"Maintaining constant availability at your workplace could potentially lead to significant perils."
Medium.com: As of this week, Australians have the liberty to evade their employers during their personal time. In Germany, this is typically the norm as well, yet numerous workers are still reached out to by their superiors when they should be unwinding - and they're hesitant to ignore such calls. Are they doing themselves a favor, or just their bosses?
David Kahn: Studies suggest that better sleep quality is achieved when one can disengage in the evening. Reading emotionally charged emails in the evening might lead to poor sleep quality. Consequently, it's best to steer clear of emotionally engaging topics close to bedtime.
So, would it also be advantageous for employers to only contact their employees during business hours?
In my opinion, it's preferable for internal guidelines to be established, and as far as I'm concerned, the accessibility within organizations is indeed being discussed and regulated. It's actually feasible that in emergencies, it would be beneficial for both parties to prevent a "crisis." For instance, a severe IT issue that could result in major problems the next day if not resolved that evening. Despite sophisticated shift work, replacement services, and on-call systems, unforeseen emergencies can still occur where it might be necessary to contact employees during their leisure time. And let's face it, during real emergencies, employees tend to understand the situation. But caution is warranted before implementing blanket rules. It's also unfavorable for the employer if the standard is to continuously contact employees during their leisure time, as it does not enhance employer attractiveness, nor employee satisfaction and well-being.
Especially those new to a company or having difficulty with their superiors often struggle not to respond during their leisure time. How can I establish boundaries without incurring professional disadvantages?
I would suggest clarifying expectations, particularly when starting out in a new position, and addressing this on various topics. For example, I would propose outlining a suitable substitute solution before my initial vacation to ensure a smooth recovery. By proposing solutions, conflicts can be avoided. Generally, management has an interest in a constructive resolution. For employer attractiveness, it's crucial that employees can experience a high level of satisfaction. If an employer still expects employees to be reachable around the clock during vacation, I would recommend limiting this to absolute emergencies, such as an impending production halt that only a specific person can prevent. This should be viewed as a negotiation process.
In my observation, things have changed. I've observed top managers who, for example, are reachable for a half-hour to an hour a day during vacation - and not constantly online like before. For employees without leadership responsibilities, constant availability, even in the middle of the night, is no longer justifiable. Looking at employer attractiveness, I'd be surprised if a company manages to thrive in the long term with this approach. Of course, there are exceptions, but there are also large corporations that technically disable business emails after a certain time. Others have the policy that no one expects a response after 5 or 6 PM. Some businesses have been grappling with this issue for years. With good planning, it can be managed: thorough vacation preparation, discussing deputies, clarifying potential challenges ahead of time.
Can a generational difference be seen - do younger employees make their superiors wait longer than older employees?
Due to the evolving job market, even older employees today consider relaxation and regeneration periods (even more) essential. As a consequence of the skills shortage, old and young employees are both asserting their interests more forcefully. In practice, I have not observed a difference based on age.
Is it also a matter of type whether someone is always reachable and yet not stressed?
Indeed, there are individual differences, but research indicates that consistent availability increases the risk of health issues. I advise against attributing the belief, "It doesn't affect me." Especially in the long term, the risk of negative consequences is substantial. It's like smoking: although there are people who smoke 20 cigarettes a day and live to be 90, smoking is a health risk. The constant availability situation is similar.
What are the risks?
It may result in burnout. For example, if sleep quality and duration suffer, and exhaustion increases. Then I may reach a point where I cannot work for an extended period and require intense medical and psychological assistance to regain work-readiness. Even with so-called self-endangering interest, one should be careful.
How do employees endanger themselves?
To appear more productive, some employees forgo breaks - even toilet breaks - extend their working hours in the evening, and employ other strategies to complete their tasks. The consequences can be severe in the medium and long term. It may take some time to acknowledge that it's not beneficial or to recognize the consequences. The result can even be work incapacity, so I would strongly advise against thinking, "It doesn't affect me - I can work every evening, on weekends, and during vacation." Just like air to breathe and something to drink, humans need breaks and longer regeneration phases. If someone claims they can survive without fluid intake, we would also argue that it's not feasible in the long term.
If I still don't feel comfortable ignoring calls from my boss during my free time, how should I handle it?
I would recommend, in the interest of self-responsibility - and all employees have a duty to collaborate - to stop checking emails or even turn off the work phone after 6 PM. If the employer expects me to be available 24/7, I would advise addressing this issue, and if nothing changes, to seek a new job. Even if the job market is currently stagnant, it's highly likely that I will find a job where this is not expected. Such a health-damaging situation should be avoided.
Even if I am otherwise satisfied with my job?
If someone insists on staying due to the numerous positives, I'd propose having numerous in-depth chats with the higher-ups. I'd express my feelings of being burdened and seek a solution that works for both parties. If they're not open to this, employee representatives, HR, or mediators can be potential solutions. If all else fails, I'd consider leaving the situation.
Even though supervisors might not anticipate it, some employees find it comforting to peruse work-related messages during time off to steer clear of a towering pile of unread emails and potentially unresolved matters upon return. Are they correct?
I'd recommend setting aside half a day or an entire day following vacation for addressing any remaining issues. Prior to vacation, it's crucial to delegate responsibilities effectively so crucial tasks get handled in your absence. If a workload pile-up after vacation can't be avoided, allocate a specific time frame for managing it during vacation - communicating this with travel companions like partners or family to minimize conflicts. If possible, I'd opt against this, as research suggests longer breaks provide more relaxation.
As an employee, are you ever unreachable, or when is your employer obliged to forgo a prompt response?
Indeed, there are instances when they have to, and that's perfectly acceptable. With a solid, dependable team, I only get contacted in major crises during vacation. This has been functioning smoothly for two decades. I'm usually unavailable after work hours as well, unless obligatory for my job or in rare exceptions. High-ranking government officials like the Chancellor or Minister of Defense should be reachable round-the-clock - but who else truly needs to be? Reflecting on this, it might be more about a sense of self-importance than an operational necessity.
As the head of personnel development for the industrial customers' subsidiary of the Wuerth Group, is discussing work matters during leisure time off-limits in corporate culture?
Healthy leadership is a crucial aspect of our leadership training at our company. We want employees to unwind during vacation and not be encumbered by work-related matters post-shift. Leaders must coordinate with their teams, and this should be emphasized more in leadership training programs overall.
Do these rules apply uniformly across all hierarchical levels?
There may be some variations. However, I feel that even on higher echelons, leaders don't desire constant activity but might address urgent matters. This expectation is also widely accepted.
Are personal arrangements for employees without leadership roles tolerated, given that such arrangements undoubtedly exist?
Yes, personal exceptions can be made for employees without leadership roles, provided they don't negatively impact the company's operations or harm other employees' well-being.
We enforce a strict no-work-on-Sundays or holidays policy, with exceptions only under strict conditions. The Labor Act dictates that one shouldn't work more than ten hours a day, demanding an eleven-hour rest afterwards. Anyone who works late into the night, continuing early the next day or putting in ten hours already is violating the law. Employers cannot expect employees to be on-call 24/7.
Christina Lohner talked with Alexander Haefner
Establishing clear boundaries can help employees avoid professional disadvantages when trying to establish non-work time during their leisure hours. This might include setting expectations with managers and outlining suitable substitute solutions before vacations to prevent conflicts.
It could also be advantageous for organizations to implement guidelines restricting employer-employee communication during leisure time. While some situations, like emergencies, might necessitate contact, these instances should be the exception rather than the norm to maintain employee satisfaction and well-being.
