Flexible working needs rebrand, says president
The president of the Law Society will today call for a rethink of flexible working to make law firms and other businesses more attractive to women - and men.
Delivering the keynote speech at an International Women's Day event to a London audience of lawyers, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff is to say that employers and employees lose out on innovation and creativity when staff are required to adhere to a 9-to-5 work day.
She will say: ‘Flexible working needs a rebrand. The discussion around it has gone down the wrong route.
‘It's not helpful when people like [Yahoo chief executive] Marissa Mayer opine that flexible working “prevents staff from being productive”. That’s just not true.
‘The Power Part Time Top 50 featured six senior partners at law firms, one of who had achieved one of his - yes, his - highest billing performances after going part time.
‘It's not just working mothers who want to work flexibly. Many men will work harder and better if their employer doesn't force them to choose work over family responsibilities. Others would prefer to put the hours in when they are most productive, or to spend less valuable time on their commute.
‘What employees actually need is support in being agile. Agile working is all about speed and effectiveness - things any firm will value. Firms should see flexible working less as a benefit to their staff and more as a benefit to the business – a way of helping their teams become more productive and more creative.
‘Employers who encourage their staff to adopt an agile approach to their work will be the ones who win the talent war.’
Comments
"make law firms and other
"make law firms and other businesses more attractive to women - and men"
Just throwing it out there as a random idea, how about protecting the jobs in the first place? T
hen maybe think about whether people should 'work' from home, as opposed to just 'being' at home.
Working at home
I'm afraid I'm with the Yahoo boss, Lucy."Working at home" is a euphemism for "day off". As for men, many of them love going to work precisely because it gets them out of the house and therefore away from their families. The last thing they want is flexible working.
Tosh
I don't wish to be rude, but what old fashioned tosh. I have worked at home regularly for over 4 years now. It gives me time to knuckle down to matters that need concentrated attention without the constant interruptions of working in an open plan environment, as most of us do now. If I had been "taking a day off" once a week for 4 years, don't you think that might have been reflected in my WiP and picked up on by my employers?
My husband is also free to work at home when required - sick child, school appointment etc. Without that flexibility we would absolutley struggle to keep family and work life ticking along. The only way to resolve this would effectively be for me - as the female who earns less - to stop working or to reduce my hours. Is that really the only answer? Or do you think women should be chased out of the workplace?
Thank the heavens for progressive and open minded employers who can see beyond this tired old way of thinking and who value us for the benefit we bring to their companies in spite of our tiresome tendancy to procreate.
P.S. I see the Yahoo boss has resolved her immediate problems by having a nursery built next to her workplace! Can't wait to see how she handles children of school age who require her attention.
Yahoo CEO
To be fair I believe the Yahoo CEO was relatively new and was faced with a number of challenges about staff productivity. Sadly she took the wrong approach as wholsale directives which apply to a lot of staff rarely work. Maybe she is hoping that the unproductive staff who might be taking a advantage of flexible/homeworking will move on and she can build her 'own' workforce.
But she has made a big mistake and in the process sent out the wrong message. If her employees were not being productive there are a range of imaginative ideas and initiatives which can be used but no size fits all in a big company and these take time to implement and perhaps that is one thing she was not given.
Many CEOs are taken on to turn around businesses within a short timeframe . This means that many business decisions are done for the short term and when that CEO leaves the problems resurface and so on and so on. It is a never ending cycle of history repeating.
Whatever, the fact is that flexible working and homeworking does work in the majority of cases for all the reasons above.
Day Off
You have got to be joking submitted by "me" above.
I regularly work from home and indeed the majority of our fee earning staff are set up to do so when they need to - inclement weather, boiler man due etc etc - why not? They appreciate it as they don't need to book a day off and they are earning the business money. They have peace and quiet with no interruptions so get twice as much done.
On my home working days as I don't have to spend ages making myself look professional (quick shower and I'm in the home office) nor do I have to sit in traffic for 40 minutes I can start work at 7.30 a.m. and I am still going at 7.00 at night as I am "in the zone" - in between this I can dash down and put the washing on, zip out with the dogs at lunchtime break,, get supper on and I can honestly say that due to my role personally I get at least three times as much work done.
As women are now expected to work full time, look amazing at all times, raise a family and "keep house" - then I think the offer of flexible working is the least we can do as employers. We do all we can for those who have had children as that way we keep our excellent staff, they are happy, their children are happy and consequently they are productive. Its a win win situation.
One more thing ....
.... I think it is very sad that "me" thinks men want to get to work to get away from their families.
I think flexible working is a
I think flexible working is a fantastic idea and think I would far more productive if I had the opportunity to work from home, even just occasionally. I'd probably also be more likely to do extra work in the evenings when it's quiet. A lot of firms still do 9-5.30, but insist on an hour's lunch break. Most working mothers I know would rather skip the lunch break and get away early so that they can at least be home in time for their child's bedtime - if they can work from home they can do a couple more hours in the evening if they need to. Finishing at 5.30 just isn't practical when you have little ones at home. I'm rarely home before 6, even if I leave at 5.30 on the dot. I've asked repeatedly if I can have the opportunity to log-in from home so that I can get stuff done in the evenings once bedtime etc is sorted but to no avail. Employers don't seem to realise it benefits them as well as the employee!
Home based working
All the partners and staff at my firm are home based. Everyone, perhaps for differing reasons, appreciates the flexibility and balance that this brings.
We do clinical negligence litigation, which is quite amenable to individuals working on their own caseloads independently but with appropriate supervision. It is a matter of getting the right systems in place (being paperless helps significantly) and picking the right employees. People generally work (and are available by phone/email) typical office hours with time out for the school run etc where necessary and can catch up whenever is convenient for them.
Being home based works for our firm and staff. Firms who either can't or don't want to embrace it are missing out on good employees and a better working environment, not to mention significantly reduced property costs.