Tag Archives: Industrialisation

Announcement: Source Materials List & Upcoming Features

Posted on by
Reply
Hip

Hip (Photo credit: wasoxygen)

This is a general announcement to notify readers that a comprehensive list of links to research studies, scholarly articles, white papers, and various documents covering on this blog is now available. As stated on the Source Materials page, I will continue to update this list as I find more material. So check back if you don’t find what you’re looking for or feel free to make requests and I will see what I can find.

It’s proven tougher for me to post more regularly as I’m in the midst of a work-life transition, however I’ve arranged to feature an artist’s rendition of the Industrial Age office work lifestyle as well as social commentary that revolves around associated problems (e.g., stress, boredom, etc.).

From the dawn of humankind, we’ve pictorially portrayed the ways in which we work – from cave drawings to paintings depicting farms and farmers laboring during the Agricultural Age. When it comes to the modern office however, I haven’t been able to come up with as much. I’ve often spoken at length about this with my artist friend and we supposed this had to do with how sedentary, uninspiring, and boring office working conditions are. I believe, however, that some of my favorite contemporary films that cover modern day work practices and its consequences on the psyche (e.g., Office Space, Fight Club, and American Psycho) qualify as art. As a side note, here’s an interesting thesis about how such films represent the impact on masculine identity: Masculine Identity in Crisis in Hollywood Fin De Millennium Cinema (Deakin, 2012).

So, my artist friend is up to the task of helping to fill up this gap on a bi-monthly basis. Starting next month, in April, look forward to some interesting, humorous, satirical, and poignant takes on what it means to work in the Industrial 9-to-5 world by Nathan Myhre.

Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix it

Posted on by
2

Conventional wisdom posits that the needs of employees and their employer are at odds with each other, however this assumption is not necessarily true. A mutually symbiotic relationship granting employees freedom and flexibility while increasing engagement and, hence, productivity is achievable! Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix it: A Results-Only Guide to Taking Control of Work, Not People will force you to examine how you think about work as well as how we unknowingly support the current, conventional view of work through the establishment and use of flexible work arrangements. Conventional flexible work arrangements, by the way, can’t achieve what a results-only work environment (ROWE) can.

In this book, authors Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson make a solid case for prioritizing and measuring results, creating a culture of transparency, trust, and accountability in the process. This means tossing out the misinformed notion that employees’ productivity is somehow correlated with the hours they put in. How is this misinformed? Just think about all the possible ways to stretch out work assignments or subtly fill in some of that time at the office with non-work related activities. Wonder no more about how workers in an entire nation can come to be known for pulling long hours and yet not be all that productive!

Indeed, Ressler and Thompson recount how naturally competition on the basis of being physically present for long hours emerges when managers don’t make results their one and only measure of productivity. The message: Treat employees like the adults that they are and allow them to own the work as well as the process through which they perform it. It doesn’t matter when, where, or how the work is performed as long as the agreed upon outcome is achieved on time.

Ressler and Thompson walk you through real case studies, providing a clear understanding of how their trainers facilitate the necessary culture change within the organization. For example, they explain why it is critical to:

  • Rethink and reestablish how everyone in the organization perceives and talks about when and where employees work (i.e, disregard whether an employee is putting in long hours or not, is physically present or absent, and early or late).
  • Leave it up to employees to decide when they take time off, which means allowing unlimited vacation and sick days (as formal vacation and sick day policies must be managed and having a ROWE means that only the work is managed, not the employees).
  • Ensure meetings are absolutely necessary as unproductive meetings are one of the biggest time wasters (practical guidelines are provided in the book), and make all meetings optional.

Finally, Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix it shows how a ROWE is compatible with all kinds of jobs that’re commonly cited as being incompatible with a ROWE. This is my absolute favorite part of the book. For instance, they describe how a ROWE can be established for non-exempt employees (while staying in compliance of regulations that have been considered obstacles). Ressler and Thompson also describe how their trainers facilitated transition to a ROWE for an organization in the field of education as well as a public sector organization.

In a previous post, I’ve acknowledged individuals who stated their preference for the conventional, Industrial Age system of work and accepted their own self-assessment about their abilities and desire not to work under a new system. However, it is my hope that even some of the most reluctant among us will, at some point, choose to take the plunge and find out that the water is just fine! Ressler and Thompson’s thoughts on the human need for self-determination as well as their optimistic view that so many of us can come to enjoy working under a ROWE inspires this hope. Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix it is a refreshing, practical guide that will show you how all of this is possible.

Towards Recognition of Individual Differences and a Less Standardized Work World

Posted on by
3

“But not everyone can work this way!” is the most common, instinctive response I hear when talking about telework (especially in a full-time capacity) or results-only-work-environment (ROWE). Through everyday conversations I learn about instances where a full-time teleworker had a difficult time working this way because the presence of a spouse or child at home was distracting. In such a case, I point out that teleworkers need to establish ground rules before attempting to work from home. Moreover, one can still keep daycare arrangements, enlist the services of a sitter, or work at a co-working facility if one is available. On the other hand, I’ve experienced working with coworkers who’ve constantly distracted me with non-work related issues as well (e.g., peppering me with questions about whether or not I want to have children for the umpteenth time), so working in a centralized office isn’t a definite solution to distractions. My conversation partner also pointed out that I’m just lucky to be able to function more autonomously and not need so much social support at work and that this is the reason why the benefits of telework speak to me so much. She followed up by saying that other people are not this way, but I already know that.

With regard to ROWE, a former salesperson who had worked in this capacity before (i.e., on commission) pointed out how intense the demand to constantly produce results gets and how he’d appreciate being paid for his time (along with the downtime) while on the job as well. Also, I can see why someone would want to be paid for the time spent attempting to accomplish a task even if success couldn’t ultimately be realized. As with telework, the benefits of ROWE stand out to me personally because I have a track record of finding faster, more efficient ways of accomplishing tasks. Hence, I’d feel more rewarded by a ROWE system than the standard method of assuming the necessity of an 8-hour workday.

When all the tasks I’ve been assigned to accomplish are finished, I ask for more to do anyway because I don’t like having to ride out the rest of the day, out of a sense of obligation, with nothing to do. Superiors seem to think they’re doing you a favor when they kindly respond with, “No, there’s nothing else for you to do today sweetie” and, without saying that  I may also call it a day and go home, I start thinking that I know how a prison inmate feels – restless, bored, and waiting for time to be up. At the same time, I’ve always realized that the standard system “cheapens” my labor as the larger number units of work I produce is compensated for at about the same amount as a coworker who produces fewer units of work in the same amount of time. Normally, fast workers would go along with this arrangement anyway in order to climb the hierarchical career ladder within the organization, but it looks like this is becoming less of a goal than it once was.

Yes, I understand that not everyone is like me. However, there are many, many jobs out there that aren’t compatible with telework or ROWE. So, I expect that there will always be room for people who can’t or don’t want to work under those conditions. People who protest “Not everyone can work this way!” should also remember that a large number of people don’t want to commute and work 8-to-5 or 9-to-5 either. Just because the vast majority have been forced to work this way for so long doesn’t mean that this is a great arrangement for everyone.

For some reason, whether through conversations with people I know or Internet surfing, I find that a lot of people are under the impression that work-life innovation advocates are somehow trying to get everyone to work this way or that way but it just isn’t the case. Such a goal would not even be realistic. This isn’t similar to a political movement that would have widespread application and bind everyone to it. Rather, this is about individualism and, in particular, helping others understand how to harness this knowledge about individual differences in order to boost the productivity of a society. This is about freedom and promoting more work situation choices. With enough choices, everyone will be able to find a suitable work situation. So, please don’t misunderstand. This isn’t about finding an alternative way to work and then subjecting everyone to it. I never envisioned that we would all want the same things. As a hardcore individualist, I have no problem if someone else, out of personal preference, works 9-to-5 at a centralized office while I telework under a ROWE even if we’re performing the same tasks. I just ask everyone to consider honoring individual differences by supporting choices.

The End of Organizations as We Know Them

Posted on by
2

Nanyangosaurus is the name given to a genus of...

My previous post, The Move Towards Self-Employment, touched upon the decline of organizations. This post will explain and expand upon this phenomenon. Just over a couple of weeks ago, I attended an educational forum on effective teleworking in Walnut Creek, California. James Hall,Vice President of Sales and Business Development at CoreLogic, was the guest presenter. He works virtually and mentioned that meeting face-to-face with employees about once a quarter worked for him. Thus, he extolled the strengths of the virtual organization in stating that organizations that don’t work this way will be left behind.

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this message as several telework authors I’ve come across have presaged this as well. For instance, William A. Draves and Julie Coates, authors Nine Shift: Work, Life, and Education in the 21st Century, noted that the sign of a powerful organization will no longer be represented by a tall, beautiful building but by how geographically and/or temporally dispersed it is. (You may read more about Nine Shift here.)

However, when Mr. Hall put the eventual wipe-out of traditional, brick-and-mortar organizations in terms of a “dinosaur-level extinction,” I’ve wondered whether this was meant for dramatic effect ever since. Of course, it’s not difficult to understand why an organization with a decentralized, virtual workforce working at different times (i.e., business can run 24 hours a day with virtual teams working as if in a relay race) would annihilate an organization that limits itself to operating from 9 to 5, all else being equal. Notice that an organization is not even required to have employees at every point around the world to pull this off. Just allow employees to work when they want. Those of us with night-owl tendencies will happily take on the graveyard shift.

In contrast to Mr. Hall’s opinion, I’ve come across a few individuals of the Industrial Age mindset who assert that the outcome of this competition might actually be the reverse. However, this opinion seemed to be hastily expressed out of fear and anxiety that everything can change so profoundly in our lifetimes. In other words, they want to know that their current understanding of how everything is will carry forth into the future so that they can feel safe and secure in their knowledge and understanding of how to succeed in the working world. This very unwillingness to adapt one’s understanding to new circumstances is the issue that will lead to the downfall of organizations that don’t adapt.

So, I agree with the opinion of the many telework authors I’ve come across in speculating that few will adapt. Thus, a great majority of organizations will not relinquish their centralized, commercial real estate space, thereby freeing up capital, and opt for the more competitive, decentralized model. The only chance that brick-and-mortar organizations will see the light is, of course, by facing the difficulties of continuing operations through calamitous events (e.g., major pandemics, natural disasters, terrorist attacks). Moreover, making this transition to working virtually is no easy task for those that are interested in doing so. You may read about all that is involved in the following publications: The Reality of Virtual Work: Is Your Organization Ready? by Aon Consulting and Managing a Remote Workforce: Proven Practices from Successful Leaders by Future of Work.

I can’t guess when this eventual mass culling will take place. However, change is definitely coming and, in this competition, I’d put my money on the organization that works virtually for sure. What are your thoughts on this?

Link

There are a number of benefits to teleworking that may already be familiar to you because they are reiterated time and time again. However, I will quickly summarize them for those who are new to this subject matter:

For employees who can telework and work well this way:

  • Can save thousands of dollars annually that would otherwise go towards gas and office clothes
  • Improves work-life balance by freeing up 1-2 hours (or more for those who commute even further) so that employees have the option to get right to work instead of wasting time in rush hour traffic as well as being able to get necessary errands done without a hassle (e.g., picking up kids from daycare/school)
  • Under a Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) where work can be done anywhere, anytime as long as the work is done on time, employees can lead a healthier lifestyle by not having to stay sedentary for 8-10 hour time blocks (includes commute time). See Frederick Pilot’s blog, Health Insurance Crisis, to understand how this correlates with the rising cost of health care as well as to obtain status reports about this crisis.

For employers:

  • Reduces real estate costs (for the physical space itself as well as additional costs of maintenance and utilities)
  • A more decentralized workforce allows business to continue during emergencies such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc.
  • Employees who are well-suited to telework are more engaged and productive working from wherever they want, instead of at the office, which adds to the bottom line
  • When recruiting, employers can hire the best people for the job regardless of their geographic location
  • Having this option for employees enjoy more freedom and flexibility at work improves recruitment and retention, reducing the cost of turnover

For environmental conditions:

  • Less congestion for those who must travel to work as well as reduces wear and tear on deteriorating freeway infrastructure from having so many people utlizing it during rush hour
  • Although there’s some debate over whether or not teleworking employees make up for not having to commute to an office by driving elsewhere, a reduced need to build additional office building space and expand freeways does mean a decreased carbon footprint
  • The more we can curtail the growth of our freeways and buildings as our population grows, the more space we leave for wildlife

Upon mentioning the benefits listed above in my conversations with people, I get a range of reactions. Sometimes it’s disbelief – as if I were just talking about the benefits of teleportation.  Sometimes it’s a “Gee that would be great!” followed by moving onto another conversation topic. At other times it is resistance because people are used to the Industrial Age work arrangement and/or love the face-to-face, social aspect of a centralized office. However, as dog owners are not hard to find in the United States, when I begin asking how long people’s dogs have to wait before they can eliminate their waste, reactions change. Yes, there are obedient dogs that wait 9-10 and even 14 hours on a particularly bad day for their owners to come home and let them out.  I’m speculating that the 14 hour figure represents overtime work and/or some event on the freeway (perhaps an accident) that has slowed traffic down to an unusual pace. They are most probably coping by not drinking enough water during the day. Just how many of us can live this kind of lifestyle for 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week? One dog owner told me that this is why she thinks her dog developed bladder stones some years later.

Let’s remember that a great many people (apartment/condominium dwellers and those who don’t have fenced in yards) can’t just leave their dogs outside. Additionally, although people can send their children to daycare or school and have their aging or disabled family members stay in some type of “home,” daycare for dogs isn’t prevalent for some obvious reasons. For example, there would be some amount of chaos as new, unfamiliar dogs arrive and intermingle. So, as many would say, it’s better to surrender your pets to someone else who can take better care of them if you cannot. However, I think that what I’m talking about is going on in great numbers (considering the number of people who work in the traditional, 8-hour day arrangement and the number of dog owners). Also, the possibility of a telework arrangement now presents an obvious solution.

To those whose jobs aren’t conducive to remote work or who benefit from the traditional, centralized work arrangement, be supportive of the option to telework anyway. You never know. This may increase the chances that one of your trustworthy teleworking coworkers or neighbors can help out during a break.

I don’t own a dog, but my parrot, Nikita, does not wait in her cage for 8+ hours to be let out. She’s out playing on her parrot play-station nearby or sitting on my shoulder while I work. She’s pretty quiet and not distracting. As I’ve fulfilled my responsibility to give her as much of a natural life as possible, I can work happily. I totally understand why most people want to have that steady paycheck that comes with regular employment. I just hope that more employers out there will see the wisdom of the Information Age working arrangement and take steps towards increasing flexibility and freedom to benefit us all.

Below are links for pet owners who work from home and need a little help with reducing distractions:

Telework Exchange

Bark Busters Home Dog Training

Mass Career Customization: Aligning The Workplace With Today’s Nontraditional Workforce

Posted on by
Reply

Before delving into Mass Career Customization, I’d like to address a paper titled The Hidden Work In Virtual Work (click to download). It describes the high personal costs some remote workers have borne while trying to achieve work-life balance and maintain professional connections. I imagine that this paper can scare many away from the prospect of telework. However, note the limitations of this study. Like any good researcher, Heimrich Schwartz describes the methodology for collecting data. This study was based on information gathered from twenty-three informants who were recruited from the researchers’ social network. Therefore, like most qualitative studies, this study has a low sample size. Furthermore, participants were not randomly selected. Having drawn from their own personal network, participants are more likely to share similarities than if drawn from a pool that represents all remote workers. It is quite possible that their recruitment method did not capture the experiences of successful remote workers who thrive under this working condition.

There is no discounting the fact that not everyone can or wants to work remotely, and it’s important to point out all the problems – whether potential or real. I have not found any telework advocates who think that everyone should work this way. In fact, they make it clear that this is a choice and is contingent upon an individual’s ability to work and keep a balanced life in this arrangement. I envision that determination as to who becomes a teleworker or not is, in large part, a self-selection process as people, through both good and bad experiences, choose their occupation based on their likes and dislikes which are a function of their own traits and characteristics. Some jobs can be performed remotely while others can’t. Many telework advocates are also clear that management needs to look out for those who are struggling and provide a way to transition back to the office if necessary. Thus, it is important to bring attention to cases so that such disastrous situations can be prevented or resolved. As it turns out, possible solutions are not far behind.

Upon reading Mass Career Customization by Cathleen Benko and Anne Weisberg of Deloitte LLP, I realized that we may yet find ways to support people who want to work remotely but struggle at it. In fact, the authors describe how this system, which gives employees control over multiple facets of their job, can be used in conjunction with telework. With Mass Career Customization (MCC) employees can adjust the pace, workload, location/schedule, and role according to their needs throughout their career. This book takes you through the process of implementing MCC (from how to make a business case for it and get buy-in from key people in the organization to running it) and provides detailed case studies of a few organizations that have successfully incorporated it. Organizations enjoy benefits such as improved recruitment and retention of talent, increased levels of employee satisfaction and engagement, and a clear, honest account of human capital resources.

Benko and Weisberg point out how much more realistic it is to view people’s investments in their career as a sine wave. During the course of life there are times when personal or family needs predominate. At other times, people are more career driven. In contrast to the traditional family structure where men worked 40 hours a week while women spent all of their time taking care of the home, children, and other non-work related duties, the vast majority now have to juggle work and family resulting in this ebb and flow of investment in career. Thus, most organizations are still geared towards a way of life that has all but vanished. This change in family structure, shortage of skilled knowledge workers, increased number of women in the workforce, nontraditional expectations of Generation X and Y workers, and impact of technology have converged. To thrive, organizations would do best to accommodate by incorporating a more flexible system. The authors thoroughly explain why MCC is superior to current flexible work arrangements (FWA). FWAs fail to serve employees’ needs because they are point, rather than systemic, solutions. For example, an employee goes on maternity leave and then is expected to work the same way she did prior to her leave of absence. Under MCC, this change in her life would still be considered so that she has the option to dial down on various aspects of her job as needed. That said, the authors point out that MCC is about more than work-life balance; it’s about career-life fit.

Back to the issue of cases in which telework destroyed work-life balance for some workers. By pinpointing such problems telework critics have provided a great service because, upon realizing these problems, we can develop appropriate solutions. Although people who know me would describe me as very self-disciplined and great at maintaining strong boundaries, I have experienced how unpleasant it can be for work and life to bleed into each other myself (having contrasted my experiences managing the pace and workload at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral level), so I am quite sympathetic to the people in Shwartz’s study. It dawned on me, however, that even for self-disciplined people, increasing pace or workload makes it more difficult to separate work and life. At some point, even the most self-disciplined would suffer. If there is a valuable employee who wants to work remotely but handles it better at some point lower than 100% pace or workload AND does not require or want to be fully dialed up, then why not consider it?

It is important to discuss, debate, and be wary of any way our creations might turn on us. At this point however, marching us all back into Industrial Age workplace practices does not sound like a viable option. There are already people thriving as remote workers. With some imagination and innovation, we may well come up with systems to support those who want to work remotely but struggle with it. The great plethora of ideas and inventions we have developed to solve our problems throughout the history of mankind never ceases to amaze me.  Thus, I am quite optimistic that we can troubleshoot the problems Shwartz brought up. In closing, here is my favorite quote from Mass Career Customization (page 148): We tend to walk into the future backward, perhaps wanting to go in a new direction but not realizing that we are defining the new direction relative to our past experiences.