The right to disconnect needs a cultural approach, not legislative enforcement

As the “right to disconnect” rhetoric rages on, various perspectives on the matter have come to fruition. Some have raised queries about the different challenges the legislation could create, while others believe it can reinforce workforce management.

At the recent Workforce Trends Tour hosted by Gallagher, some of the benefits and challenges surrounding the “right to disconnect” legislation were discussed, raising interesting points around workforce management and the impact of culture on employees.

Practice leader and risk advisory for Gallagher, Keith Govias, shared some examples of countries that have implemented legislation that is leading to organisational changes.

“In places like Germany, we’re seeing legislation come through that forces employers to put in technological barriers to stop workers from getting emails or phone contact related to work after hours. So, we know that it’s coming,” Govias said.

“Technology has been wonderful for us to be more connected, allowing us to be more responsive, but it is a pendulum. If you don’t have a business that is constantly policing its culture and reinforcing its culture around workload management, it becomes very easy to feel like, I’m just going to log on this evening with a glass of wine, or I might just get up early and do another two hours before I drive into work. And those hours add up.”

The cultural standards that workplaces set can determine how employees view the “right to disconnect” legislation. If the culture is one that implores overload, extra hours, and in ways, burnout, the employees themselves are less likely to abide by the legislation because of the set culture.

Employers must embolden their employees to take that time off, instead of letting their work control them. All sorts of wellbeing and mental health issues can arise if an employee is overworked and burnt out.

“If you start to have an anxiety that’s driven around being in control of your workload rather than being able to call it out to your manager, we start to see the wrong behaviours being built. It’s just more and more work being undertaken until you end up with a medical certificate as opposed to a really good conversation about why a person is feeling that way,” Govias said.

However, in some industries, employees find that purpose and meaning through the very work in which they do. Therefore, because they hold their craft in such high regard, they are more then willing to do the overtimes, and be on call for any endeavour that their organisation requires. In a way, enforcing that cut-off from them and their job could also have negative wellbeing and mental health repercussions.

This is a point that Oliver Brecht, managing director and senior psychologist at Veretis, raised when it came to the “right to disconnect” discussion.

“Purpose and meaning in your work and in your life [is a crucial element]. So, if you’ve got employees, and we work with a lot of big banks, and a lot of employees within those areas, it’s not a nine-to-five for them. It is part of how they define themselves, it’s part of how they build their self-efficacy and their self-esteem is on their job performance and engaging in their job role,” Brecht said.

“You see the same thing in the legal profession as well. So, I see a ‘right to disconnect’ rule that comes in that restricts people from working could present other challenges for some people.”

It’s up to the specific employer to decide how they want to approach the right to disconnect. Of course, when the legislation comes in, it trumps individual preferences; however, the cultural approach should not be neglected by organisations.

“But of course, there’s no blanket rule on that either. You’re always going to have people that want to do more, potentially, people that want to do less, and that’s based on how they perceive their role in life. It’s really important about the culture that your organisation sets then as well. If you want to effectively have people balance their life and their job demand and those sorts of things, the culture you set within your organisation is the most important part,” Brecht said.

“You want to be allowing people to do work after hours if that’s what they want to do, but not then create this culture where other people then feel like they’re forced to respond to or follow up or do the same. That’s only going to come from organisational culture.”

Overall, the cultural approach should already be widespread throughout Australian organisations. No employee should feel pressured or forced to confine within any of the working habits that their colleagues exert. If that is already occurring, the organisations have more to worry about than the right to disconnect.

“You need to redefine the way your organisation takes its inputs and creates the outputs, and the way its communication changes, chains, stories and channels mean for people as well. It’s more effective for organisations to approach that from a culture point of view, and a communication point of view, than waiting for legislation to come in,” Brecht said.

Kace O'Neill

Kace O'Neill is a Graduate Journalist for HR Leader. Kace studied Media Communications and Maori studies at the University of Otago, he has a passion for sports and storytelling.