AIBU to expect my staff to work overtime or more than just 9-5

[TeeterTotter]

I manage a large team of 20 staff and I have two members of my team who refuse to do anything beyond the core hours in their contract. In at a set time, out the door right on the dot like clockwork.

If these staff members were junior I wouldn't expect more of them but they are both on a managerial salary of £41-£44k per year --I think at this level there is a general expectation that you're generally more engaged and committed and that you'll work at home or stay late when needed. I also feel times have changed and in these dicey financial times people are giving more to their jobs than ever. In a perfect world no one would have extra work or overtime, but that's just not the way things are in 2012!

One of the staff members is a mom to 2 kids and she says it is impossible for her to stay late (due to childcare commitments) or to do work on weekends (she's too busy with the kids); the other is a single guy who has no appetite to do more than he's contracted to do.

I find this situation very irksome, especially because I have two kids but do a lot of late nights and work from home, which I think is expected at my level.

DP thinks I need to stop imposing my protestant work ethic on everyone I work with, but I feel these staff members aren't pulling their weight. I'm not a slavedriver but I expect more. Are I reasonable or are my views skewed? I would really welcome the opinion of others.

if I do extra work I do it at home,after kids tea and story
I suppose it depends what you negotiate with staff.how you put it
is it an essential must do or simply too many demands,big deadline fpdiffers from excessive workload

YABU. They're doing nothing wrong and I really dislike any culture of presenteeism. People who stay late to earn brownie points are suspicious IMO.

Yabu to expect it.

They would bu to expect to be considered for promotion,areer progression and payrises ahead of others who show more dedication - providing the others are not doing overtime to keep on top of workloads and these 2 produce the same amount of work and to the same quality as the others within their core hours.

Yes the OP is American ( teeter totter, mom) I also suspect he/she lives under a bridge ( trip trap )

Is it really the people who are more dedicated who are promoted though?

In my experience, management teams have a few golden boys and girls who are talked about constantly at Board/Management Meetings. Loads of other staff who are doing an equally good job just slip under the radar because they are just getting on with it and not spending every spare minute making sure they are 'seen'.

I agree with the general feedback. There is no way 20 people should need to work over contracted hours on a regular basis. If these two team members get all their work done then great. If they can't, it's their workload that's probably at fault not them.

I'm interested to see you mention your dh's views. You realise he's probably trying to hint to you that he and the kids need some of your evening etc too?

My dh works vastly in excess of his contracted hours atm. At his level and business that is to some extent expected and as he can work from home it's possible for him to do that whilst still being 'present' iyswim. However it's not great and when I need him to stop I tell him. Is your dh tolerant of your extra working?

I don't think he op is a troll. I've come across people who basically work to rule. Which is their right. If both parties are able to be flexible then a lot more gets done. I've known people who basically say sod the deadlines and walk out on the dot of 5, despite th fact its their deadlin that will slip. Not on imo. I think a lot of people on this thread are very idealistic.

What type of industry OP? I'm in professional services and contract states hours to meet business needs. I do feel justified in occasionally getting in late/leaving early though. Its just par for the course in my industry. Most of the time I'm OK with it- I earn a good salary and have the potential to earn a lot more.

I think your DH is right. I'd also suggest you have a look at this www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons , which may make you reassess whether overworking your staff is actually a good idea, or whether its counterproductive in the long run. I say this as a single mum whose bosses (in an outfit which regularly comes out top 3 in its field in the world) are quite happy with my performance, and are recommending me for promotion, despite knowing that I can only work my contracted hours because I have a child. When I'm there I do good work, out of hours my time is my own (and DS's).

Why shouldn't you go home on the dot if you've done your job properly? The OP says nothing at all about the quality of these people's work. Just moans about them not being in the office.

And I agree presenteeism is Crap. But when im in the office I spend a lot of my time in meetings, discussing stuff, checking over other's work. I quite often don't sit down to do a full block of uninterrupted work until 4pm.

spending every spare minute making sure they are 'seen'

That's exactly it. They know how to play office politics, suck up, perfect the fake smile and always "look busy". It's not the most competent people who are necessarily good at that.

If workers finish their work are they ever allowed to go home early?

The more senior I've got the fewer hours I've worked.
Now do a 35 hour week, and would never go back to long hours again.

Why LeQueen? I'm a manager who looks after a few teams of staff.

I don't give a monkeys if someone leaves at 5pm ^provided they do their job. It's a bit superficial to judge by the clock instead of output.

Now of someone needs to work a bit longer to get something don't and they don't, then I have a problem.

If they leave their desk at 5pm and do the work at home, again great as long as the job is done.

OP are you a journo by any chance?

I am contracted to work 9-4.30pm Monday to Thursday, i dont work a minute over. My boss knows this and knows why (childcare - and i have a life) and is completely on my level.

This is a classic 'reactionary' first post

Well spotted MarthasHarbour

YANBU. Ideally, jobs would be 9-5 and take full account of people's outside needs. The fact is, lots of places are understaffed these days and the work still needs to be done. If one or two people consistently refuse to make any extra effort, it just makes it worse for the other team members. It's often not about presenteeism, but about taking work home and doing it there or covering an evening meeting. I've managed understaffed teams and they can only function if everyone recognises the situation and doesn't regard it as everyone's problem but their own.

YABU and are part of the problem with the work world IMO. These people have appropriate work boundaries because they have actual lives and families. Just because you choose to work overtime and late hours on the weekends doesn't mean everyone else should want to as well. If you don't have enough staff to do the work from 9-5 perhaps your company should be hiring more people not riding the staff they have into the ground.

Why should workers lower their standards because its 2012? I can just see all the wealth up top ready to lord the worlds financial crisis over the average workers head.

My employers refuse to hire enough staff to do the work and after initially bending over backwards to make up for the shortage, now I go home on time and I pick up my kids and I make my family dinner and I spend time with my husband - because those are my priorities and should be. Besides, research shows that employees who have good work/life balance actually peform better and get more done in a shorter period of time. So its win, win.

Surely this is a reverse AIBU?

If not, of course YABU! Why should they work more than their contracted hours? What favour are you doing them?

are they doing their jobs?

if yes, then who cares what hours they do?

if no, then perhaps the job is not right for them or you are expecting too much.

Hi - thanks to all for the responses. I posted because I honestly wanted to se how other managers or staff felt about this issue.

For clarification ? I?m not expecting my staff to stay late every night and after many years in advertising, have grown to despise presenteeism. What I?m talking about is about occasionally getting assistance with something at the last moment, or assisting with a crisis or once in a while writing a report on the weekend. I do a good job of managing staff workloads but the reality is that work and life isn?t perfect and things come up. The area I work in ? marketing/pr ? tends to be more deadline driven and with a lot of last minute issues.

None of my staff work long hours nor do I expect it as that would be a problem, but when a crisis comes up I would expect the staff member at 45k to come forward rather than relying on the goodwill of the staff member on 20k.

This was a genuine thread from someone who grew up in another culture and with different views of work. I was genuinely interested in how managers cope or how staff being paid half as much would feel if the top 10% salaried staff members were so rigid in their contribution.

It?s odd that so many of the posters are almost raging about how unreasonable I am. Any poster on MN stating a salary of over 40/50k usually receives a lot of grief with posts about whether they deserve that salary, if they work hard enough etc. And yet when I mention someone who is a jobsworth at 45k MNers rush to back them up! Sigh!

However some of the hostile and frankly downright mean responses I got were really uncalled for. I have a ?crappy attitude??.?I?m so glad you?re not my boss?. ?You sound like the boss from hell?. ?Get a life?? Really?! I asked a question where I honestly wanted people's viewpoint. BTW I have a life, a full time job, two kids, no support (family live overseas) and my life is full even if I do the occasional bit of work at night. Honestly I am starting to think that MNers are just sanctimonious or contrary for the sake of it! (hmm)

PS ? sorry I didn?t post until now, was sorting dinner

"Part of your job remit at management level, is that you are expected to give that little bit more, when necessary. And, to shoulder that extra responsibility, when necessary. That's why you get paid more money than the general work force."

LaQueen - I would disagree with this actually. Some people get paid more more than others for their ability, skills and knowledge not just their level of responsibility. For example, you would expect a qualified accountant to be paid more than an accounts clerk because they are qualified and their knowledge has to be paid for, not just because they have the responsibility of overseeing less qualified people's work and meeting certain deadlines. It doesn't pay for extra hours of work on a regular basis. If the manager is doing say, 10+ hours a week extra which is easy to do if you spend an extra hour or so on week days and then a morning in the weekend, and if the differential between the salaries of the levels of staff are insufficient, you could have the managers actually working for less per hour than their less qualified colleagues. I have seen that happen and that really isn't fair nor is it acceptable for a boss to expect this.

Interestingly we seem to be saying the same thing - that managers should be prepared to work occasionally, 'when necessary' if needs be without quibbling, yet you think the OP is NBU and I think she is. I think the difference is that I think the OP is saying that she expects her staff to work extra hours all the time and perhaps you don't, I don't know, but there is a difference working late for the occasional deadline and working late all the time just because your boss expects it.

I can't believe how many people are saying that if extra hours are needed they need to manage to the team differently or employ more staff, as if it's that easy. Of course they need probably to employ more staff, but if your budget has been cut by a third and there have been a load of redundancies, how is it possible? And when you have to make the next round of redundancies, which staff would you want to keep?