The New Zealand government’s most recent announcement sets clear expectations for Public-Sector departments regarding “working from home,” emphasising that it is not an entitlement but a negotiated option.

The New Zealand Herald and other media sources describe the government’s new working-from-home guidelines as a call to return to the office and a major policy shift. Commentators on social media networks like LinkedIn have been quick to parrot mainstream media coverage, frequently attacking the government’s updated work-from-home guidance as ordering public servants back to the office. Many focus on that perception, missing the underlying message: the government enforces existing employment standards and encourages sound management practices. Here’s the announcement:

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-work-home-guidance-public-service

The Public Service Commission has followed up with the following guidance:

https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/DirectoryFile/Commissioners-Letter-to-Chief-Executives-Working-from-Home-Arrangements.pdf

The government’s expectations emphasise that working from home is not a right but an arrangement to be negotiated between employees and employers. The guidelines stress that remote work should not hinder employee performance or agency objectives. Public service departments are also required to monitor and report on the impact and frequency of these arrangements.

Due to the lack of information and centralised data, it is difficult to estimate the number of Public Servants who have agreed to flexible arrangements or their positive or negative impact on productivity and agency performance. The government intends to establish consistency across agencies, with the Public Service Commission overseeing data collection and public reporting by early next year.

But, is the government guidance actually a significant shift? The new guidance effectively underscores the importance of negotiating and managing flexibility responsibly, which has long been common practice in many businesses. This appears to be more of a reminder of good management practices than a significant policy change.

The Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act of 2007 enables all employees to request flexible working arrangements at any time. While the Act allows employees to request flexible work arrangements, employers can assess the impact on productivity and performance. The Act also includes procedures for monitoring employee productivity and ensuring that flexible arrangements do not negatively impact business operations. Employers may deny flexible working requests based on performance concerns, ensuring that business needs are met while recognising employee flexibility and promoting a balanced work environment, but this does not guarantee flexible arrangements.

The “Flexible-by-Default” guidance, previously given to Public Service organisations, encourages flexible working arrangements as the norm rather than the exception. It promotes a mindset that flexible work arrangements should be considered for all roles unless there is a solid business reason. The guidance aims to create a more adaptable workforce by balancing individual needs with organisational goals while boosting employee well-being, diversity, and productivity. Agencies are expected to work with employees to develop appropriate flexible solutions that adhere to consistent and equitable standards while considering particular operational conditions. However, the previous guidance did not include a need to monitor the ongoing impact of flexible working arrangements, particularly in performance and productivity, which the government’s updated expectations have now addressed.

While the government’s revised expectations appear more restrictive, they are aligned with current employment legislation and the Flexible-by-Default guidance, which provide opportunities for organisations to assess the impact of flexible work before agreeing. 

Much of the public’s view appears shaped by media sensationalism rather than real intent. Ultimately, the emphasis appears to be on developing good management practices that combine flexibility with productivity rather than enforcing a rigorous return-to-work policy.