Tag Archives: ROWE

This one is for those who think that work environment doesn’t matter

Posted on by
4

As a strong proponent of giving people more control over where they work, it was only a short matter of time before I ran up against those who erroneously insist that work environment doesn’t matter. Their claim is that the only thing that matters is that you’re doing what you’re good at and that it doesn’t matter where you are doing this at. They don’t get it. If work environment really doesn’t matter, then the following clip from the popular film Office Space would not register as anything significant. What’s the difference anyway if Milton works on the same floor as everyone else or in the basement if work environment doesn’t matter?

The truth is that, for ages, we’ve relied on environmental cues for information that signal situations in which we should be stressed, anxious, fearful, etc. It is common knowledge that a room in which the predominant color is red whets the appetite moreso than another color would. Why do various colors stir up different reactions? What about acoustic distractions? Odors?

We ARE affected by our work environment though, yes, there are elements of subjectivity and relativity. This reflects our natural individual differences. Some of us perform work in dangerous environments, however people who are able to do so tend to already be naturally predisposed to react to threats with more calm (the trait “neuroticism” on the Big 5 – a measure of emotional stability and tolerance for stress or aversive stimulation). Others may even be pumped up by threatening environments and experience more of a thrill. I have, in fact, performed some work that required workers to have fairly low susceptibility to fear and would happily entertain opportunities to work as an animal field researcher in some less comfortable, outdoor settings (though perhaps not everywhere). At least it’s not boring!

When it comes to work that requires very heavy reading, writing, analyzing, and researching however, nothing beats the home office for me. A number of us, though not all of us, would agree that we are more productive working in our home environment than in a boring, stale office environment. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to say that going from working at home to working at the office is a “step down” much like Milton’s move to the basement. So instead of smacking the whole issue down with a knee-jerk reaction and waving off the importance of work environment across the board, it’s time to take the educated approach. Let’s open up discussion and debate about the ways and extent to which it does and doesn’t. To what extent do boring (or stimulating) environments impact our brains for example?

And for those who still believe that work environment doesn’t matter or, more specifically, that you should be able to do whatever it is you’re good at doing no matter what the work environment…

Uh, we’re gonna need to move your desk downstairs into Storage B… Uh, we have some new people coming in and we need all the space we can get. And if you could go ahead and get a can of pesticide and take care of the roach problem we’ve been having that would be great. (Office Space, 1999)



Finally, more videoconferencing dates have been added for “Innovating the way dispersed teams collaborate!”


Register at the Better Collaboration Meetup page and email contact@BetterCollaboration.org if you have any questions. Better Collaboration is about helping organizations improve collaboration of dispersed teams.


    

  • Wednesday, April 24, 2013
    • 

  • Wednesday, May 8, 2013
    • 

  • Wednesday, May 22, 2013
    • 

  • Wednesday, June 5, 2013
    • 



1:00 PM to 2:30 PM Eastern time (EST)/10:00 AM to 11:30 AM Pacific time (PST)


See details on the Events page.


Related articles


					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Workshifting is the new telework.  And it’s compatible with ROWE.

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				Reply			

					


				

			
First there was telecommuting.  Then there was telework.  Now telework is workshifting.  WORKshift, an organization “dedicated to promoting, educating and accelerating the adoption of flexible work programs that allow companies across Canada,” explains:


WORKshift is more than just a telework program.


It’s a flexible work program that focuses on results, not the hours an employee sits at their desk.


When many people hear about flexible work programs, they think telecommuting. They think of people sitting at home in their bunny slippers with a laptop 5 days a week.


No longer does flexible mean telecommuting. WORKshift is a management practice that gives employees “permission” to work where and when they are most effective. Often this means someone is working from homes, an airport or a coffee shop just one or 2 days a week.


It’s not about reinventing your business – it’s about accepting that the change has already happened, and understanding how our companies, cities and families can benefit from it.


Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, innovators of the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) management philosophy that places the management emphasis where it properly should be — on the work and not the workers — might be wincing as they read the above description. Ressler and Thompson — the kick ass, no bullshit Thelma and Louise pair challenging the rationale and relevance of the traditional human resources-based management model in the digital age – might object to the use of what they term the new F-word: flexibility.


In the context of “workplace flexibility,” flexibility implies adjusting the outmoded 8-5, Monday through Friday, office attendance paradigm to accommodate people’s needs and not the work that needs to be done.  To hell with adjusting that model, Ressler and Thomson argue.  It’s time to junk it as an obsolete, pre-Internet, Industrial Age throwback grossly inappropriate to a time when knowledge work can be done most anytime and anyplace.


Their point is well taken and shows the importance of keeping the focus on the work and not who is shifting it to when and wherever productivity can be had. WORKshift does that by defining workshifting as a “flexible work program that focuses on results.”


Unlike “telecommuting” where the worker – the commuter – is the focus, in workshifting the work is what’s important. WORKshift also emphasizes work by capitalizing the word in its organizational name.  Gone is the “tele” prefix of telework that to the listener connotes and harkens back to its Industrial Age predecessor “telecommuting.”


Words are very important to perception and practice. WORKshift provides the critical distinction that makes workshifting quite compatible with ROWE. It’s a management model for our time, one that is clearly ready for export beyond Canada in an increasingly information-based global economy.

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
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.

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Surveillance at Work: Issues and Recommendations

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				Reply			

					


				

			
The possibility of employers checking potential hires’ social networking sites to attain a more in-depth look at what candidates might really be like is now common knowledge. Likewise, most people also know that employers are increasingly monitoring their computer activities at work and that this can come in the form of programs that track time spent on work related and non-work related software as well as the types of websites you visit. These have become part of a “new normal.” However, surveillance can be more invasive and extend beyond the workplace itself. It can come in the form of tracking, through GPS, where you drive the company vehicle or employers’ hiring private investigators to verify health or injury claims as the following video shows:


Global Interviews: Vancouver Private Investigator on Employee Surveillance



We are still currently working out the conflict between employees’ right to privacy and employers’ rights to verify the truth of the information you submit for employment or other claims, ensure a fair exchange of labor for compensation per the employment contract, and maintain security of sensitive company related information. In the meantime, job applicants and employees who have information on the Internet that casts an unfavorable light on themselves must engage in some impression management. Here are a few recommendations:


    

  • Google your own name every now and then to see what kind of information is associated with you
    • 

  • Look into setting your social networking profile on “private” and think about what you post
    • 

  • If you are on the job, you can keep your non-work and work related activities separate by confining non-work related communications to your own device – yes, you can still watch cat videos!
    • 



The following video provides more information on employees’ and employers’ rights along with best practice recommendations for employees:


Computer Privacy in the Workplace

Featuring Attorney Wendi Lazar of Outten and Golden, LLP in New York



Many of us know intuitively that electronic surveillance of our computer and Internet activity at work isn’t going to do wonders for employee satisfaction and engagement. People like to maintain some degree of personal space and privacy. If you just take a moment to think about this, chances are you can probably recall some instance when you felt a visceral discomfort in reaction to being closely scrutinized. It hardly matters where the scrutiny is coming from (i.e., an employer, the government, or some stranger), whether or not you were following the rules or not at the time, or whether or not it is “for your own good.” Some of us want more “space” and privacy than others but I have yet to encounter one person who likes to be monitored all the time.


Electronic surveillance isn’t a foolproof solution when it comes to keeping employees on task either. Mixing of work and non-work related activities occurs anyway with the introduction of today’s sophisticated, portable devices (complete with fun features and games). My own 5-year old iPhone, for instance, gives me access to all the old Nintendo games I had known and loved so many years ago, but I digress. I believe that implementing a results-only-work-environment (ROWE) would be a better way to motivate and keep employees on task. From a behavioral psychology standpoint, what can be better than building a positive association with task completion? Implementing ROWE is easier for some jobs than others of course, however I’m considering knowledge work that is compatible with a ROWE system. A lot of headway can be made in this direction and it can all begin with a small pilot test within the organization.


Finally, here are a couple of articles for those who are interested in understanding what employers may be looking for when they come across your social networking profile: