[sheepmullet]

> To me being on time is just a very basic low level requirement of being a professional.

What is on time? On time for what exactly?

Is he missing any meetings? Is he working fewer hours? Is he doing less work? Is he impacting a colleague?

Why do you consider something that has no relationship to the posters job to be a basic requirement to being a professional?

[collyw]

OK, I'll give an example. My team leader in a previous job used to regularly turn up at 11am (officially we were supposed to be in by 9.30, but it was academia and no one complained too much). I was usually in before 9.15 - like the majority of the staff.

So sometimes I would need to ask him something, and he wasn't around - that would hold me up. Sometimes other people would need to ask him something. He wasn't around, so they asked me instead - usually when I was trying to get in the zone.

I am all for giving staff flexibility but it should not come at an expense to productivity.

[cpfohl]

Remote, timezone-distributed teams deal with this all the time. We always ensure everyone has a bunch of work they can do, and we use email/chat to handle the asynchronous communication issue. What you described isn't a scheduling issue, it's a communication issue. Not on your part, either, BTW.

[TheCoelacanth]

A team that can't function on their own for two hours sounds like a very poorly run team.