Derrick Coyle
Is off-hour access to work related e-mails a blessing or a curse? Is a job tethered by technology and the wonders of company supplied mobile devices or VPN connections, viewed as an advantage or an inconvenience by the employee?
If a recent Gallup poll surveying nearly 4,000 full-time working adults across the United States is any indication, remote, personal time connectivity to the job is considered a good thing.
In the case of our American counterparts, a whopping 79% of respondents view the ability to work remotely in the off-hours as a positive development. That said, only 36% frequently engage in it, against the 64% that occasionally, rarely, or never do. Male workers (40%) are more apt to utilize it frequently than females (31%), Millennials (38%) more than Boomers (33%), college graduates (48%) more than non-graduates (23%), and the highest income band (53%) more than lowest (25%).
Tethered by Technology: Work-Life Balance
It’s a subject that will undoubtedly evoke assorted points of view. The Gallup survey finds that many employees appreciate the flexibility of remote access and the prospect of dealing with work from home as a favourable alternative to spending nights or weekends at the workplace, away from family. Employers may be bolstered by the results of this poll to maintain and possibly increase investment in these technologies as a service to employees and a potential competitive advantage for themselves.
But at what cost is there in terms of a healthy delineation between one’s work and personal life? Does 24/7 accessibility to the job detract from what would otherwise provide an opportunity for a period of downtime? Does the office-on-a-belt-clip amount to convenient efficiency for the employee or subtle exploitation by the employer?
Dr. Scott Schieman, Canada Research Chair (Social Contexts of Health) and professor of sociology at the University of Toronto identifies what he describes as three “pressure points” that may be causes for some concern.
*************************
In Role Blurring – which he describes as the “main culprit,” Schieman suggests perpetual connectivity to the job confuses the boundaries between work and other significant life domains – like family. Evenings and weekends, that traditionally offered sanctuary from the demands of work and an opportunity for attention to family, social and recreational interests, may now fall victim to a priority grab, depending on the perceived urgency of the next e-mail viewed.
Mobile devices are by far the most insidious. With convenient belt-clip mountings, the job is attached at the hip by day, and within arm’s reach on the beside table by night. Some may have the discipline to shut it down during personal time, but for many the sense of duty, and perhaps narcissistic seduction found in the gentle vibrations and flashing red lights of need – can be difficult to ignore. ‘Sorry dear, I just need to check this in case it’s something important.’
While we’re on the sidelines cheering at our son or daughter’s soccer game, we’re always just one vibration away from the priority pilferage that causes us to miss the big goal.
Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans
– John Lennon
*************************
Schieman cites Expectations as the second important pressure point.
Some employers may provide direction in corporate policy and others will leave it to the best judgement of employees, or their immediate managers. There may also be job description or position level considerations as to whether an employee is provided equipment or access to work related activity or correspondence.
In the absence of clear policy, what are the expectations? It is certainly understood that employees provided company mobiles with e-mail access would be expected to be accessible and checking in through business hours while they’re out of the workplace on sales calls, or even through their lunch breaks. While perhaps an irritant to golfing purists, it was also excusable that a CEO with whom I once played in an industry tournament, completed a hole with a one-handed putting technique enabling him to talk with a business caller on the cell phone held to his ear with the other.
But is it part of the job to have the Blackberry powered up and be checking and responding on one’s personal time? If the official answer is no, is there an unwritten code of expected behaviour that comes into play? Does an employee’s demonstration of off-hour availability and responsiveness find it’s way into performance evaluations as an example of commitment and dedication? For example, would there be tacit expectation of a weekend response to a weekend e-mail inquiry from a superior, even if it was clearly non-urgent and included no deadline?
Competitive working environments fuel the confusion over expectation further. Upwardly mobile or attention seeking opportunists quickly learn that people of influence can be impressed with a serving of strategically time-stamped communications. A few late night pearls of wisdom with careful completion of the ‘cc’ field may be all it takes to separate an aspiring employee from the pack.
*************************
The third pressure point Schieman discusses is A Sense of Control. Many people view the off-hour access to e-mail and their work as a way to stay afloat.
It may take this personal time access to manage the volume of work and mitigate the sense of frenzy during normal work hours. Remote access through technology allows people to organize, plan, and deal with issues in a lower-pressure environment, making the hours in the workplace more manageable. The obvious question here is whether it’s employees struggling or stretching out a job, or a job that’s grown beyond what can reasonably be accomplished in the normal schedule available for its completion.
E-mail flow in many organizations is overwhelming. There may also be no protocols or standards of efficiency in place. Writers tend to err on the side of over-copying rather than omitting someone and readers feel compelled to digest everything they get for fear of being out of the loop.
*************************
There is nothing new about people taking their job home with them and putting in long and unusual hours, but there is a relatively new and significant difference in the ease with which work can be carried out remotely. While the American survey suggests that employee interest in remote access is there, what is less clear is the health, family and social impacts in a relatively new world of perpetual connectivity to the work we do.
Individual employees will ultimately be very active, inactive, or somewhere between, in carrying out off-hour work based on their job demands and their personal views and priorities. What complicates matters and promotes stress is the uncertainty about employer expectations. The absence of a corporate guideline, or at least a guiding statement, invites confusion and inconsistency.
A competitive employment environment will find its own way, rightly or wrongly, in the absence of official direction. If higher levels of management are silent on expectation, lower management levels and individual employees will draw their own conclusions. It could be construed that a company supplying its employees with technology that facilitates off-hour access and the execution of work, combined with the example of senior management actively using it for such, have indirectly established policy and communicated expectation.
*************************
The truth is, given the option, many management and non-management employees will settle on a work / life balance that includes taking advantage of the convenience and flexibility of company provided technology to carry out remote, off-hour work on its behalf.
The point is, a lot of stress, confusion and inconsistency could be avoided if expectations were clear.
*************************
** Image credits: 1) Shutterstock 2) headexposed.com