Why Do Employers Want To Watch Writers Write?
May 18, 2008 by Anne Wayman
Filed under Jobs
One of those things I’ve always been puzzled about is why so many employers seem to want to watch the writers they hire write. You know what I mean. You’re reading an ad for a writer, realizing you’re perfect for it until – WHAM! – there it is – ON SITE ONLY.
In other words, whoever has posted the ad has limited their pool of potential writers to those who live within commuting distance, and those who are willing to spend the time and the money to commute to and from the job so they can work in someone else’s office on someone else’s computer. All so, as near as I can tell, the employer can watch you write.
Now there probably are some writing jobs, and certainly some editing jobs that work better when you’re on site. I think about a newspaper where at least the editor needs to be there… or does she? Maybe not all the time, but often enough to make sure things are on track.
There is a certain energy when the staff of a publication gathers together in the same room to get the job done. It can be creative and wonderful or stultifying and awful.
Allowing for those possible exceptions, why would an employer insist I or any other freelancer come into the office? Particularly when I know that good freelancers can get the job done in way less time if they are allowed to work in their own space and schedule their own time. Besides, when I’m writing well, all you get to see is me focused on the screen and fingers tapping the keyboard… sounds rather dull to me.
My hunch is that the real reason is the managers who think they need to watch folks write are afraid. They are afraid the writer won’t write or that they won’t be able to control the writers time. Controlling people’s time must make some feel powerful somehow. I don’t totally get it – I don’t want to control anyone’s time. I don’t want power over people – the few times I’ve had it I’ve found it incredibly boring after the initial rush.
I have, once and awhile, had some success convincing someone to let me go home and work, but it never seemed to last long. Even though I was getting the work done they either wanted me back in the office or to find someone who was willing to show up there regularly.
So, I don’t get it. Do you? Are you an employer who can tell us freelancers why you want us in your office? Are you a freelancer who has cracked this particular code? Let’s talk about it.
Write well and often,
Two newsletters:
Abundant Freelance Writing – a resource for freelance writers including 3x a week job postings.
Writing With Vision – for those who want to get a book written.
Image from http://www.sxc.hu
I think it’s very annoying that so many employers want on-site. It may have to do with their preconceived notions about what a worker is. Maybe they don’t realize how valuable an off-site freelance writer is?
I’ve trained one or two, but it simply won’t work with many. Maybe the price of gas will help?
delurking for this. thanks for the swell blog, btw.
my sense is that it’s corp. policy more often than not. it’s not just writers that they want to watch write, it’s programmers that they want to watch (write) code, accountants that they want to watch crunch numbers, etc… some jobs just can’t be done offsite, but in most cases (in my experience) it’s more company philosophy than anything else. i have actually heard the words “i like to have ‘em where i can keep an eye on ‘em” as though the product produced wasn’t benchmark enough.
i’ve found that building trusted relationships with clients gets around this, but that does take time and with new clients, it’s not always possible to convince them. in that case, i just apologize and say i’m sorry i can’t take the gig because i could do a great job for them, but i don’t work onsite.
I completely agree with you, Anne. Whenever I read your listing of jobs, I immediately discount anything that doesn’t have telecommute as a location. Organizations want people on-site because it’s about control. To lesser extent, the organization may already have the infrastructure in place to support an “employee” (empty cubes, unused workstations, etc.) so they try to justify their investment by utilizing it.
I used to work as a software trainer, which required weeks of travel at a time- all over the country. My immediate manager was great and would do everything he could to make our time between assignments as pleasant as possible. The main thing he tried to was allow us to stay at home during between assignments, and just be available via email or chat.
However, that practice ended abruptly when a higher-level manager found out, since he felt if we weren’t in the office we weren’t actually working. He didn’t try us to be professional, and to actually want to do the right thing. Needless to say, morale decreased a lot, and as a whole we were less productive, since we still felt like we were on assignment.
So I think it boils down to trust, and managers thinking that if they have to be in the office, then their subordinates need to be there, too.
Part of the reason I quit cubicle jobs! There were days when I would be the only one in my office for 8 hours, or never had to speak to anyone for 8 hours…yet I HAD to come in? Please! Why!?? It’s so silly. PS- those jobs that you are talking about- do they say “freelance”? Because I start questioning their definition of freelance.
sometimes… there are jobs that use the term freelance to try to avoid paying benefits… some of them would probably be in trouble with the irs… I do try not to post those in my job board listings, but sometimes I miss.