I don't think you and I are in any general disagreement here.
Perhaps I should clarify: when I say that adopting flex time requires a leap of faith for certain companies, I'm simply making an observation. I don't condone that mindset. In fact, I think it's every bit as ridiculous and antiquated as you do. But a lot of employers are old-school that way: they don't trust their employees, and opening up to a concept like flex time is inherently going to require a bit of a leap of faith for them.
My entire point was that such companies -- as it so happens, a lot of companies -- still view their employees from an inherent place of mistrust or wariness. Yes, it's their problem. And yes, it will prevent them from getting the best and brightest. No argument there. I was simply pointing out that such a mindset exists and that it is still fairly prevalent. I was not in any way justifying it or lending credence to it.
In a perfect world, I agree: it should not have to be a leap of faith. But in the world as it exists, it's still a big jump for many, many employers.
Gotcha, totally. Sorry for misinterpreting your observation as agreement :)
You're right, it's rampant and in some markets it's hard to find an opportunity to work for a company while avoiding this kind of attitude. Shame. I've thought a lot about turning to contracting to 'solve' this problem. I'd rather have a dispassionate agreement based on what I think an hour of my time is worth than a personal one about how much of my available time I'm giving to an employer incapable or uninterested in evaluating my work product.
Fortunately, at present I'm on a ridiculously amazing team at an awesome startup and this isn't a problem I'm currently faced with.. but I've seen quite a bit of it in the past, and I expect to come across more in the future.
I run a software company. I was, in a previous life, a programmer.
I do not judge employee worth by whether or not I can see them working/goofing off. I judge them by whether or not they produce the goods on time and to spec.
That said I have a remote worker and it is a constant battle to see whether or not I am getting what I need out of him. He is poor at communications and so the rest of the team feel as if they do not know what he is doing at any time (so they assume, in the absence of any other data, that he is not pulling his weight).
I am sure that he works long hours and does indeed try to produce the goods but that doesn't take away the perception (if he cannot be contacted at 1000 people assume he is still in bed (and he might be for all I know)). If he comes into the office and spends time talking to people they see it as interference (with a dollop of "why is he sat here chatting to me instead of getting on with the work we are trying to complete").
I think it takes a very disciplined person to work remotely and those disciplines are: working at home as if you were going to the office; be fanatical about communicating with your colleagues; make sure everyone knows what your routine is (if it isn't the same as theirs) so that they understand why you cannot be contacted at 1000 in the morning.
I think it's important to make the distinction between remote employees and remote teams. I think having a remote employee or two on a non-remote team is a challenge... I don't think the qualities required to work remotely are all that rare or require that much discipline. You could argue that it requires loads of discipline to come into work every day.. but you wouldn't, because it's second nature to us.. because we're judged on showing up.
Anyways, like I said.. being a remote worker on a non-remote team is pretty tricky. I've dealt with this challenge in the past and the best advice I can give is to allow/encourage your local employees to telecommute occasionally. The last team I was on that dealt with that virtually everyone started working from home one day a week and the group pretty quickly started adapting to different practices in terms of communication, expectations, and handing off work products. Was really beneficial all the way around, and it makes the odd completely-remote employee way less of a perceived rogue.
Perhaps I should clarify: when I say that adopting flex time requires a leap of faith for certain companies, I'm simply making an observation. I don't condone that mindset. In fact, I think it's every bit as ridiculous and antiquated as you do. But a lot of employers are old-school that way: they don't trust their employees, and opening up to a concept like flex time is inherently going to require a bit of a leap of faith for them.
My entire point was that such companies -- as it so happens, a lot of companies -- still view their employees from an inherent place of mistrust or wariness. Yes, it's their problem. And yes, it will prevent them from getting the best and brightest. No argument there. I was simply pointing out that such a mindset exists and that it is still fairly prevalent. I was not in any way justifying it or lending credence to it.
In a perfect world, I agree: it should not have to be a leap of faith. But in the world as it exists, it's still a big jump for many, many employers.