I work in a small office team of five people. I’m the only full-time member of staff, everyone else is part time. We had a new manager start last year and honestly, up until now, things have been really good. We get on well, I like his management style and he has always said he cared more about people getting the work done than clock-watching.
I work very hard. I consistently hit targets, usually go beyond what is expected, and I won an achievement award last month. I also work very flexibly. I regularly start work at 7am, answer emails early, and will often still be available after 6pm. I usually work through lunch too. That flexibility has suited both the organisation and me because it means things get done quickly and I can also fit other parts of life around work. It is one of the things I am regularly complimented on - how quick I get tasks done.
Out of nowhere, he has now announced that I have to be physically in the office 9–5 three days a week. No actual problem has been identified, no concerns raised about my performance, no suggestion that work isn’t getting done. The explanation was basically that he “wants to try something different”.
Fine. He is the manager and he is entitled to set office hours if he wants to. I’m not arguing with that part.
But my feeling is that if he now wants strict contracted hours and presenteeism, then that is exactly what he will get. I no longer see the point in starting at 7am, replying to messages before work, being available into the evening or working through lunch. I’m planning to work my contracted hours, take a proper hour lunch break and log off at the end of the day.
I know this will reduce the amount I actually get done overall. But another part of me thinks flexibility works both ways. If management removes trust and autonomy, they can’t really expect staff to continue giving unpaid goodwill on top.