A problem I see in a big company with judging people on their output rather than closely monitoring their hours is that if you do have an employee that is only doing say 2 hours work a day but is getting as much done as some of the people putting in 8 you want to identify them and give them adequate compensation so that you get the full time out of them and as a consequence get more done.
I think flexible work hours are great in a motivated group with clear goals but they could be costly if you have an unmotivated group doing it for the paycheck.
Right! However the employee actually has a couple of choices at this point... either they can have a lot of free time, start a startup, go snowboarding, etc, or they can go to their manager and negotiate. From what I've heard, both of these actually occur.
Another interesting trend is that employees tweak what they're doing and start working more efficiently, increasing a teams output by as much as 35% without working "more".
> [it] could be costly if you have an unmotivated group doing it for the paycheck
It would appear that lack of motivation shows up in lack of results and the unmotivated group quickly has to find another job. In one case, a company fired nearly 90% of a particular department, but the retention rate sky rocketed, so their costs went way down, even when you include the cost of having to look for and hire new people.
I think flexible work hours are great in a motivated group with clear goals but they could be costly if you have an unmotivated group doing it for the paycheck.