The most common definition of presenteeism relates to the act of coming to work whilst ill and the impact that this has on a person’s level of productivity. However, in recent years many researchers, and indeed organisations, have asked the question – can the presenteeism construct be extended? It could be argued that any behaviour that reduces productivity at work can be called presenteeism. Procrastination or conducting personal business cost organisations millions of pounds in lost productivity. For example, a recent report claimed that social networking sites such as Twitter are costing UK businesses £1.38bn every year.
Employees are still working the long hours – perhaps to prove that they are valuable members of staff, or to help keep their jobs secure – but they are not producing anything extra for their organisations, and perversely may actually be costing them money.
This seems a persuasive argument and has led many companies to simply ban ‘personal business’ at work. Either by blocking certain websites, or by punishing such behaviour, these companies are taking steps to ensure that staff are engaging with the work they are being paid to do.
You can see their point, but I do think that this line of thinking can sometimes go too far. By banning personal business at work, organisations take away an employee’s sense of control, reduce their work-life balance and, as Jill Flint-Taylor alluded to in an earlier blog, damage their personal resilience. Overall, it’s hardly a recipe for a flexible, happy workplace. Although an organisation sets out to improve productivity, they may end up reducing employees’ levels of engagement and well-being.
This is not to say that employees should be allowed to spend all of their time dealing with personal issues and thereby wasting time at work. The important point is that there is a balance to strike here. What works in some organisations may not work in others. Some companies may feel that a more flexible and open approach will encourage innovation – for example, someone in a creative role may get a brilliant idea from Twitter that really benefits the business. On the other hand, call-centre companies may prefer that autonomy is kept to a minimum as the objective is to get through as many calls as possible without distractions. It’s horses for courses, but it has to be consciously managed.
Personal business at work need not simply be a ‘black hole’ for productivity, but trust is the critical factor. It is for this reason that I don’t see the construct of presenteeism being extended to include these behaviours any time soon. The challenge for organisations is to get the balance right between the autonomy and trust with employees on the one side and what’s right for the overall good of the business on the other. We need to actively managing both.
Twitter ‘costs businesses £1.4bn’ – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8325865.stm
Perhaps twittering is the ‘new’ cigarette break -which was probably less about the actual cigarette (until everyone found themselves with a nicotine addiction) than a chance to press the ‘refresh button.I expect the business bill is probably more than fair exchange for the healthcare savings and time lost smoking!
Prohibition fails on two levels; the message that ‘you are not trusted’ gets overtly stated and the behaviour continues covertly via smart phones and clever apps such as ‘Spreadtweet’ that disguise your tweeting and makes it look like you are working on a spreadsheet (you have to admire the innovation). Of course a default ‘total trust’ approach can also fail if a person takes advantage of such an unrestricted policy.
Would it work to have employees write their own policy, including policing? I tried this in California with the casual dress policy in the 1990’s (in Southern California ‘casual’ could look a lot like Baywatch) and the rules the employees came up with were fair and probably more conservative than I would have suggested. Is this committee approach workable in terms of personal business at work?
I can understand why some employers have strict policies around the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, however when people spend so much of their waking lives at work I think they should be allowed some leeway especially during their lunch break.
As Sean has pointed out, there will always new ways to do this in private and mobile phones make enforcing a total ban difficult to enforce.