Employers who force staff to return to the office five days a week have been called the “dinosaurs of our age” by one of the world’s leading experts who coined the term “presenteeism.”
Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organizational psychology and health at the University of Manchester’s Alliance Manchester Business School, said employers imposing strict requirements on staff to be in the office risked driving away talented workers, damaging the wellbeing of employees and undermining their financial performance.
It comes after Amazon said on Monday that all its corporate staff would be expected to work from the office five days a week from Jan. 2, as the latest big global employer to demand a strict return to pre-pandemic practices.
Photo: AP
“Unfortunately some organizations and companies are thinking of trying to force people back into the work environment five days a week. I think they’re the dinosaurs of our age. The old command and control type management style,” Cooper said.
“Amazon say they want people back five days a week, and a couple of investment banks. But that goes against the evidence,” he said.
Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.
“If you value and trust people to get on with their job, and give them autonomy — and flexible work is one of those — they’ll work better, you’ll retain them, and they will be less likely to have a stress-related illness.
“If you micromanage, you won’t get productivity gains, and you won’t attract the next generation.”
Widely regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on workplace organization, health and wellbeing, Cooper coined the term presenteeism in the 1980s to describe when employees are at work but not performing to their full potential because of health issues.
He previously advised the government on work and wellbeing in the 2000s, producing research leading to an expansion in flexible working legislation under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2014.
Labor is preparing to unveil sweeping changes to workers’ rights legislation within weeks, including measures to make flexible working the default option for workers from day one on the job, alongside a ban on exploitative zero-hours contracts.
Some business leaders have expressed concerns about the scale of the changes, saying they could damage job creation and the economy. However, the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, told the Times on Monday that he wanted to end a “culture of presenteeism” that was holding back the economy.
“It does contribute to productivity, it does contribute to [staff] resilience, their ability to stay working for an employer,” he said.
Cooper said the “overwhelming evidence” was that flexible working created higher job satisfaction levels, better retention of staff and could help drive up workplace productivity.
“Reynolds is absolutely right,” he said. “Working longer doesn’t lead to productivity, but more ill health.”
Remote working boomed at the height of the COVID pandemic, leading some experts to predict a permanent shift in working practices. However, many firms have introduced return-to-office policies, which have since been tightened. Some, including Amazon, Boots and Goldman Sachs, have demanded employees return to a five-day, office-based working routine.
Andy Jassy, Amazon’s chief executive, wrote in a note sent to employees on Monday that the company believed that the “advantages of being together in the office are significant.”
However, Amazon applies different arrangements for warehouse operatives, where flexible part-time contracts and four-day working week arrangements are available.
Last month Amazon UK published the results of a survey it commissioned showing that half of all UK workers want more flexibility at work, with a majority of respondents saying a better work-life balance was the main reason.
In a press release highlighting Labor’s manifesto promises on flexible working, John Boumphrey, Amazon’s UK and Ireland country manager, said at the time that the company was “delighted” to offer flexible contracts to warehouse staff.
“These findings clearly demonstrate the huge importance of workplace flexibility, and why it matters so much to employees,” he said.
In the March 9 edition of the Taipei Times a piece by Ninon Godefroy ran with the headine “The quiet, gentle rhythm of Taiwan.” It started with the line “Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention.” I laughed out loud at that. This was out of no disrespect for the author or the piece, which made some interesting analogies and good points about how both Din Tai Fung’s and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC, 台積電) meticulous attention to detail and quality are not quite up to
April 21 to April 27 Hsieh Er’s (謝娥) political fortunes were rising fast after she got out of jail and joined the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in December 1945. Not only did she hold key positions in various committees, she was elected the only woman on the Taipei City Council and headed to Nanjing in 1946 as the sole Taiwanese female representative to the National Constituent Assembly. With the support of first lady Soong May-ling (宋美齡), she started the Taipei Women’s Association and Taiwan Provincial Women’s Association, where she
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) hatched a bold plan to charge forward and seize the initiative when he held a protest in front of the Taipei City Prosecutors’ Office. Though risky, because illegal, its success would help tackle at least six problems facing both himself and the KMT. What he did not see coming was Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (將萬安) tripping him up out of the gate. In spite of Chu being the most consequential and successful KMT chairman since the early 2010s — arguably saving the party from financial ruin and restoring its electoral viability —
It is one of the more remarkable facts of Taiwan history that it was never occupied or claimed by any of the numerous kingdoms of southern China — Han or otherwise — that lay just across the water from it. None of their brilliant ministers ever discovered that Taiwan was a “core interest” of the state whose annexation was “inevitable.” As Paul Kua notes in an excellent monograph laying out how the Portuguese gave Taiwan the name “Formosa,” the first Europeans to express an interest in occupying Taiwan were the Spanish. Tonio Andrade in his seminal work, How Taiwan Became Chinese,
RSS