Commentary
You Work Here, Therefore We Own You
- by dave.b , Max Kalehoff , February 5, 2010
"You work here, therefore we own you." That's the modus operandi for many white-collar employee agreements, which often assert that full-time employees should not take on any freelance work. And companies that do permit full-time employees to freelance often require prior written consent. My hunch is that most companies either turn a blind eye, or address violations through some sort of awkward discovery, admission and reconciliation (or termination).
My enlightened friend Dave Balter, founder and CEO of BzzAgent, recently challenged this antiquated policy:
"The fact is, few white-collar employees work 9-5 at all anymore. We're expected to address work issues on weeknights and often on weekends. We're constantly reachable and it goes without saying that many are reviewed on the merits of their 'always on' capacity. More to the point, many of us expect employees to be constantly active within the realms of social media -- Facebooking, Tweeting, Linked-Ining -- to connect, but also to gather research, identify new clients, get better at their job. People are working more, and not getting paid differently for it. But really... what an employee does in their off hours -- nights and weekends -- is their own business. They're not indentured servants."
advertisement
advertisement
Dave suggests that as long as people get their work done, don't divulge confidential information and don't work for a competitor, freelancing is a smart thing for a business to allow. It provides employees with additional revenue; enhances the employee's skill set; reduces any likelihood of an employee having to sneak around; and may reduce turnover, as an employee can make more without going somewhere else.
I agree with Dave. But I would build on the notion of freelance and suggest that such inclinations are often indicative of a entrepreneurial spirit. Employers should do far more than tolerate it. They should recognize this quality as a major asset, and recruit and cultivate it, accordingly. Here's why:
People with the entrepreneurial spirit tend to be more innovative. They are predisposed to identify and create opportunities, and then act on them in a productive way. Is a company better off with managers who can't step out of standard operating procedure, or those who explore new territory and introduce new ideas that may disrupt competition and exceed customer expectations?
An entrepreneurial spirit tends to cultivate mastery. Consider Captain Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III, who rose to fame after he successfully landed a jet in the Hudson River off Manhattan, saving the lives of all 155 passengers. He's a pilot for US Air, and has more than 40 decades and 27,000 hours of flying experience. And what has he done on the side since 2007? Run his own safety consulting business.
The entrepreneurial spirit also lends itself to leadership and perspective. Entrepreneurs think more independently, see the big picture, inspire, take more calculated risks and deliver more solutions. Aren't these the sorts of workers companies need in order to compete and sustain in our global economy?
The entrepreneurial spirit also tends to radiate passion. The chance to innovate and pursue opportunity ignites optimism and mission. These sorts of people not only are more sophisticated and engaging, but they tend to their core job responsibilities with a greater sense of urgency and purpose.
As an employer, it is your job to recruit and nurture the entrepreneurial spirit in your workforce. It's great if you can successfully channel all or most of your employees' entrepreneurial passion directly back into your firm. But you shouldn't crush or squander it if some of your talent finds additional or complementary outlets. While core job responsibilities come first, chances are that respecting (and even encouraging) entrepreneurial outlets will motivate and create more effective workers.
Is the entrepreneurial spirit alive in your firm?
The only way you can create an entrepreneurial spirit within the ranks is to empower the employees. Even with empowerment, people like to follow. Small shops can be entrepreneurial. The larger a company gets, the more controlling has has to be. Shades of dualism.
Hey Paula,
I really think this article was directed at the marketing industry.
As for myself, I'm just freelancing because I want to LEAVE MY COMPANY. But I'm transparent about that. lmao joke joke.
I can't answer if it's alive in my firm, but I can agree wholeheartedly with this idea.
The limitations of employees in the early years of capital formation and development were wise, from a number of standpoints. Primarily, it reduced the theft of ideas and work, but secondarily, it promoted loyalty and hard work for the benefit of the firm. These both benefited capital formation.
As time went by, and work processes were altered, and capital formation was complete, there was less need for this kind of employee "ownership" by the corporation. This became particularly important as telecommuting and 24 hour work took hold.
As a matter of personal note - due to Blackberries and Cellphones, I now work virtually 24/7. The idea that I'm ever "off" is a concept that is respected only within limits. A vacation is unlikely to get interrupted - but I still check my email for an hour a day or so. A weekend is unlikely to get interrupted, though I still check email. But taking or making calls well into the evening is not unusual, nor is answering emails at 6am, when I wake up.
Point is - if I'm giving my personal time to work...what is work giving ME?
What I'd like is the ability to do as I please within limits. Surf the web for an hour at the office to read news? Sure. Take my hobby and turn it into a side business? Why not?
We are no longer serfs living on the desmense, working for our feudal lord (the company). We have moved beyond that, into the post-corporate capitalist environment.
Richard Monihan: Right on!
It's an interesting concept... I think the employer is concerned that the "new thing" might strike a passionate cord and you'll lose the person you are striving to keep. One can argue you'll lose that person anyway if they aren't passionate to be in your company... The other observation I have here is that this sounds great in theory, but it can't be abused. It creates a line drawing problem. You are right about expectations being set for "always on", and if a workaholic can put in 80 hours each week, if 20 of that is going to consulting on the side, by definition, the company employing them full time is not getting that 20 hours. There are many many cases of abuse here (we all know people who abuse their employer) whereby they are doing a side business from their office, while collecting a base from a big corporation, but spending every moment they can where they won't get caught on some other gig. Like a small entrepreneurial company should not lose focus, I think a good argument could be made for an employee to not lose focus either. If they are underpaid, fix that issue - demand more comp, if you don't get it and deserve it, go elsewhere... but unless one is in a pure pay-for-performance role, it's hard to condone cartw blanche to work multiple jobs if you are the one paying the base, health benefits, etc... An interesting article though and worthy of exploration.
R.J. Lewis: If a person is seriously dispassionate about his workplace, it's only best for everybody to get to that answer faster. If a company is compensating and maintaining a worker relationship based on hours worked and not performance or outcome, that's the company's fault. I think it can often be the case that an employee can be passionate about his work, and be very effective and more efficient than others -- leaving time for other passionate endeavors, which may be entrepreneurially inclined. Indeed, cored job duties and conflicts of interest must be addressed, but beyond that, what's to gain versus lose? There's a lot more to gain.
I knew Captain Sully was a seasoned aviator, but with "more than 40 decades" of flying experience, he must have beaten the Wright Brothers by almost 300 years!
Iain Urquhart: You make a great point.