this week's must offer employees the home office, wherever possible. Previously, they were still hesitant?
Nadine Bös
editor in the business, responsible for the "profession and Chance".
F. A. Z. TwitterChristophe Campana: Some people can tolerate this pandemic, maybe even a little push, and this crisis also as an opportunity to understand.
What is wrong?
To successful home office to implement, it needs a few prerequisites: a kind of organisational resilience. Every employee needs to be clarity about its roles and responsibilities and the objectives of the company. And of course, the technological framework, so access to all systems. And a leadership paradigm that is based on trust and autonomy.
And missing more time?
Eric Schott: On the one hand, there is the simple equation: more home office – less number of cases. The view is an attitude, a very strong thing. On the other hand, some managers shy away from, unfortunately, is still in dialogue with their often very different employees. My suggestion: you should specifically discuss with each Individual: Ok, how does the home office, for yourself, what activities can you do at home? If managers engage in a discussion, many: There are surprising positive effects.
What is it?
We have to approach is seen by our customers in the pandemic, often the case that the barriers are reduced, to colleagues from other Teams and other countries. In the office you just have to Nachbartür, but not abroad. Many of our customers, there was now a realization: Wow! I'm suddenly not networked with colleagues around the world, I did not know of before. And this is pretty easy, it sets a team Meeting! Also, of course, but that has a downside.
And?
It is perhaps not everyone's a leader, a bit fishy, if employees on a par, any things to discuss, which you might as executives prefer to Hand it held would have.
Eric Schott (left) and Christophe Campana : image: Campana and Schottit's not generally a great objection to the home office that some employees are so trustworthy and secretly lazy?
A certain need for Control may be in individual cases, Yes, understandable. Then I would say, however, this fact can also be transmitted digitally, for example, like this: Every day at 9.30 am, we together with the Team, then we discuss what we strive to achieve for the day. And later we meet a second Time online and see whether this has been achieved. My message is: "controls", you can stay, if necessary obtain, you must be involved not only intelligent in the digital world.
Must apply the policy with its provisions only to the employer? Or a lot of workers go, also just like in the office?
Campana: It is not solely the fault of the company. Also, the employees have their reservations. We all currently suffer lack of social contacts, that is human. There are people who have to close apartments, or a noise problem at home. And some people simply need a solid structure in their daily lives.
The regulation to the home office-offer obligation has been mitigated in the past week. Now the government wants to checks no especially stringent, and penalties more. How to control the Whole would have been anyway?
Schott: It would certainly have huge documentation requirements and a large administrative effort.
Campana: It would also become difficult to control. The people are quite creative in finding reasons why the home office is.
For example?
For example, this supposed principle of solidarity: The production must work on-site, therefore, the office employees need to work on-site. But only because of certain professional groups, for example, a crane operator, doing a dangerous job, it is not necessary to equip the administration with a sloping balcony without a railing, so that the risks are evenly distributed. If a company continues currently, all presence, then it is at risk but people who don't have to necessarily jeopardize also!
Date Of Update: 01 February 2021, 09:20
