The periodic eruption over working at home versus showing up at the office misses an important point. Does one of the alternatives help the person do a better job?
The home-vs-office argument is often seen as a contest between a boss who needs reassurance that work is actually being done and an employee who wants the option of sleeping in or goofing off.
Let's back off a bit and start over. What is the job, anyway? And what, therefore. is how it should be done?
Exploration of that side of the situation reveals how well the two parties grasp what the job is supposed to accomplish, and therefore what the worker bee should be doing to accomplish it. Miscommunication -- or lack of communication -- between the parties routinely muddies this vital issue.
In all my years as a manager I didn't realize the one element that clearly marks employee effectiveness, and therefore is the top marker for good management. Results.
If an employee regularly produces outcomes that meet requirements such as return on investment, organizational standards and teamwork expectations, that person is doing a good job.
When those outcomes can be achieved by workers scattered in various homes rather then sitting in a central office, the situation shines a light on the managers of those employees.
Have they organized the best possible structures and practices for maximum value in supporting the work of good employee? Does their managing behavior make best use of the employee' work through the structures and practices they have set up?
In all my years as a management consultant, I sometimes wondered at the extent of incompetence I encountered in the ranks of management.
People often were promoted to management positions because of seniority or friendship or a superficial appearance of competence based on educational record. If you had earned a master's degree in business, you must know stuff.
