Indeed, it is an issue that I came across while studying the response to the Haiti Earthquake by international charities facing extreme and urgent need. Whilst they were committed to developing and training their locally employed and ex-pat staff, the circumstances made this very difficult to prioritise over beneficiary need and it was a source of real tension.

 

Each charity has to find the right balance between creating a working environment that will maximise 'productivity' and help to motivate and retain staff, but that gets the best value for donors and achieves as much as possible for beneficiaries.

 

For me, I think that's about both flexibility and trust. It's about knowing my employer trusts me to work at home when I need to concentrate or let the plumber in. It’s being trusted to head off early occasionally if I need to with the confidence I will make up my hours. It’s feeling confident that it’s not purely about face-time - I can go home before my colleagues or my manager if I’ve finished my work for the day. The flip side is I’m prepared to put in an extra hour or two when I need to as a project approaches its deadline, without necessarily claiming every minute back as flexi-time or TOIL (which I find can make life more stressful at busy times).

 

I think expecting this flexibility from employees without offering it as an employer is unreasonable, but that a working environment can profit from two-way give and take founded on trust. Having worked at nfpSynergy for five years, I feel confident Joe is not advocating charity employees working excessively long hours or the eradication of TOIL in all circumstances.

 

We're always offered a few hours off the next morning if we've worked an evening for a focus group and there's a real commitment to avoiding team members having to work late into the evening or at weekends here. It's about developing a culture that strikes the balance between two extremes.