Would you pay for the right to WFA Part Two!

So yesterday we questioned the fairness of Stephenson Harwood’s work from home (WFH) policy – which sees WFH employees having to accept a 20% pay cut for the right to permanently WFH.

The results of our brief poll yesterday seem to suggest that you find this unfair, and that people should receive the same pay for doing the same job (and getting the same results!) ?no matter where they choose to do their work.

This throws up an interesting question.

Does an employee’s presence in the office have a value over and above simply ‘getting the job done’??Could this be the reason Stephenson Harwood think remote employees have less worth?

Alongside the work you are actually employed to do, is the ‘discretionary’ extra work you may not actually get paid to do, but which has an inherent benefit to your employer. One example of this is knowledge transfer.

“Can you just show so and so the ropes?”

Tricky to do if you are not in the office.?In fact, there are a whole host of ‘can you justs’ that don’t show up for work when you don’t.

From sharing your expertise, through to your ability to lift spirits and motivate, put in overtime, or drop in a transformational idea over a quick coffee, your discretionary work has a value.?

Companies often encode this as a ‘willingness to go the extra mile’.?So, maybe employers don’t feel they are getting enough ‘mileage’ when you’re not in the office, simply because they can’t see it for themselves (despite the 9.30pm time signature of your email response…).

Plus, human beings are (generally) pretty social creatures, pre pandemic at least.

Some of our oldest professions literally run-on gut feel, eyeballing and a firm (but not too firm …) handshake.?Those kinds of social norms can’t be shaken overnight and if they could, why should they be??What are the incentives?

Well … if you’re team ‘if it aint broke, don’t fix it’ they can be pretty hard to see.?If your business is successful now, why on earth should you change?

It’s a good question.?To answer it we’ll use frogs.

The frog experiment (which, btw we DO NOT condone ??) goes a little like this … if you put a frog in boiling water, it (understandably!) jumps out as soon as it feels the heat.?If, however, you put it in room temperature water and ?s l o w l y ?heat to boiling point, the frog doesn’t sense the change in temperature until it’s too late.

To complete the analogy If your organisations focus is on ‘getting back to normal’ are you reading the thermometer?

Lots of people don’t want normal.?They want different.?They want better.

The way we have traditionally done business has been as much a barrier to some as an enabler to others, and with ‘Class A’ talent harder to find (and retain) than ever, maybe allowing people to design a way of working that suits their needs will give access to a bigger, better pool, not to mention unlock the kind of loyalty (and knowledge retention) that employers need for long term success.

The balancing act is a tricky one though.?A lot walks out of the door when you do.

However, with Silicon Valley investing billions in the metaverse, the entire way we ‘do work’ is primed for massive change, much of which is designed to make remote working easier and more collaborative.

Our advice??Aside from following us for tips ?? employers need to invest in an ecosystem that allows them to adapt working practices in line with need, and take advantage of the opportunity to create an attractive employer brand.

Employees should take a long hard look at whether their current employer is offering them the best possible deal in exchange for their talent.