Work telling us we wont get opportunity's if we don't show our faces?

[lovemenomore]

Hi all,

Wanted to know if IABU for being peed off/demoralised at this message from the owner of the company I work for.

Basically started the job in Jan & it has been 100% remote due to Covid/office closed etc. Since the restrictions have lifted I have been in and met colleagues but continued to wfh as do 75% of the company. There has been talk of us never having to go back in full time and people can choose what to do. Nothing formal has been announced. If we do want to go in we have had to book in. However the other day this was posted on our internal comms site;

"While booking is now no longer required, we are noting who turns up. Expect those that do to get the best opportunities and progression. It's obvious that being 'front and centre' means you are top of mind. We've always been a company that prioritises what you do and achieve over simple time served, this is just one aspect of that."

What are your thoughts? To me that is saying if you dont come in you will not be given the opportunities....

Lots of the staff arent local and live all over the country/world. A few of my colleagues are miffed but some friends have said all companies are like this?

I can only assume they're the people that spend all day hovering around different desks chatting, and now that colleagues are working from home they actually have to do some work?

Assume whatever the hell you like, no skin off my nose. 😆

I genuinely can’t see how anyone can construe this as presenteeism. Of course if what was previously an office faced job people should be expected to occasionally go into the office ans see their colleagues face to face. The company has not stated how often they should do that or for how long. There’s clearly a benefit in occasionally being face to face.

And as much as people have issues with personal matters, the reality is occasionally going back into the office as a benefit is something that can’t be negated. It really think some folks think companies are simply there to give them work and their needs come first.

Nothing is dictated here, no one is saying go into the office all day every day stay till x time at night, be the first in. They are saying get your arse in every now and again. Ans that’s fair enough.

Of course if you’ve only ever been in a role where it’s home based and have disabilities or caring responsibilities that stops you ever going to an office that’s different, but this is not whay this is addressing.

On the contrary, they will be the companies that thrive. The job market will be very biased towards employers over the next few years. I think a lot of employees have a massive shock awaiting them.

I’ve not seen much evidence of this to date and in a lot of professional and white collar roles the competition for talent is fierce and every workforce specialist I’ve spoken to predicts it getting fiercer, particularly as the longer term impacts of Brexit hit talent mobility and availability.

The reality is that in a competition for the best candidates, the companies with the best offer (not just financial but working conditions incl hybrid working, compressed hours, etc) will get them if candidates feel it’s important. And at the moment more candidates are saying those things are important to them.

So if this continues to be a motivating factor the companies with more restrictive policies will to settle for the less good candidates. Which isn’t a good starting point if they want to thrive.

I know quite a few people in the City who have recently turned down job offers because the company hadn’t worked out its future working policy yet, or because they were too restrictive (eg no more than 1 day a week WFH).

Those companies that have seen targets met, productivity maintained or increased, and employee engagement maintained while WFH (largely because they have decent management who don’t need to physically see someone to know how they’re performing) are likely to carry at least some of that forward because it will help with staff retention. They recognise that forcing people back in to long commutes for marginal if any productivity gain is unlikely to benefit them in the long term when other companies are offering more flexibility. People have realised they can do their jobs productively and still be able to drop off at the school gate and meet their kids’ teachers, they like not having the stress or worry of transport delays meaning they’re late for after school club collection. They like getting those hours back, either for their lives or often for their work.

There will be Covid-hit industries where this isn’t the case. And as a PP said management skills in the U.K. are woefully poor, which contributes to the culture so many posters on this thread see as the only way to operate.

For me, I’m looking forward to hybrid. I’ve just accepted a role where they have a minimum of 1-2 days a week in the office which suits me perfectly; I was headhunted for more lucrative roles but with less flexibility (or they hadn’t set a formal policy yet) - I did not put myself forward for those roles.

They are being honest, in my experience and that of dp, staff weren't as efficient from home and phones went unanswered far more. For staff with genuine health concerns I can understand that wfh is needed but not for the rest of us

I don’t think the OP’s company is saying anything very controversial.

I think they’re demonstrating they aren’t great at people management. It’s a pretty poor way to communicate this to staff and for such a short notice, it’s riddled with inconsistencies. There doesn’t seem to be a formal policy underpinning it from what OP says and as a stand-alone piece of internal communications it’s pretty poor, even if you ignore the grammar.

But ‘we’d like to advertise that we’re crap at people management’ is not a very controversial position in the UK (as an unnamed Cabinet minister demonstrated on the front page of the Times today…)

They are being honest, in my experience and that of dp, staff weren't as efficient from home and phones went unanswered far more

What happened to those staff?

Continuing with the anecdotes, we are currently trying to hire a number of staff and finding it almost impossible because, for that role, there is limited WFH allowed. Almost every candidate is now expecting 3-4 days a week at home and rejecting offers where that is not part of the package. Upping the salaries offered for those roles by £10-15k is not making a massive difference either.

@RoastedHazelnutLatte this is very interesting. On the one hand you have people qualified for the role who think it could be done mostly from home. On the other, your employer does not agree that this is possible. It sounds like the employer is not very good at explaining to candidates in sufficient detail what it is about this particular role that makes it impossible to accommodate the request. Yet there must be a clear reason, otherwise they would not be letting so many good candidates go. The candidates, on the other hand, must feel confident they could find similar jobs which can be done from home. What do you think has happened here?

At the end of the day, you don't get the same "opportunities" if you don't meet people face to face. Online/remote working is a good substitute, but it's never going to be as effective in all circumstances.

I have my own very small business. We've been "working behind closed doors" since covid started as my OH was ECV with blood cancer. So I've not been having F2F client meetings, etc. We've done OK, all work has been done, clients are happy enough (no complaints etc). I've spent a lot of time on the phone and on skype/facetime talking to clients to discuss the things we'd have normally discussed in meetings.

But it's not the same.

What has been noticeable is the lack of referrals. When meeting face to face, there's usually the "small talk" before and after, and that's where there is usually the scope for referrals, etc. I.e. where the client casually mentions a friend/relative/neighbour who needs an accountant, etc. It works the opposite way too, when a client mentions they've been struggling to find a plumber/electrician, etc., and I've been able to recommend one of my clients. That's just not happened on Skype/Facetime because the online "meeting" has generally been shorter and more to the point, without the opportunity of the small talk over the coffee cup!

That highlights the importance of the "social" aspect, networking, etc. And I say this with a heavy heart, as I'm an introverted (possibly ant-social) person who avoids social events, large gatherings, parties, etc like the plague and eagerly embraced the internet etc years ago for online working. In theory, I should be an advocate for remote/online working, but, now that's actually happened, I can see the benefits of meeting people, grudgingly! There's definitely a case for a mix of workplace based and home-based working, but each organisation will have to find it's own "sweet spot" as to where in the pendulum that lies.

I think it's really sexist.

Surely it should be about the quality of the work being done, not about the location it's done from?

Men usually find it easier to work from the office - women often find it harder to add the commute on to their family/caring responsibilities.

I tend to think this is a sexist and stupid policy that has been written by people without caring responsibilities. It will not lead to greater gender balance in this organisation. I would be put off them as an employer.

I think they’re demonstrating they aren’t great at people management.

I think it’s naive to believe that face time won’t have an impact when it comes to progression in a hybrid working model. That strikes me as human nature rather than poor people management.

Whether or not you decide to call it poor management, hybrid models are going to be hella difficult for most companies to manage to a diverse workforce’s satisfaction. I think that’s slowly dawning with many companies now. I’m surprised that this business is being so open, but there is value in people knowing where they stand.

To counter some POV on this thread, I do think it’s very much an employees market at the minute, not the employers. In my sector they are absolutely crying out for staff in a particular role. This job cannot be done from home in any capacity and requires x years of experience in y area. There’s a mix of full and part time roles up for grabs. And yet week after week, the ads are reposted.

I got promoted into the role in a way the company usually isn’t keen on (prefer to keep it for external candidates only), but the reality of the situation was I had the experience and wanted a particular role with particular hours in a particular location. Any other year I wouldn’t have had the benefit of being so choosy. I would have passed exams and been placed somewhere they chose. This year they opened me with open arms because they simply didn’t have any other options.

It’ll be this way for a while, I think. In my years of working, I’ve never seen so many job ads be posted and reposted.

Also anyone who thinks that relationships and connections can only be made in person is missing a trick.

I say this as somebody who has chosen to do much of my work via Zoom, where my clients can see my face and I can see theirs, and where we can speak in private, rather than in person where we would both be wearing masks and in a more public (less confidential) setting.

I also say this as somebody who made a number of my very best friends online as a teenager! (We are still best friends now, 20 years later).

*welcomed me with open arms, opened sounds a bit wrong 😅

A good manager should know who pulls their weight and who swings the lead. I don't think this is the best way to get the most out of your staff - I have worked at places where people have put in the hours simply to be seen but they do very little and can get away with it as there was often no one there to really weigh up what they are actually doing. It strikes me as a message from weak, inexperienced lower level managers just doing what they are told to by their immediate bosses - this style of management is quite outdated - smart companies want people to use their experience, intelligence and people management skills and to think for themselves - they days of wanting yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir type people sadly still exist - find a better place to work. I'd do what you think is best - you can impress in many ways other than just showing your face.

In short - don't live off promises - it's BS.

For some jobs, be careful what you wish for regarding WFH.

Definitely a risk that some jobs that can be done 100% from home can be done by cheaper employees from overseas.

Better to have to put in at least some time in the office then see your job offshored.

You should be rewarded for showing up and doing your job in the space that you are meant to do it.

Yabu to think this is unfair

The whole "they must be bad managers" is a red herring. The best managers can manage people adequately remotely, but even they probably find it easier not to, if they don't have to.

But the fact is most managers, especially middle and junior managers, are not good managers and employers aren't suddenly going to find a raft of people with the right technical skills and excellent management skills.

Put it this way, if showing up if face-to-face work is genuinely a part of what defines your output and performance in your particular role, then yes you should be required to be in the office a certain number of days. Companies should specify this in contracts as well as what proportion of the role/time you are expected to perform f2f. Case closed. I think you'd find that actually companies won't be able to make a convincing argument for many roles if they were required to do this formally, nothing that couldn't be done via a Zoom call. Putting value on something intangible like 'collaboration' (pointless office chatter) or 'watercooler moment' (gossip) would be a very interesting exercise indeed

@eightlivesdown

For some jobs, be careful what you wish for regarding WFH.

Definitely a risk that some jobs that can be done 100% from home can be done by cheaper employees from overseas.

Better to have to put in at least some time in the office then see your job offshored.

@eightlivesdown Completely agree with you, I was really upset by the possibility of being permanently remote exactly for this reason. I think people underestimate this risk. Also for very specialized jobs like mine, they could easily find engineers also in Italy or Albania etc. I am glad I will be hybrid.

I’m in a large public sector organisation - we are going back 2 days per week from September. 99% of the work force is delighted with this. It’s the best of both worlds for everyone. Our HR Dept made it very clear, quite early on, that if the management ever tried to enforce 5 days per week back in the office, we would be out of step with our sector, and therefore less attractive to job seekers.

I do think it’s very much an employees market at the minute, not the employers

Not for long. Anyone who doesn’t think we’ve got the mother and father of a recession hurtling towards us isn’t paying attention.

I think a lot of the answers here show a personal bias. I work for a large corporation and ability to work from home is really not one of the criteria. I think the bias being shown is based on people with caring responsibilities and disabilities.

In reality the vast majority of the workforce worked from an office before and will continue to do so going forward, yes flexi working will become more common, which is what this company is offering, but screeching this company can’t survive as they expect employees to occasionally come to the office in a time that suits the employee is beyond ludicrous

@Blossomtoes that is why I said “at the minute” . You are right, though. If I didn’t work in a pretty “safe” industry I’d be shitting myself, quite frankly. It’s a terrifying time.

@Bluntness100 I agree, a day or two in the office isn’t much to ask for, at all, and of course the company will survive. People do need to think ahead, though. As Blossom has pointed out, there will be a lot of job losses in the future. The recession will be horrendous. And people maybe do need to think less about the little details now and more about getting into a secure job because when the job losses start, they’ll keep on coming. It really could get quite bad for a while.

You should be rewarded for showing up and doing your job in the space that you are meant to do it.

Why?

But the fact is most managers, especially middle and junior managers, are not good managers and employers aren't suddenly going to find a raft of people with the right technical skillsandexcellent management skills.

I don't believe that most aren't good. I would say most at our company are good. At all levels. But wfh did highlight some managers as quite poor. Non of the people struggling surprised anyone and they were in one area, because it came from the top of that area.

When we decided to hybrid full time, we had to roll out more support for those managers. In some cases PIPs all the usual. But on the whole it has worked.