Hint – the workers got just as much done in 32 hours than they did in 40. But, could that work everywhere? Let’s look at the approach:
“He said the results of Perpetual Guardian’s trial showed that when hiring staff, supervisors should negotiate tasks to be performed, rather than basing contracts on hours new employees spent in the office.
“Otherwise you’re saying, ‘I’m too lazy to figure out what I want from you, so I’m just going to pay you for showing up,’” Mr. Barnes said.
“A contract should be about an agreed level of productivity,” he added. “If you deliver that in less time, why should I cut your pay?”
Now, could that work in eDiscovery, for example? Maybe. Within the legal industry we’d have to have a serious re-imagining of how we measure value. We are still very tied to the billable hour, and measuring everything based on time. That would have to change.
Can it? I’m not sure it’s going to happen anytime soon, but I also see no reason why it shouldn’t change. Much like the lawyers who simply refuse to use technology that would make them more efficient because that would mean billing less hours, this is a concept that has already hung around too long and should die. In 2018 do we hire staff to sit around and wait for work, or do we hire staff to get work done?
How important is it to have someone sitting in the office, versus someone who is efficient and productive even if they’re not always sitting right there?
Does the answer to that question rely on whether the lawyers in your firm can get their own coffee or not?
Yeah it’s 2018. Get your own coffee. Hire people who can get work done in a timely fashion and spend more time doing better things that improve their lives, making them better employees.
You get what you measure. If you measure hours at a desk, you’ll get that. Is that your core business?