The false economy of putting in face time at work

The Japanese government has recently publicised plans to consider introducing daylight savings in an attempt to provide more favourable conditions for athletes participating in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Whilst there are several other benefits for introducing daylight savings in Japan, such as reduced energy consumption and higher consumer spending, there are concerns that such a move would see a return of longer working hours where bosses expect employees to remain working past sunset.

Although debate on the merits of daylight savings in Australia, particularly in South East Queensland, focuses on slightly different factors (i.e. will cows really produce less milk?!), the pressure to put in ‘face time’, that is being passively present at work (which is distinct from working longer hours), is all too familiar. Certainly, I think that many of us have felt the pressure to come in early and leave late in order to impress our boss, particularly if he/she is a new boss. Some of you may have also received well intentioned advice from senior colleagues to the effect that putting in face time is a way for you to be seen as a ‘go getter’ and someone worthy of promotion. Unfortunately, for those of us who get in, get our work done and leave early, archaic expectations such as this are demotivating and in direct opposition to the achievement of engagement and work life balance.

There is a great deal of research demonstrating that employees often feel the need to put in ‘expected face time’, that is being physically at work during work hours, as well as ‘extracurricular face time’, that is being physically at work outside of work hours. Although there is a lack of evidence supporting ‘face time’ as predictive of enhanced productivity or performance there is evidence suggesting that ‘face time’ is predictive of more favourable supervisor ratings, performance evaluations, higher raises, promotions and job security. Presumably because managers incorrectly (and often unconsciously) make inferences that being at work is evidence of being productive. In light of this, we can hardly begrudge employees who think that being at work, even if not necessarily being productive, is going to be beneficial for their career.

There are however at least three important reasons why using face time as an indicator of productivity, dedication or commitment creates a false economy. Firstly, rewarding physical presence independent of actual productivity undermines employees trust in the performance management process and can create resentment. It is important that workers know what their evaluations are based on, and trust that the criteria will be stuck to. Secondly, employees who are passively present at work but not actively engaged are likely to be a distraction to others. Have you ever come into the office extra early on a Monday morning to set yourself up for the week only to have your efforts thwarted by an overly chatty colleague? Or do you have a co-worker who arrives early only to spend the first hour making toast, getting a coffee, laughing at memes and scanning news websites? Thirdly, work flexibility and work life balance are highly valued by the modern worker. Indeed, a recent study published in the American Economic Review suggested that some workers are willing to give up 8% of wages just to work from home. Organisations who value face time at the expense of flexibility are likely to miss out to competitors in the attraction and retention of top talent.

What can managers do to avoid the face time fallacy?

1. Clarify performance goals. In the absence of clear performance criteria, managers often resort to using face time as an easier way to assess performance. A clear performance management system which details what goals are desirable and that is aligned with the overall company culture and vision, will ensure that managers are well equipped to more validly assess actual performance. Having a transparent PM system will also signal to employees that their hard work is valued and determined by the results they achieve, irrespective of how much face time they put in.

2. Educate managers about the bias of face time. Some managers may not be aware that they are making judgments about their employees based on face time. HR practitioners and organisational psychologists are well placed to provide education about potential bias, and alternative ways to measure actual performance.

3. Lead by example. If employees are to trust that face time in and of itself isn’t valued, then management need to model this. One of the main barriers to employees taking advantage of flexible work arrangements, recreation leave and other benefits is a lack of perceived uptake by senior management. Managers should not be wearing their lack of holidays or coming in sick as a badge of honour. Instead, they should be taking annual leave, staying home when sick, and working reasonable hours.

4. Embrace flexible work options. It is not enough to offer flexible work options. Employees should be encouraged to utilise these arrangements. Research shows that employees who take advantage of flexible work arrangements are more satisfied, productive and are able to work longer hours without experiencing any negative effects.

5. Make the most of technology. In addition to the attitudinal benefits of telework, technology has made it so much easier for workers to exchange ideas, communicate and keep informed with what is going on with customers, co-workers and the organisation. The sophistication, affordability and reliability of many of these collaborative technology platforms make it as attractive, if not more attractive, to work from remote locations. Indeed, some organisations actively encourage telework as a way to save on overheads and keep smaller and more affordably run physical offices.

Despite there being a rapid shift in the way that many organisations now manage their workforce (e.g. flexible work arrangements, telework), the view that physical presence signals reliability is one that is still strongly held. We know from related research that having an engaged workforce is likely to provide organisations with a real competitive advantage, so it makes sense that organisations, with the assistance of HR practitioners and organisational psychologists, should be directing efforts to promote engagement via promotion of clear performance goals and transparent reward systems. Face time is an unreliable and invalid way to assess performance, continuing to do so is not only counterproductive but also fails to realise the attitudinal, emotional and financial benefits of having an actively engaged and healthy workforce.