Civil Service - Post Lockdown - Blended Working?
Comments
-
Different depts are saying different things, separate to DPER somewhat surprising many CS HRs with their "three days a week" release a while back
Answer is its too soon to tell.
0 -
Bit of a sweeping statement that last year people hated working from home
The widest survey i saw across CS had "some form of mixed" by far the most popular preference and that was in the first few months of the arrangement
All pointers since say that this has only firmed up and if a similar survey went out again id expect that 1 day a week or wfh unless necessary to attend periodically for a specific purpose would garner the vast majority of picks
5 -
This is the latest I've heard.
100% full time remote working for civil and public servants was never on the table as an option. So anyone still holding out for that is going to be disappointed.
Hybrid working was always the plan, and everyone who can will be expected to work at least some of the time at home - but local arrangements will be allowed for those who cannot WFH or who wish to opt out.
Every department has (or is supposed to have) a working group set up on this, and also worker representatives appointed that feed back to DPER.
As far as I know, negotiations are ongoing (including Unions) but the curve balls thrown by delta, and now omicron, have set everything back.
0 -
So is the provisional view it will be 3 days WFH?
0 -
A general framework is needed, I think it will be down to each PO to determine the roles in their branch that can be done from home, either wholly or partly, long term. Most other arrangements need to be signed off by them anyway. I don't know what the argument/excuse is going to be used given the 2 year sample proving that a role can done done remotely but I guess they can use the long term unknown aspects.
For those with a decent commute, 2 days in the office would be the max I think most would accept, a happy medium of sorts. There's going to be a lot of people sitting in the office thinking 'why am I here when I could be doing this at home'.
As an aside, it's a great opportunity for a modern form of decentralisation, instead of relocating a role to a location it can be relocated to the internet.
4 -
Advertisement
-
-
A general rule like that three days per week could potentially be the worst of both worlds, not good for those who can't or don't want to WFH and not good for those who can and want to WFH. They really need to look after employees, within the requirements of business need of course. No point in forcing people to be either at home or in the office when not necessary.
7 -
As highlighted by Hadassah Attractive Harp, the option to work in the office full time will be there. At least that has been confirmed in our office. Otherwise they run the risk of health and safety issues where an employee highlights concerns that are not addressed.
2 -
It would be nice if they just asked people what they wanted to do themselves. If you can do the job at home, do it. If you want to be in the office, go for it.
Surely once the work is getting done that should be the end of the matter.
Insisting on 3 days in and 2 out is a one size fits all attempt at a solution to an issue that necessitates flexibility. Perhaps with a project due you might want to be in the office 4 or 5 days to get it over the line. On the other hand, traveling in just to say you're at your desk seems entirely pointless.
5 -
Yes, that is what we've been told as well.
And from what I can gather, there will not be any hard and fast rule that everyone must do "X" set amount of days in the office, each and every week.
The organisation is too vast for there to be a rigid "one size fits all" policy on WFH as what may work for staff in D/Health, for example, may not work for staff working in D/SP.
There will be guidelines and recommendations - a Framework - which will eventually come down to local senior management to implement across their own department as best they see it fitting their Department's business needs.
1 -
Advertisement
-
That was just my observation from conversations i had with people.
Things changed as restrictions eased
1 -
I'm not saying a general rule is what should happen. 2 days in the office is the max that would be acceptable for those of us with a commute IMO, given there appears to be little chance in general of fully WFH roles, despite the evidence they can be done from home.
I think it will be down to the PO who knows best the roles and the people that are doing them. If their staff want to be in the office full time, at home full time or blended then it makes sense for them to accommodate them where possible. Demonstrate flexibility and they will get it back IMO. If a PO can decide where their staff carry out their job and has a mix of staff who want any of the three options then a one size fits all does not make sense, even if it is encouraged in the guidelines coming.
3 -
That's the problem though, if the guidelines don't highlight the fact that not everyone wants to WFH, organisations and POs will build their practices around the assumption that everyone wants to be at home but will be dragged in where necessary (or to fill a quota). This really doesn't work for people on either side.
0 -
I envison that number of days WFH / WFO will become part of each person's role profile / PMDS, because it allows for performance reviews at mid and end of year on how it is working out for both employee and supervisor.
Adding a disclaimer - that is wildly speculative on my part, and I haven't heard anything at all about WFH/WFO becoming part of PMDS.
But I've been thinking about it, and it seems to me to be the most logical time and place for that discussion to happen.
(And as always, if agreement can't be reached, it goes up the line to the second supervisor).
1 -
2 days is the max that would be acceptable to you to attend the office ?
If management took the decision in a few weeks or months time that it was all back to 5 day office attendance what would you do?
0 -
As alluded to already I don't see the point of sitting at an office desk if the job can be done from home. Unless you work in front line public service ie. DSP or Revenue or theirs a particular business need to be in the office WFH should be offered full time to staff who want it.
1 -
Surely if this is to be implemted, there also has to be an easier way agreed with unions of getting rid of useless staff in return. I really hope the Government don't miss this opportunity to approve WFH demands without getting something tangible in return.
0 -
Spoofer Veradka has gone awol over this issue.
0 -
The reality is that 100% WFH will not be offered. Realistically it will be 3 days in the office and 2 at home, unfortunately. That is what has been proposed for us, despite various objections.
No doubt there will be some flexibility in how it works out over a monthly period, but in order to be equitable, I don’t see sections performing similar functions getting away with 1 or 2 days only in the office (unless it’s something that they already had).
Then there’s the issue of those who can’t work from home. Will there be complaints and cries for compensation because they don’t get a WFH perk? That will likely lead into new rules around flexileave. I won’t be surprised to see us penalised in some way for WFH, similar to how flexileave is currently suspended unless you work in the office.
1 -
My understanding also is that the starting position is likely to be 3 days out and 2 days in. I expect that this will be rather formal at the start, with at least one day in required for the team as a whole. As inevitably happens, local arrangements under various POs will begin to diverge as time goes on.
For those who want full WFH, this is a very good starting position. The key thing to get at this point is more time at home than in the office. The reason for this is that it will necessitate and embed fairly quickly the key requirements to get additional WFH. Once you are out more than in the first thing that Departments will move towards (and this is part of Digital First in any case) is a move away from paper files almost entirely and moving towards electronic files. This is already the case is a lot of areas, but there are still some (especially customer facing) that are paper heavy and digital transformation efforts to move away from this are moving ahead across the civil service.
An additional reason is that, once people start coming in only for a minority of their time, the futility of this will become fairly immediately apparent - people coming in to the city center to log in to zoom meetings and send emails. Over the next few years I expect you will see lots of sections start to embrace and seek 4 days a week WFH, or more flexible arrangements allowing entire weeks to be WFH with office attendance only expected at certain times. 3 days a week WFH means the end of most face-to-face meetings, which were the main reason that most civil servants were office based in the first place - the amount of jobs which could not be done from home because those we interact with were working in offices is huge - that is now out the door. I've seen this in my area already, where people were called back in and found themselves working pretty much exactly as they were doing from home, with meetings with stakeholders still taking place virtually.
Managers will also have to get used to the idea of output based management rather than a presenteeism culture. The latter is much easier but much less effective, and any significant degree of WFH will demolish it as a management strategy. Managers will have to set and monitor output now, and while that culture will take some time to change, once it does the main barrier to WFH from the management side will die off. If you're focused entirely on output then you really don't care where or when your staff do the work provided the output hits your targets. We do have too many areas in which people just show up but do very varying levels of work when they're in. WFH will require a change there, and enabling mangers to develop output focused business plans and embed those in structures like PMDS is key to the cultural shift that needs to happen for WFH to be effective in an organisation as complex as the civil service. If you look at large law firms as an example (who culturally are fairly similar to the civil service in may ways) they've had less of an issue in adapting because they are super output focused: how much money are we taking in from fees; are billable hours up in X area; etc.
The watchword in my area, and as I understand in others, is that it is needed for "better collaboration". That's a fairly paper thin reason, and frequently senior management are using "collaboration" as a buzzword when all they mean in actuality is "information sharing" and in some cases "onboarding". I've worked in the private sector in more creative type work where collaboration was key, especially to new product development and complex problem solving. With a few exceptions this is neither how the civil service, nor most of the traditional professions, work. To develop collaboration in a real sense you do what, for example, the tech firms do - provide a workspace that encourages people, in a fairly flat management structure, to spend their time in common areas with those from different business areas and provide them with the "down time" (80-20) to work on ideas together that mostly go nowhere, but occasionally lead to new and creative products and solutions. The Civil Service doesn't, and probably can't, function that way. I can only imagine the look of horror from A/Secs if you had a handful of EOs, AOs, and APs playing pool and having a beer in the office while discussing some policy or process issue and deciding to send a submission up on the back of it.
Ultimately the kind of highly structured and constrained collaboration that occurs in the civil service won't be impacted greatly by WFH. A blended policy of 2/3 in/out will show this fairly rapidly. Onboarding is much harder, but it's not clear that the kind of informal training that is generally provided to new people is particularly efficient - there could be great gains in thinking about how we do that and providing a more formal process.
There's also the fact that, eventually, Government will recognise the profound potential of greater WFH in the civil and public service (who will be following leaders in the private sector). If you look at a lot of the major challenges facing Government over the next decade: housing provision, transport infrastructure, childcare, elder care, rural decline, climate resilience, etc; there is a lot of scope for WFH and the pattern of development it provides to reduce burdens here. Housing is the obvious one and enough has been said about that. In terms of transport infrastructure the challenges all stem from having to move a large number of people daily into a very small geographic area from a very spread out geographic area - WFH reduces that challenge immediately. Childcare expenses and elder care expenses are modern problems that are to a large degree caused by the atomisation of families due to the need to relocate for increasingly specialised work, the closer people can remain to parents the less severe these problems are - you open the possibility which many will take up of the traditional "the grandparents provide free childcare, and eventually kids and grandkids provide free eldercare". The benefits for arresting rural decline are also obvious, country people have been moving to Dublin in their droves reducing the attractiveness and economic health of rural towns at an increasing pace now for decades since services overtook industry here - rural Ireland is already seeing the benefit of WFH in new coffee shops, restaurants, etc., suddenly becoming economically viable. A PO in many rural towns would be among the higher income earners in the area, and also has skills and experience that community organisations (local voluntary boards like credit unions, the tidy towns, Comhaltas, the GAA, etc.) increasingly find it difficult to find. The benefits for climate resilience are also fairly clear - the worst effects of climate change will be when densely populated areas become unlivable, particularly coastal locations like where all of our cities are. Spreading people out, especially when that doesn't mean carbon costly commutes, is a great way to mitigate that risk. The other big climate challenge is likely to be dealing with a large number of climate refugees over the next couple of decades. We will face a huge problem in integrating asylum seekers in a politically acceptable way if rural decline and urban housing shortages remain an issue: we cannot provide housing for them in the cities without being seen to "displace locals" who cannot get housing, and we cannot put them in rural communities that have no work available and are themselves experiencing the depopulation of their own children. Vibrant rural communities that have young and economically successful populations with a wealth of job opportunities will find it much easier to integrate these newcomers, and cities won't face the same degree of pressure on dwellings. That's going to be a divisive issue, and without a way to solve the problem there is a profound risk of political instability.
Ireland's politics are highly sensitive to rural needs and will remain so for as long as we retain representation solely from multi-seat constituencies. Politicians are highly sensitive to the needs of their heartlands, and the pandemic has shown the potential for rural Ireland of getting back their sons and daughters who've left to work in the likes of Google, PWC, Salesforce, Arthur Cox, and the Civil Service. Political careers live and die over issues like keeping the small school, the post office, the Garda Station, the local hospital, etc. open. The best way to do that is to ensure a mass of people who need the service. Without that you just delay the inevitable.
That doesn't mean working from bedrooms and garden offices though. Sure, many will go for that solution, but many more will go for rural hubs. There are increasing numbers of these, and more and more towns are looking to establish them at a rapid rate - it's not difficult when they have so many central premises vacant. I think I'd go mad working from my house every day, but I'd have no difficulty walking twenty minutes into the town center to take up a desk in the local remote hub. I might even buy a coffee and a sandwich in town, drop my kids off at my parents place (and maybe in 15 years time check on them in the morning and evening), or go out for pints in the evening with friends from the remote working hub.
TL;DR: 3 days a week is the sweet spot for further development. It builds a remote culture in the organisation. It shows the benefit to the political system of WFH, which is significant. It also gives the Unions a new front for making demands, and those who want WFH should get active in FORSA and AHCPS to make this a priority in negotiations, because if they are smart they will find themselves pushing an open door.
Post edited by AP2021 on15 -
Advertisement
-
Some public service and civil service mid level managers hate their staff working from home and will resist it, I think blended work is the future for many jobs though if they can be carried out to the required standards.
0 -
Everyone is talking about management needing to manage based on outcomes and timelines. Managers desperately want this imo, but aren't allowed by the employees and culture in a lot of cases.
The number of conversations I have about late timelines (which were agreed with the iniividual or even suggested by the individual, not me as the manager) with no explanation or communication or apology etc. and then I get the response that I am putting people under "pressure" and they go to the union and HR.
Employees need to realise if they are WFH they need to be accountable and deliver on timelines, and managers need to be able to enforce that and have serious conversations/warnings if they don't. Right now, managers simply can't have those conversations as they will get accused of bullying and there is literally no consequence for employees of missed deadlines and not answering emails from the manager whatsoever - no demotion, no risk of dismissal, and no bonus foregone, so they simply don't care, except for the minority who are driven high performers. What can the manager do if they don't do the work on time? Nothing so there's no incentive to do the work if you are not career-driven and looking for a promotion. That's the power that staff have and it will be impossible in the long term.
WFH works great if you can fully enforce accountability in a meaningful way - but this isn't possible in a lot of cases in the public service.
2 -
Exactly. There is always a minority who take the piss in the office. Allowing WFH needs to go hand-in-hand with stricter and enforced disciplinary actions.
2 -
We have a lot of managers who are unwilling to manage. That's to some extent what you're describing. If one is actually followed their responsibilities as a manager, and set out and agreed realistic outputs with proper timescales, then the next step is clear when those goals aren't being met. There is a very clear policy on dealing with underperformance through the PIP process, but the fact is that mangers don't tend to go down that route as generally they don't feel confident in doing so as they have failed in some area of their own responsibility and they know that a union or legal rep will catch them on it (e.g. goals are unclear, staff have not been treated in a consistent manner, underperformance has been tolerated for an extended period, feedback and training have been lacking).
If as a manger you've set goals realistically and with agreement, provided feedback, addressed performance issues promptly, and treated people consistently, then there are clear underperformance tools open to you. Threats of bullying and whatnot won't go anywhere.
2 -
There is a big problem with poor management in the CS whereby underperforming employees are allowed to fester. Some managers don't want to look weak if a PIP is implemented. It reflects badly on them that they couldn't nip problems in the bud before it got to that stage. Also the last thing a manager wants is a case of bullying on their hands when they have ambitions for promotion. It truly is disfunctional in some areas of the CS when underperformance is not confronted and acted on in comparison to the private sector where the employee would be shown the door. The unions have a lot of power unfortunately in protecting the employee.
1 -
In return for providing free office space to the employer? You haven't done much negotiation with unions, have you?
0 -
Are you saying it is the Government that are demanding their employees work from home on a permanent basis? In order to free up Government office space? Do you have a link for any of this? Were the Government requesting this free work space prior to covid?
Or is it in fact the employees who are requesting they provide their employer with free work space once it was experienced due to covid how beneficial it is?
From what I can see in this thread, quite a lot of people are insisting they provide free work spaces within their homes.
0 -
That's exactly what's happening to me and others today - Government demanding that employees work from home, with no consideration of the feasibility of same.
1 -
Well, they are often unwilling to manage because it is not worth the heat to them from bullying complaints (trust me I have seen it - attack is the best form of defence for any employee who feels their performance is coming under scrutiny). HR often won't let you put people on a PIP as they are talking a risk of a legal case by the employee for unfair treatment and that's their number one objective - avoid legal issues.
Once you start asking questions on documented timelines you get "you're pressuring me, you are singling me out" etc and you start getting manipulated and undermined which is very difficult to deal with. Honestly, managing in the PS is not done by a lot of managers because with the culture it's impossible to enforce things with disengaged and non performing employees - the manager will be the one taking all teh risks while the employee continues to get their way.
0 -
Advertisement
-
On a permanent basis? Or is it just for the duration of the pandemic?
Surely a chap like you, conscious of health and safety and all, would be glad not to have to mingle with others while a deadly virus is in the air.
0
