Establishing firm boundaries between office and home is a step toward healthier, more productive and more inclusive workplaces.
In August, Australia joined Ontario, France and several European and Latin American countries in passing a “right to disconnect” law. This law gives workers the right to ignore communications from their employer outside scheduled working hours.
While workers in occupations like emergency medicine or law enforcement expect unpredictable hours and disruptions, these laws target other occupations — ones where a crisis outside regular hours might only be a crisis because someone thinks it is. As one of my former co-workers noted with a sign above their desk: “Your lack of organization is not my emergency.”
The right to disconnect targets the growing problems of overconnectedness and over-availability. In the past, if an employer wanted to reach an employee outside work hours, they usually had to telephone them. Now almost all employees can be reached at any time through mobile phones, email, or platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Slack or WhatsApp.
That ease of contact makes the division between work and home even more blurry than in the past. Some employees who work from home feel they need to compensate for their lack of visibility at the workplace by being accessible after working hours.
While some commentators have dismissed these laws as unrealistic and naive, or have claimed they will harm productivity, disconnecting is beneficial for both workers and employers. It can lead to healthier work-life balance, improved productivity, and more equitable and inclusive workplaces.
What happens when an organization consciously decides to establish clear boundaries between work and non-work time?
Organizational researchers Leslie Perlow and Jessica Porter addressed this question in experiments they conducted at a global consulting firm, where the work was competitive, demanding and client-driven. In other words, it was exactly the type of environment in which employees would be expected to be available around the clock.
With the researchers’ input, the firm implemented what it called “predictable time off.” Consultants were scheduled for least one full day off each week, and stopped work at a set time at least once a week. The company agreed not to contact consultants during their time off. The consultants were instructed not to contact co-workers or the company outside their scheduled work times.
At first, consultants and team leaders resisted these arrangements. They were afraid the quality of their work would decline, and that clients would object to their limited availability. The consultants also worried their careers would suffer if they were perceived as not being completely dedicated to the company and to their work.
In fact, the opposite happened. Having clearly defined hours forced the consultants to work more efficiently, and to better co-ordinate their work with their colleagues’ work, resulting in improved client service and higher-quality outputs. The consultants also reported that scheduled time off left them refreshed and energized, which made them more productive during working hours.
The researchers cautioned that arrangements like these will only succeed if both employees and employers fully commit to them — consciously avoiding the temptation during time off to send just that one email or finish that last little task.
But when the boundaries between work and non-work are respected and enforced, the effects are profound. All of the workers with predictable time off wanted to continue with that arrangement, and most of the company’s other employees said they would welcome it, too.
Giving workers the right to disconnect can also help create more inclusive workplaces, by addressing the disproportionate impact that overwork enabled by overconnectedness has on women compared to men.
Women generally spend more time on household work and child care than men. This means overconnectedness and organizational expectations of unlimited availability can add excessive stress for women who are already struggling to meet work and home commitments.
Additionally, employers tend to see male “overworkers” as more committed, competent and likable than women “overworkers,” and give them more rewards. These situations may result in otherwise highly capable women being marginalized in the workplace, limiting their professional growth despite their skills and competency.
But disconnecting can level the playing field by discouraging workplace norms that reinforce gender-based stereotypes. When organizations establish clear boundaries between work and personal time, they help remove the implicit bias that equates constant availability with dedication.
Instead of criticizing right-to-disconnect legislation as unnecessary governmental interference or an unwanted operational constraint, organizations should welcome these laws as an opportunity.
When employees’ time off really is time off, they can be more productive and efficient at work. And when employers respect the boundaries between work and home, they can build workplace cultures that are more equitable and respectful. These are desirable outcomes for everyone.
Fiona McQuarrie is professor emerita at the University of The Fraser Valley’s School of Business. This article is republished from The Conversation.