If lawyers can ditch billable hours, we can get rid of the facade of time sheets at work
The UK has a better chance of winning Eurovision than improving efficiency as long as we continue to be slaves of proving our worth by clocking our effort on time sheets, writes Simon Neville.
As the prospect of another general election looms into grim, inevitable sight, all sides of the debate are pivoting to tell us this country needs to improve productivity.
In the corporate world every boss, consultant, advisor and manager will tell you they have the answer to this. But the truth is, the UK has a better chance of winning Eurovision than improving efficiency.
And the reason productivity will never improve can be summed up in one word: timesheets.
Last week I helped pull together a pitch document to offer comms support for an organisation that aims to improve productivity in the workplace. But each time I re-read the document we planned to submit, I couldn’t help but think “I know a way to improve productivity. Tell all businesses to ban timesheets.”
As a journalist, I was held accountable for the work I produced by what was printed on the page. I must’ve done some work because there it was in black and white for all to read.
Maybe somewhere a group of spreadsheet enthusiasts and accountants meet in a secret corner of the City to pore over them like moths to a flame, delighting over the descriptive narratives of the more flamboyant members of their workforce.
Maybe the veteran journalist in me is itching to question them and their existence, whilst the rest of the world just sucks it up and thinks life’s too short to argue. But the problem is, timesheets actively discourage efficiency and this should be a concern for all companies.
Allegedly, they are a tool to calculate how well a client has been serviced. If a client complains they aren’t given enough attention, then the trusty timesheet will come to the rescue and show just how much time they have been given.
But how does this make sense? How does this show productivity which should be based on the results achieved rather than the time taken? A footballer will be judged on their team winning or losing, not by how much he ran during the match.
If I have a brainwave in the shower, do I record it as the three minutes it took me to wash, or should I say I’ve spent three hours “thinking about it”?
Shouldn’t staff who can get a meeting done in 30 minutes instead of an hour be applauded for their efficiency? Arguably, the sector best-known for billing by the hour is the legal profession. But even the esteemed Magic Circle firm Slaughter and May recognise that timesheets can be unproductive.
On its website, the firm states: “Some ideas take a matter of seconds but are capable of saving companies millions of pounds a year. The type of work we do is not always measurable in minutes. Great ideas aren’t measured by clocks…Although we record time, we have no billing or time targets.”
This, they argue, leaves their lawyers free to actually do the work, rather than competing for jobs or clients to bill.
“This way,” they say “people have everything to gain from being selfless.”
At best the timesheet is a mild annoyance, at worst it actively promotes putting quantity over quality and is the formalisation of presenteeism.
How does it end? I’m not entirely sure but I can’t help but feel like there is a risk trust could be lost. All relationships – with clients, employees, businesses and romantic partners – must be built on trust and the resulting outcomes rather than outputs.
We all want to strive to be the best versions of ourselves and give our all. That can be achieved with an environment that lets us all get on with what we’re good at and focus our attentions on making sure the best results are achieved.
But, can the timesheet play a role in that? I remain unconvinced.