Tag Archives: organization

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?

International and Cultural Trends in Telework Receptivity

Posted on by
2

Upon first receiving Future Work: How Businesses Can Adapt and Thrive in the New World of Work, by Alison Maitland and Peter Thomson, I was a bit disappointed to see how skinny it was. After diving into it however, I realized that the information here is more about quality rather than quantity. In this book, Maitland and Thomson answered some lingering questions I had that I couldn’t seem to find answers to elsewhere. Are there any attempts to measure employee sentiment about telework internationally? Which countries and/or cultures are more receptive to a work anywhere-anytime system? Which aren’t?

Future Work

It turns out that there are attempts to assess employees’ opinions as well as to parse out cultural aspects of various nations and organizations facilitating a remote work system. Consider the following points:

  •  According to Cisco Systems’ international survey of employees’ expectations, 60% of people believe they don’t need to work in an office in order to be productive, and this perspective is strongest in India, China, and Brazil (p. 80)
  • With respect to a shift to future working styles, Gonnie Been, manager of corporate communications and social innovation at Microsoft, states that northern Europe is generally more accepting than southern Europe; resistance in the United States (where there is a culture of “presenteeism” or long hours) is also noted (p. 83, p. 103)
  • Organizations open to innovating work styles (e.g., remote working) place value on creativity, trust, and self-motivation (p. 95)
  • In comparing nations with advanced economies, Caroline Waters, director of people and policy at BT, states: the UK is furthest along in terms of workplace flexibility; the U.S. doesn’t have as sophisticated of a model as the U.K. while Germany’s tax legislation is largely prohibitive; France “hasn’t had great take-up nationally” with unions focusing on working week length instead of when and how people want to work. However, she sees the situation changing for these latter nations with more understanding of possibilities introduced by flexibility (p. 103-104).

The take-away message here is that the rate at which future work styles are adopted depends a lot on national cultural norms and that organizations are taking notice of the larger trends in employee sentiment at both national and international levels. Thus, our opinions are important. As I’ve talked about this subject with various people, I’ve come to realize that there are many out there who haven’t yet realized that this possibility exists. Consider the benefits. If the possibility of moving towards a remote work system is important to you, make sure to talk about it with others.

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.

Link

The 1997 edition of The Information Age: An Anthology on Its Impact and Consequences, edited by David S. Alberts and Daniel S. Papp, was made available in pdf format and downloadable for free online. Click here to attain a copy. Updated editions (for 2004 and 2012) are available, however I wanted to check this copy out first and compare it to more recent editions later. As it turns out, I think that the information and predictions in the 1997 edition are still relevant and do a great job of explaining the Information Age’s impact on the way we work and live, job market trends, and how societal institutions will be shaped. This anthology is jam-packed full of interesting information, so this post is divided into 4 parts accordingly.

Part 1: The Information and Communication Revolution

In Chapter 1, Thomas A. Stewart provides an overview of the Information Age and describes the challenges it poses to individuals’ and organizations’ ability to learn and adapt. Essentially, the Information Age is characterized by an economy in which knowledge and communication are emphasized over natural resources and physical labor as the predominant sources of wealth. Note some of the advantages of trading in knowledge compared to trading in traditional goods and services: low entry barriers in terms of start-up capital as well as the ability to distribute products and services electronically. Stewart also addresses the possible magnitude of impact this latest period of technological advancement will have on our way of life. George Bennett, chairman of the Symmetrix consulting firm poses a what-if scenario, “If two percent of the population can grow all the food we eat, what if another two percent can manufacture all the refrigerators and other things we need?” (p. 5). Although a more definitive estimate of impact is not available, analysts agree that this most recent technological revolution is set to “dwarf” preceding revolutions in information and communication technology (e.g., telegraph, telephone, radio, television, etc.).

For those who are interested in how an information age is defined, Frank Webster poses interesting questions in Chapter 4. He covers technological, economic, occupational, spatial, and cultural definitions, and it is the last one that interests me the most. Indeed the cultural marker for an information age seems predicated on quantitative rather than qualitative measures of the supply of information in society. Those interested in a further discussion about the implications of the rise in bad information can turn to Chapter 6 where Joel Achenbach covers the possible how’s and why’s of its increasing prevalence with consideration of its sources.

It is important to keep in mind that this information technology comes with pluses and minuses that come to bear on our work-lives. In Chapter 5, Andrew Kupfer provides a thorough analysis of what this means for the future of work. The magnitude of the impact is expressed in the passage on pages 72-73:

Now information technology is poised to alter the scope of human intercourse, and the familiar combination of promise and dread makes itself felt once again — with an urgency seldom seen in the two centuries since the Industrial Revolution. The new technology holds the potential to change human settlement patterns, change the way people interact with each other, change our ideas of what it means to be human.

Information technology will have the power to reverse what may have been an aberration in human history: the industrial model of society.

… wired technology will obliterate the significance of two of the great symbols of the Industrial Revolution, the train and the clock, and along with them the idea that society can organize everything to run on set schedules. The temporal shift this technology permits — even demands — is likely to be its most profound and enduring effect.

Essentially, information technology, through its facilitation of 24-hour business spanning multiple time zones, has set the stage for the decoupling of work from a singular location (the office) and time-shift for a substantial contingent of white-collar workers. Many of us occasionally engage in this practice or know someone who does: travel to work and back home again for the regular 8-to-5 or 9-to-5 shift, then staying up to some ungodly hour in order to collaborate with colleagues via Skype on the other side of the world. It was when I first heard of someone having to stretch her work schedule this way that I realized that the one-size-fits-all method of setting work schedules does not make sense anymore. As described by Kupfer, the rise of a just-in-time workforce that comes together virtually and collaborates on projects of varying lengths is also likely. Finally, a great proportion of knowledge workers will be able to live wherever their tastes and preferences dictate. However, Kupfer states that it is difficult at this point to speculate on the nature of future settlement trends.

The Engagement Equation: Leadership Strategies for an Inspired Workforce

Posted on by
Reply

In The Engagement Equation: Leadership Strategies for an Inspired Workforce, authors Christopher Rice, Fraser Marlow, and Mary Ann Masarech provide a thorough guide for organizational leaders interested in improving work engagement. At the outset, they establish that engagement is a unique construct that is distinguishable from satisfaction, motivation, and commitment. Furthermore, employee engagement is an individualized equation expressed as the combination of maximum satisfaction for the individual and maximum contribution for the organization. From there, they discuss particular industries (e.g., where there is a high degree of interaction with customers) in which employee engagement particularly impacts results. Additionally, the authors caution against assuming measures that have increased engagement in one geographic region would similarly increase engagement in another.

A discussion about building a culture that supports engagement follows. The importance of helping employees identify their strengths, weaknesses, and needs in order to ensure job-fit, culture-fit, and suitable working conditions is highlighted.  Providing career coaching and development services also goes a long way to help employees envision a career that mutually addresses the needs of both individuals and the organization.

Finally, The Engagement Equation covers possible pitfalls of implementing strategies to increase engagement. First, the authors warn that maintaining a high engagement culture is an ongoing effort. In other words, sporadic interventions here and there will not create the results desired. Secondly, organizational leaders, managers, down to everyone in the organization must be on board and responsible for their own engagement level. It takes engaged individuals to foster a culture of engagement. Finally, leaders must be prepared to follow through with an action plan in a timely manner once the initial engagement level assessment is taken. The authors caution against utilizing an engagement survey and not following-up with action as the interest in increasing engagement may then come across as disingenuous leading to even higher levels of employee disengagement. Alternative means of making the initial engagement assessment are provided.

It is difficult to provide an adequate summary of all the useful points made in this book. It provides a clear, comprehensive, and practical guideline for beginning and continuing an action plan to foster a culture of engagement. Furthermore, it will dispel some preconceived notions of how implementation of such a program should proceed (e.g., the assumption that it is most beneficial to start assessment with an employee engagement survey).

The Work Revolution: Freedom and Excellence for All

Posted on by
Reply

Julie Clow’s The Work Revolution: Freedom and Excellence for All is an engaging and practical guide written for organizational leaders and thinkers interested in the issue of optimizing organizational structure and culture to suit business needs in the Information Age. Towards the beginning of the book, she provides a comprehensive self-assessment quiz that covers various facets of the organization’s philosophy, the rules, leadership, team and coworkers, and the leader’s role. A chart is provided to record scores and the rating criteria is clear-cut, showing specific areas of strengths and weaknesses. The remainder of the book expands upon the subject matter covered in the quiz providing suggestions for improvement in the process.

Holding true to the title, the main thrust of The Work Revolution is about how the power structure and communication channels in the traditional, hierarchical organization must be reorganized in order for it to thrive in the Information Age. Drawing upon her experiences at Google, Clow makes a compelling case for empowering and trusting employees with more autonomy in a results-oriented organizational culture (including allowing employees to adapt their job to their strengths and energy levels – e.g., they have more control over when they work, their working environment, and the tasks they perform) so that they can better contribute.

Clow demonstrates the value of more emphasis on grassroots decision-making through examples of how great ideas and solutions have come from crowd-sourcing. When there is so much information to process and so many decisions to be made, as is increasingly the case during the Information Age, it is more efficient for leaders to deal with only the most critical decisions. This is facilitated by creating an organizational structure and culture that empowers all individuals to deal directly with as many problems as they can rather than going through the process of attaining approval from gatekeepers and having this information travel in the traditional, linear fashion to the top. To this end, she offers details on how organizational leaders can craft guiding principles that enable employees to understand and make decisions that are consistent with the organization’s mission and values.

The Work Revolution is a great go-to source for case examples of organizations that innovate and thrive as well as a great starting point for planning the optimization of organizational structure and culture.