someone cannot get to the office but does not need to take a personal or vacation day. Obviously, the feasibility of this policy is largely dependent on the employee's function. Most of my work was done on the internet and on the phone so working from home allowed me to be just as productive as being in the office. But, no, our division could not have functioned effectively if everyone telecommuted.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

does anyone have info around this that they can share, I have put together something but thats not enough

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

There is a company handbook example here on Proformative http://www.proformative.com/resources/company-handbook that addresses many of these issues. I find it's not so much about creating a policy that employees can't work from home, but rather creating affirmative policies of what your employees ARE supposed to be doing and how.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

First, let's define the question more precisely. It isn't whether someone is working from home. Instead, it's whether they work someplace where you or other directly-interested parties don't see or observe them regularly.

My experience, after 40 years, is that success or failure depends partly on the employee and partly on the manager, as well as overall managerial support for remote work arrangements. Whichever route you choose, it's important to be consistent, uniform and clear about when and why exceptions are made. Otherwise, you will eventually be viewed as showing favoritism.

The keys to success are no different from managing an employee face-to-face: set clear expectations and priorities, confirm there is mutual agreement and understanding, make sure the employee has adequate tools and information to do the work, and have frequent and regular assessment and discussion (not just at the annual review) about both "good" and "needs improvement" performance. In other words, communication is paramount.

Steve, you acknowledge that you're "old school." More on that in a minute. I'm not sure your example of missed IT deadlines is a good one though. In my experience (please, no flaming from the IT people) IT deadlines are often missed, regardless of whether the work is done down the hall, in a home office, or outsourced. Let me use an alternate example: granting corporate customers credit and collecting the resulting receivables. People doing this work need clear guidlelines and objectives, system access, a telephone and periodic assistance/direction. In my company, people in our PA HQ did this work. But, we also had people located in several other states doing identical work. Sometimes, the remote people worked alone. Frequently, remote employees worked from home or in a shared office where they were the only ones doing this job (e.g., available space at an unrelated subsidiary of our large parent company).

We used these remote arrangements because they made business sense at many levels (what's more old school than that?). We aimed to hire employees best suited to our needs but couldn't always find them locally. We also benefited from the remote worker's superior business knowledge of a more local geographic market, we avoided the family disruption and costs of relocating people to HQ, and we scored consistently well on employee satisfaction measures. Performance measurement for remote workers was the same as for HQ employees. One example: either numeric collection targets and past due targets are met or they are not. Potential downsides, though, include limits on employee professional growth, getting promoted when management doesn't "see" you daily, and a higher chance of problems if the manager doesn't pay attention.

We've had remote employees for at least 20 years. Perhaps it's positive adverse selection but they have generally been among our best performers and turnover is very low. Interestingly, we have done several acquisitions in recent years. The expansion of our customer base required an expansion of the credit and collections team by integrating employees from the acquired firms. The unit manager of the most recently acquired group is old school. He wants to know what time people arrive and leave, if they spend too long at lunch, gossip too frequently at the water cooler, etc., etc. He didn't see how he could possibly manage someone without that level of daily interaction and insight. In my view, that is a negative reflection on his managerial skills and his confidence about those skills. As your comment hints, the world is changing and the population of virtual workers is growing. As managers, we can either adapt, embrace and lead this change to give our business the maximum chance of succeess or we can wish for the good old days. I'd rather look forward.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

Due to the nature of our work, in both the finance and client service area, we are limited with what can be done offsite. That said we have a very clear telecommuting policy that starts with treatment as an approved exception when needed. In advance of someone needing to telecommute, each party knows exactly what they can/not do from outside the office. As an example, the accounting department cannot process any credit cards externally as the only secure area is within our walls and through our secure fax line. As they might be restricted from getting all of their normal daily work done, they have to know how their working remotely will impact their colleagues who have to shuffle work to allow them to be productive. Additionally, clear guidelines about what constitutes a telecommuting day are communicated in advance and these include both what is accomplished and how communication to the home office works.

I know that Kmart corporation, whose HQ used to be in my hometown, still has a few hundred people working locally from home. They have clear expectations and are required to report to the local office on a regular basis (once a week/month/quarter).

The unmentioned problem with telecommuting can be a company's straying into the 24/7 worker. I have had to remind my current employer that those of us who 'leave on time' and then log-on from home are doing so to assist in getting work done and should not be assumed to do this all the time. That has been my biggest hurdle as I don't see my bosses understanding how this is counterproductive to improving employee morale. I have been lucky that the high turnover has not been in my department and am hopeful that my repeating this mantra will eventually help them discover one of the reasons they suffer this turnover regularly. If someone is allowed/expected to work from home or some other offsite area, clearly defined hours expectations that allow for the reasonable accomplishment of work need to be communicated and neither should cross the line.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

I agree that the key to success is setting annual goals and having frequent status meetings. I report to the Treasurer of the company we meet at the start of each year and agree on objectives for the new year and have established weekly 1/2 hr status meetings. The weekly meetings gives him a chance to measure my progress and communicate any change in priorities.

I have a global position that requires frequent international conference calls early in the morning or very late at night, working from home and having a flexible work day makes these easier on me and my family which makes everyone happy.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Proformative Advisor
Member's Profile

In my last role, we were a dispersed company. The company was used to using telepresence and the like. Some employees (many, in fact) were full time remote, some part time, and some always in the office.

It was always at the discretion of the manager; the manager was responsible for delivering results, and for having their people available during working hours. A "we can't find them, they're working from home" would not have gone over well (and did not, when it seldom occurred).

Generally, the rules/guidelines were:
-Online (Skype, yahooIM, or similar) and available.
-Reasonable relative to their role (eg drill press operator or a receptionist...no).
-Employee needed to be seasoned enough, in their particular role, to execute remotely and be accountable for their time.
-Prepared (some defined home-office ability)

Caveats:
In California at least, if you went home to care for a sick child, and I called you with a question, I will have breached the PTO guidelines. If you are getting charged with a PTO day, I can't have my cake (not pay you) and eat it too (get some work out of you). So *not* granting this leeway could put you in trouble with the CA labor folks.

Further, to your premise, you do not need to be "fair" in the sense of having the same policy for everyone. You pay your managers to exercise their discretion, and so long as they follow the rules, "fairness" measured by "everyone has the same resources and constraints" is not a reasonable guideline. The reasonable guideline, imho, is "is the manager accountable, and are they providing a reasonable structure so that employees are productive."

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

Let me highly recommend a book I just read -- Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It: No Schedules, No Meetings, No Joke--The Big Idea That's Already Transforming the Way We Work by Cali Ressler, Jody Thompson. It shows: (1) a new work model that focuses purely on results; and (2) a lot of the flex-time, etc. that companies try to implement generally doesn't work effectively. The bottom line for their system is that voluntary turnover plummets and involuntary turnover skyrockets because you can almost immediately do away with your deadweight (folks who may spend the requisite time at the office but don't perform). There's no easy answer to your question, but our office just went to this model, and we're having good results.

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

I worked at two organizations that had very inflexible work from home policies. All they did was create resentement among myself and my colleagues. I often drove to work in the midst of a "blizzard" or a family illness/crisis/issue and it just made me wonder whether it was worth it to work for an organization that did not value me enough to be flexible.

In today's world an inflexible policy does not work. You are asking your workers to "do more with less" and any consideration that you afford them will "go miles" with them. I would advise a more flexible policy no matter how hard it will be "to sell" internally.

To comment, and for full access, login or register