How Do You Do 80% Of A Job?
April 7th, 2008 by Cali & Jody
This article in the Washington Post is yet another in a string of pieces we’ve seen over the years about women who choose to come back part-time after having kids, and how they accept reduced pay and benefits (and often risk their career) in exchange for the Holy Grail of Flexibility.
What jumped out at us while we read this story were all the percentages. One source has come back 60% while another has chosen to come back 80%. And this got us thinking: how do employers make sure that these women are doing exactly the right amount of work? How do they make sure that they are getting sixty or eighty percent? (Because it wouldn’t exactly be fair if employers got 65% or 87%, would it?) And how do these women give an exact percentage of their former efforts? Do they throttle back when they find themselves approaching the mark?
The answer, of course, is that neither employer nor employee are measuring actual output. They’re only talking about time. Even though common sense tells us that it’s absurd to look at work as a constant, steady stream of productivity, all the parties in this ridiculous game are assuming that if you reduce your hours by 20% then you must reduce your output by 20%.
This is a fantasy. It’s also a deeply unfair fantasy, especially for the employee. If you’re making $60,000 a year and you accept a 20% reduction of your former role, then you sacrifice approximately $230 a week in exchange for 8 hours. A manufacturing company that makes widgets might be able to argue that those 8 hours are worth $230. But the women in the article aren’t making widgets. They’re knowledge workers, and a knowledge worker can easily deliver that $230 worth of value in 32 hours.
Of course, you could also argue that a full-time knowledge worker could just as easily not deliver the full value of their weekly pay. But that just goes to our larger point about the absurdity of measuring an employee’s value to the business based on time. We want to see both employers and employees get what they’re due. That means employers paying employees based on the value of what they deliver (not the time it takes to deliver it) and employees taking accountability and delivering that value.
Bottom line: we have to stop chasing flexibility. Flexibility can only be based on time, and time means nothing in today’s economy.
Even if they were able to do 100% of the work they did formerly in 80% of the time, there is still something to be said for availability. If the women are getting the same work done and are available for the other 8 hours, then they should get the same pay. If they are unavailable they should still have “some amount” of reduced pay.
Even though I’ve worked in a results oriented work environment and my schedule was very flexible, I had to be available to my employer 40 hours a week, and I think thats fair. The value of work being done is a based on knowledge and time. How many people can do it, and how long does it take. Some jobs take a long time, but anyone can do it, so they get low pay (factory jobs perhaps?) Some jobs take a long time, but not many people can do it (web development at one time). Other take very little and anyone can do it, like answer a phone or some take very little time and very few people can do it , like small electrical projects maybe. Time and skill are both accounted for in pay.
I work only “80%” and blogged about it recently. (Someone said I hadn’t really come back from maternity leave!)
I agree that you don’t really do “80%” of the job for “80%” of the pay - very few knowledge workers work exactly 40 hours a week. However, I accepted a 20% pay cut for the ability to say no and not have it hurt my career. While I will usually agree to meet on Friday, I can just say no now, without any excuses. I also feel more justified taking a few hours off one afternoon if I know I worked all Friday morning the week before.
I’m constantly surprised (saddened) at how often people try to apply turn of the century factory floor management thinking to today’s jobs. Who teaches people to manage this way? Or, better yet, who teaches them not to manage this way?
I first read about ROWE in the 2006 BusinessWeek article. Thank god you all kept at it, started the blog, and wrote the book!
I’m ready for change!
Todd (AKA Bandit @ Not an MBA)
Aaron,
When you wrote about being available, did you mean to coworkers/customers or to a desk in an office? Big difference.
In your equation for formulating pay (skill and time), do results (desired/achieved) ever get factored in? Respectfully, I disagree with your breakdown of task + time +/- level of skill needed. To me, that is old school thinking.
Why not simplify?
Defined responsibilities + Desired Results + Actual Results (measured) = Pay
I agree that desired and achieved results should be factored into pay, but you can’t really calculate for achieved results for new employees. Thats why companies have raises. You can disagree as much as you’d like, facts are facts. A more specialized job that takes more time is going to pay more than a job easily accomplished by many people in a short period of time its somewhere in the middle for different variations…
When I say available, I mean available in whatever capacity a company needs you to be available. If your not answering your phone on the last day of the week because you’ve been reduced to 32 hours of week for personal choice or reason, then you should be paid less, especially if you are not at the very bottom of the chain of command. Yes, you might be able to get just as much work done by yourself in 32 hours as you might be able to in 40, but work environments usually have at least “some” team element and VERY often in a creative environment, people need that person to bounce ideas off off.
I just want to mention, that I am an advocate for ROWE, but in this particular case, where one group of people work 40 hours a week, the person working 32 hours should not be paid equally.
I work for myself! Ah the life of the entrepreneur. But that means most of my weeks are much more than 40 hours. Time well spent when the time is your own though.
Thanks for the reminder of my former corporate life.
Lisa, http://www.newproducthelp.com
Aaron,
It seems as if you are basing your thought process on the perception of how involved a task/job is rather than on the individual tasked with completing it.
“If your not answering your phone on the last day of the week because you’ve been reduced to 32 hours of week for personal choice or reason, then you should be paid less” ~ Forget the tradition of “time” in the workplace as Cali and Jody always remind us to and revisit that statement….
“people need that person to bounce ideas off off.” ~ How about instant messaging, email, the phone, regular mail, video conferencing, etc….so when someone in the Netherlands has a creative idea for someone in the US, they must physically meet to discuss it?
“where one group of people work 40 hours a week, the person working 32 hours should not be paid equally.” ~ That completely goes against the philosophy of a ROWE….it is not supposed to be about “time” anymore….it is supposed to be about results. What about the employee who is far more productive in 10 hours than the employee who works 40 hrs.? When analyzing the return to the company (results), would you not agree the former should be compensated equally or more than the latter?
Aaron, I think you are trying to force old school ducks into a ROWE….YIKES!!!!
Your missing my point Michael. I’m basing this particular opinion within the context of the article. We are talking about a typical work environment that has allowed someone to have a more flexible 32 hour schedule in exchange for less pay. If they are at home, fully available on the 5th day of the week, i don’t really have an issue with them making the same amount of money, assuming everyone else has that option. If, however, you are the only person getting those perks, no.. you don’t deserve the same pay.
Shouldn’t employers also put a dollar value on benefits like flexibility? When I take a job I consider the benefits and the paycheck. If I get full health and dental, then I consider that to be an extra couple hundred dollars a month the company is paying me, and likewise, so should the company itself. If a company is allowing an employee that kind of flexibility, its a perk and it should be associated with a dollar value. Mind you, I’m saying this from an employee standpoint, not a business owner.
After all, the company, by allowing you to be this flexible is saving you time, gas, perhaps babysitting cost?, and probably several other expenses, yet we should expect the same pay as if we were going into the office spending money that we wouldn’t otherwise?
That doesn’t seem fair for the company to me.
Also, people who are more product in 10 hours than someone else is in 40 hours will see the benefit of that hard work, either in the form of a raise, promotion, or being allowed to keep their job.
Also, although I think the ROWE is a great idea. I don’t know that people in the long run are responsible enough for this. Sure it will be more productive for a while, because its abnormal and people work hard to keep that benefit. But if it were the standard, people would probably become just as unproductive at home or where ever they are, as they would be in an office now. Thats because the ROWE would no longer be a perk, it would just be how things are done.
Aaron,
You stated you are an employee, but you sure express your opinion as if you are a business owner. I will agree I understand your point about the article - though it does buck the ROWE philosophy.
This SCARED me…
“Also, although I think the ROWE is a great idea. I don’t know that people in the long run are responsible enough for this. Sure it will be more productive for a while, because its abnormal and people work hard to keep that benefit. But if it were the standard, people would probably become just as unproductive at home or where ever they are, as they would be in an office now. That’s because the ROWE would no longer be a perk, it would just be how things are done.”
That negative assessment of today’s employee is exactly why the current work environment is so restricting, suffocating, and without innovation. A ROWE is a life and work integration. A happy worker is a good worker - remember that? And to combat underachieving and/or unproductive employees is easy…it’s called accountability.
I agree instances of abuse and underperforming exist in today’s work environments and these employees are “under the noses” of superiors and managers. Why does it continue? At least in a ROWE, the focus is on performance, not what time someone was at his/her desk, or if someone takes time off for personal reasons, etc…..a ROWE focuses accountability on results.
I agree a ROWE may not be for everyone, but I believe the option should be available to everyone.
Who says work places are without innovation? I see a lot of companies doing more and more to keep employees happy. Granted, its not giving them complete flexibility with their time and/or schedule, but they are trying to do new things. They offer better incentives, have better team building exercises, better perks, more time off, and a lot of companies are even getting better about promoting within the company.
A results oriented work environment is a perk/incentive, no matter how you look at it. Once it becomes so popular that its considered a standard in business, I think employee production will go back down again. I’ll give you an example.
Hypothetical example actually…
The average company gives 2 weeks off a year to their employees. So people who work for a company that gives 3 weeks off work that much harder. If a every company decides to adopt the 3 weeks off system, production as a whole will stay the same as it was originally with the 2 week system because its no longer a rare perk. Its the standard. Your not working harder because hey, they are just giving you what your SUPPOSE to get.
I give a negative assessment of todays employee in general, because I see my coworkers who are unhappy no matter what the company is doing for them. I dont’ work in a ROWE, but the company I work for has amazing benefits and perks and they still complain even though they wouldn’t get treatment this good anywhere else, why should I give that a positive assessment?
Also, I express my opinion as if I am a business owner because we have to be able to see the business owners side of ROWE. If we were focused solely on the employees benefit of the ROWE then the business owner would get screwed.
When I spoke of innovation, I was referring to the business not employee relations. For instance, as this is a crude example of innovation, but in my work environment, employees still use typewriters. And I work for a school district.
I believe your interpretation of a ROWE is inaccurate – it is not a perk. As per http://www.culturerx.com:
“A Results-Only Work Environment is one where your talent will show up energized, disciplined, fluid, flexible, and focused – always ready to deliver the results necessary to drive your business. ROWE is a bold, cultural transformation that permeates the attitudes and operating style of an entire workplace, leveling the playing field and giving people complete autonomy – as long as the work gets done.
In a ROWE, people do whatever they want whenever they want as long as the work gets done. In the park, in a coffee shop, in the shower. At midnight or 3am or on Sunday. Whenever and wherever.
You can stop monitoring the hallways, and focus your energy on the business.
With ROWE:
There is no need for schedules
Nobody focuses on “how many hours did you work?”
Nobody feels overworked, stressed out or guilty
Work is not a place you go, it’s something you do
People at all levels stop wasting the company’s time and money
Teamwork, morale, and engagement soar
There’s no judgment on how people spend their time
ROWE is all about results. No results, no job. It’s that simple.”
I believe your hypothetical, again much like your thinking, focuses on time. A ROWE is not about time. Moreover, as an employee and if I were ever an organizational head or company owner, want organizational goals and objectives and personal performance to serve as motivation – not how much paid time off is offered. YIKES!
The best motivator is accountability. So, again, in a ROWE or not, if employees are not being held to account for performance, that is the problem. So rather than offer similar benefits packages, ice cream parties, or gold stars to ensure employees are doing what they were hired for in the first place, to produce results, why not give mature adults freedom and responsibility, but actually hold them to account.
As a manager, director, or owner, I would rather analyze results of performance in my decision making process rather than if someone was late, how many days one has missed, petty infighting, etc…
I concede exceptions to the rule, not every organization is the same, and things change.
On some level, almost any job I can think of has a time variable. You have to have x done in y amount of time. ROWE is only better if they get the job done before the deadline as opposed to at the deadline. My argument is that for a while, people will get things done long before the deadline, because they like the environment and the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want as long as there are results (which is a perk). “an incidental benefit awarded for certain types of employment” as defined by google. The benefit in this example being that you can do whatever you want for getting the job done quicker or more efficiently.
After a time though, if a ROWE were to become the standard, we would eventually sink back to a point where jobs are simply meeting the deadline and not getting done before the deadline. Which is exactly where we are now.
Still, a ROWE “could” reduce the cost of operating for companies, and I stress the word “could”. For my particular company I think it might actually cost them more. Also, I think companies enjoy the ability to have access to people absolutely anytime they want in a known location.
While ROWE does have obvious benefits for both employee and employer, I fear that we focus to much on gain for the employee and don’t think about all the possible problems it could cause for an employer.
I have ran my own company before, which is why I might be more willing to look at it from an employers standpoint, and I allowed my people to work from home as long as it didn’t create a problem and it usually resulted in a problem. Either they became to unreliable, I couldn’t find them, their work was being put on the back burner for personal reasons…
Also, keep in mind that when I hired someone I considered how much they would have to spend to come to work each day and the cost of having a job on site instead of being able to work from home, I definitely am not going to pay someone the same amount of money if they get the benefit of being able to work wherever they want, whenever they want as I would if I told them where and when to work.
If everyone is ok with taking reduced pay for those reasons, I don’t think you’d have a problem. I’m sure my company would let me work from home and have a more flexible schedule if I took a paycut.
Where to start?
“On some level, almost any job I can think of has a time variable.”
Yes, time to complete tasks not time to restrain you.
“ROWE is only better if they get the job done before the deadline as opposed to at the deadline.”
See Best Buy or email Cali/Jody direct.
“My argument is that for a while, people will get things done long before the deadline, because they like the environment and the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want as long as there are results (which is a perk). “an incidental benefit awarded for certain types of employment” as defined by google.”
A ROWE is not a perk as it is not incidental (defined as: occurring or likely to occur as an unpredictable or minor accompaniment). Again, it is not a perk, because upon being hired you would be made aware of the working environment. Its not, “do good by us and then earn a gold star and a ROWE.” It would simply be the way.
“After a time though, if a ROWE were to become the standard, we would eventually sink back to a point where jobs are simply meeting the deadline and not getting done before the deadline. Which is exactly where we are now.”
The pessimism is stifling.
“Still, a ROWE “could” reduce the cost of operating for companies, and I stress the word “could”.”
Have you ever researched real organizations that have implemented a ROWE (Best Buy)? The data may impress you or at least accurately inform you.
“For my particular company I think it might actually cost them more.”
Did you conduct a cost analysis? Do you really know either way?
“Also, I think companies enjoy the ability to have access to people absolutely anytime they want in a known location.”
Phones. Pagers. Emails. IMs. I can interact faster with anybody using those tools of contact rather than driving to a location, walking down flights of stairs, etc.
“While ROWE does have obvious benefits for both employee and employer, I fear that we focus to much on gain for the employee and don’t think about all the possible problems it could cause for an employer.”
Of course, because such balance exists today…
“I have ran my own company before, which is why I might be more willing to look at it from an employers standpoint, and I allowed my people to work from home as long as it didn’t create a problem and it usually resulted in a problem. Either they became to unreliable, I couldn’t find them, their work was being put on the back burner for personal reasons…”
Why did they “become” unreliable? Were accountability measures in place? Defined responsibilities? Detailed goals and objectives? Weekly status requests? Was the work production of these employees noticeably better when in a traditional setting?
“Also, keep in mind that when I hired someone I considered how much they would have to spend to come to work each day and the cost of having a job on site instead of being able to work from home, I definitely am not going to pay someone the same amount of money if they get the benefit of being able to work wherever they want, whenever they want as I would if I told them where and when to work.”
So, you are bucking the essence of a ROWE again? You are implying the amount of time spent behind a desk is more valuable than results and performance? So when you were hiring, a slacker behind a desk got paid more than someone who is continually meeting organizational goals and objectives, professionally available, and who is productive….may I send you a resume?
“If everyone is ok with taking reduced pay for those reasons, I don’t think you’d have a problem. I’m sure my company would let me work from home and have a more flexible schedule if I took a paycut.”
Physical presence does not equal performance. A pay cut should not even be a factor when discussing a ROWE.
“Still, a ROWE “could” reduce the cost of operating for companies, and I stress the word “could”.”
Have you ever researched real organizations that have implemented a ROWE (Best Buy)? The data may impress you or at least accurately inform you.”
““For my particular company I think it might actually cost them more.”
Did you conduct a cost analysis? Do you really know either way?”
Obviously you aren’t paying attention to my post. I said “could” and “might” not “does” and “will”.
“Of course, because such balance exists today…”
Did not say that balance did exist, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Phones. Pagers. Emails. IMs. I can interact faster with anybody using those tools of contact rather than driving to a location, walking down flights of stairs, etc.”
Is the company paying for those phones and pagers? Emails and IM’s are only good if the person is at their computer, which I’d be willing to bet they aren’t for a very large portion of the time. I’m a web designer, my work takes place on a computer, but I guarantee you if I worked from home I would do more work at night, so I wouldn’t be at my computer during the day to receive emails or im’s. And if my cell phone is going to be called all the time by work, I want the company to pay my cell phone bill.
“The pessimism is stifling.”
It is naive to think that you implement something like this and it “just works forever”. Can a ROWE work? Yes. But it does need to be a reward, not standard procedure. If it’s just the way things are done, people aren’t going to work harder for it. Its silly to think otherwise.
We are going to have to just agree to disagree on whether or not its a perk. Either way, its a benefit not had at most companies. Once it were available at EVERY company…. its not even a benefit, its just how things are done.
I am down with agreeing to disagree….but…
“Obviously you aren’t paying attention to my post. I said “could” and “might” not “does” and “will”.”
~The stressing of “could” got me.
“Is the company paying for those phones and pagers? Emails and IM’s are only good if the person is at their computer, which I’d be willing to bet they aren’t for a very large portion of the time. I’m a web designer, my work takes place on a computer, but I guarantee you if I worked from home I would do more work at night, so I wouldn’t be at my computer during the day to receive emails or im’s. And if my cell phone is going to be called all the time by work, I want the company to pay my cell phone bill.”
~ Oragnizations pay for its technology and utilities now, correct? Less office space needed > less utilities and technological infrastructure needed = less overhead?
~ Cell phone technology (PDAs, Blackberries, etc.) can all send/receive emails/IMs…
~ And yes, the oragnizations are already providing/paying for its employees to have computers, phones, desks, pencils, paperclips, it only makes sense for the shrunken costs associated with a ROWE to fall on the organization
“It is naive to think that you implement something like this and it “just works forever”.
~ Much like everything else, it will certiainly require updating, adaptation, etc….
“Can a ROWE work? Yes. But it does need to be a reward, not standard procedure. If it’s just the way things are done, people aren’t going to work harder for it. Its silly to think otherwise.”
~ I am anxious to read what Cali & Jody’s take is on that thought process as it seems that is what they must combat every day.
“Once it were available at EVERY company…. its not even a benefit, its just how things are done.”
~ That is what we are all hoping for….
Mr. Barata, I applaud your ability to remain composed–you have been too easy on Aaron. This is like a debate over religion–you can not argue with a zealot.
The zealot can never see the flaw in their logic, because they do not base their rationale on logic, but rather on opinion, emotion, or ideas they have been trained to accept unquestioningly.
Aaron’s premise is, “How can I get away with it?”–That is, how will employees screw employers if treated like intelligent, rational people? Every argument you give him simply paints him into a corner he does not know how to get out of–essentially reducing his response to folding his arms and shaking his head, shouting, “No, it’s bad because it has to be! It just has to be.”
The logical support of ROWE, or any idea, is not, “What can I find that is wrong with this?”, but rather, “How can I make it work?”.
Aaron is forced to rely on anecdotal opinion to support his premise, regardless of facts or statistics standing against him in. For example, he can not support his opinion that a ROWE paid by the company would be more costly to the company or that production would taper off if a ROWE became the standard.
It is a simple function of logic–even if the Company paid for a cell-phone and provided a laptop for every Results-Only employee, the cost can only be significantly less than the price of an internal phone network, phones, desktops, monitors, keyboards, mice, speakers, office supplies, real estate and janitorial expenses, etc… of maintaining an actual office. Not to mention the utilities (electric, gas, water) saved by the employee not forced to use Company space.
Production would eventually taper off, but again, under what premise? Production will level out logically, not because employees slack, but because production goals will be raised to meet the new peak performance, as always. The Assembly Line made work easier, faster, and more productive–did employees then take advantage of the new process and decide to spend the rest of their days goofing off since they could maintain the same production in half the time? No, production goals moved to meet ability.
The same premise will apply to time-constrictive jobs. Given the freedom to manage their own time, the only logical premise for a factory worker is to find new ways to do his or her job. A ROWE breeds innovation, not stifles it. In a ROWE, slacker employees enjoying, second-hand, the fruits of productive employees, do not get paid.
Employees will create for themselves the opportunity to move the organization forward, or walk themselves out of it.
As a supposed business-owner, I would think this would be gold to someone like Aaron, unless of course, he is the second-hander.
Michael…
Thank you.
I thought I was alone there for a while. Wow, you really made some excellent points!
[...] been watching (with great interest) as Michael and Aaron discuss of our recent post How Do You Do 80% of a Job? We love seeing this [...]
Wow. I honestly don’t see how anyone reads that conversation and thinks to themselves that 1. I was painted into a corner and 2. That I just folded my arms and saying its bad because it has to be.
In fact, I was pointing out potential flaws, which is something that MUST be done. I’ve been pushing a ROWE at my current job, but i do so knowing the possible consequences.
What you fail to understand MICHAEL is that there is still limited information on how well this works with large companies. Your blasting me for forming opinions without information, when in fact I’m forming my opinions based on lack of information. I am simply trying to predict the possible stumbling blocks of a system so that we might be able to prevent them.
What is so disturbing to me about your post, is that you are basically calling me stupid for saying there “could be” issues with this system. You too seem to have ignored that fact that I say “could be”, which means I’m hypothesizing a negative scenario. There are people that are paid millions of dollars to do just such a thing, so we have fail safes and a way to reduce issues that could arise.
Its sad that there are people like you who are discouraging people to challenge a theory or point out the possibility of a flaw. Its also deeply disturbing that you can’t admit the possibility that humans are able to grow content with a system or take advantage of what could be a great model of business.
Lastly, I mentioned the possibility of my company losing money if it implemented a ROWE, which you seem to completely disagree without the least bit of knowledge about the internal structure of the company, its size, its protocols, or its needs.
Aaron, ROWE works with a very large company, BEST BUY HEADQUARTERS. I work with and am friends with many employees here and they are all loving ROWE. My opinion is if it’s good enough for Best Buy, it is probably good enough for most companies.
Also, not calling you stupid but I believe in your posts you meant to write “you’re” many times instead of “your”. Sorry, reading bad grammar is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
We are all well aware of the success Best Buy has had with a ROWE, but the infrastructure for every company is VERY different, maybe even amongst big box retailers similar to Best Buy.
My whole point in the previous posts was that we’ve only seen it work successfully with a few companies, even if they are very large companies, so its hard to just accept it without even a little skepticism, which I think is healthy.
That being said, I think all 3 people that have posted to me so far are ignoring the fact that I am PRO-ROWE. The way you people come at me you’d think I was saying it couldn’t possibly work, when in fact I am just pointing out “potential” flaws.
I feel like I’m being called unpatriotic because I don’t wear a flag pin or something.
Aaron,
I totally respect your opinion, but I think you are failing to respect the efforts of Cali & Jody. Do you not believe they have already asked the questions you are asking? Do you not believe Best Buy invested any time (money) in research of a ROWE?
Also, with regard to other companies:
“Tech companies have been going bedouin for several years. At IBM, 40% of the workforce has no official office; at AT&T, a third of managers are untethered. Sun Microsystems Inc. calculates that it’s saved $400 million over six years in real estate costs by allowing nearly half of all employees to work anywhere they want. And this trend seems to have legs. A recent Boston Consulting Group study found that 85% of executives expect a big rise in the number of unleashed workers over the next five years. In fact, at many companies the most innovative new product may be the structure of the workplace itself.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16040492/
That is a whole lot of research and validation to chew on…
Your statement, “Your blasting me for forming opinions without information, when in fact I’m forming my opinions based on lack of information.” Wow…does that not mean the same thing?
In all actuality, I simply feel you need more information about how a ROWE is implemented and managed. Unlike today’s work environment philosophies, I think a ROWE may be a bit more elastic in its application, therefore giving the employer/employee room to grow - in terms of improvement not content.
“Your statement, “Your blasting me for forming opinions without information, when in fact I’m forming my opinions based on lack of information.” Wow…does that not mean the same thing?”
No it doesn’t. He is saying that I’m forming my opinion without being educated on ROWEs, when in fact I’m forming my opinion because there is a lack of information to be had.
As Cali and Jody pointed out in their last post, there are only 2 companies that have implemented their strategies, and although there are more coming its hard to convince everyone to jump to a new infrastructure based on the success of 1 company over a short period of time. (Though I believe their success will continue)
Also, I have great admiration for Cali and Jody. My respect for their work, however, does not mean the system is without flaws.
It doesn’t surprise me that tech companies have embraced these concepts. Particularly companies with a large number of developers. The work can be done from home and many of them don’t have any attachment to the public. Its easy to read that article for me and think to myself, thats great.. they are making the best of a ROWE, but I have no idea how they manage that infrastructure based on that article, and neither do you.
As far as i can tell from companies I’ve worked for over the last 10 years or so, a lot of managers have freedoms that average worker doesn’t have.. its also worth pointing out that some of those managers were well liked and some of those managers were highly disliked by employees because they/we felt they were out of touch with what was going on with the lower level employees, partially because of lack of contact.
Aaron,
I think what is most puzzling is how you continually assert the “system has flaws”. Taking into account your knowledge of business, a ROWE, the current, traditional work environment, and companies that have implemented a ROWE, I ask what flaws have you discovered?
Unlike in the traditional work environment, in a ROWE if you do not produce, you probably will not be working very long. The metric used to gauge performance/production in a ROWE is results.
The diversity and dynamics of different organizations’ infrastructures is one thing - and believe me, like a moth to a light, you have gone back to that premise many times - at the end of the day, those aspects will certainly require adaptation and training. However, to break it down as much as I can, people will have the same responsibilities, just more freedom as to how he or she will meet goals and objectives. And if goals and objectives are not being met…just like how it should be now, you get reprimanded or terminated.
You know what is flawed…today’s work environment. Even if it is productive and high performing, people are being robbed of the freedom to schedule work and life as it best suits them while also being aligned with organizational expectations.
A ROWE is about empowering people to be most productive in their careers and happy in their lives. Do you get it? Its not about organizational infrastructure, its about organizational behavior.
Potential…. POTENTIAL flaws. I honestly, don’t even know how its possible to argue with a phrase like that. If you honestly don’t believe that this system “could” (potentially, possibly, conceivably, imaginably, or thinkably) happen, then you have no business implementing any system into a business.
You NEED to think about the POSSIBLE drawbacks if you want to implement a system properly. If you don’t you could end up costing yourself time, money, and possibly employees.
All I’ve read from anyone on this forum is that a ROWE environment would be more productive. While I tend to agree with that assessment, I still have to say, “prove it”. I need more information before I just rollover and play dead to other environments being just as affective. (effective?)
I’m simply reserving judgment while I wait to see how others benefit from ROWE and for some reason, that upsets most of the ROWE fan base, of which I am a member.
Aaron,
How many times do you check for traffic before you cross the street?
I think the problem with your mission to find flaws is you inquire as if no flaws exist in today’s stale, old, restricting work environments. And, as I am sure we can all agree, plenty exist.
How do you know what something tastes like or if you will like it if you don’t just try it? Maybe that’s what it will take, just like how Best Buy did it, start small. Best Buy piloted a ROWE with a select group of employees, realized success (of course, I am sure bumps in the road were encountered), and then rolled it out to a larger group of employees. I believe the next step for them is to analyze possibilities of implementing on the retail level too.
With regard to proof, I provided you with a list of companies that have implemented a ROWE or a similar environment.
How many participating companies will satisfy your inquiry? For how long must a ROWE be in place before you buy in?
And, it is effective.
I would like to see a ROWE implemented and maintained for a period of about 10 years and I would like to see marked and sustained productivity from employees as well as financial relief for the company.
Believe me, I’m well aware of what many of the current problems are in the traditional work environment, but thats the whole point.. I KNOW what the problems are with this environment, not so with a ROWE.
“think the problem with your mission to find flaws is you inquire as if no flaws exist in today’s stale, old, restricting work environments.”
If we were talking about going from a ROWE to an environment that we currently have in place I would be pointing out the current flaws, but if I do that in this case I’m just singing to the choir am I not?
Ten years? Wow, are you applying the FDA approach?
I ask….how long has the traditional work environment been in existence? I would venture to guess WAY more than ten years and it is still flawed….
See, the problem is not potential flaws, but rather identifying them, correcting them, and moving on. A ROWE makes this easier by eliminating peripheral interferences such as focusing on how much time an employee spends behind a desk, how much sick time an employee has used, etc…and redirects the concentration on what every organization strives to achieve…results.
Accountability, adaptation, and a continuous effort to seek out improvement should be the driving forces of business. Therefore, implementing a ROWE and actually managing the work and the people should help with any implementation and/or functionality issues that may arise. And if any do, it would probably be wise not just to talk about them, but to learn from them and correct them.
I view a ROWE as a revolutionary approach to business, not just because of the employee freedoms, but because it re-establishes the importance of what organizations need to succeed….results.
Mr. Barata and Aaron,
I worked in a ROWE for 1 year and it had a profound impact on me… I believe either 1) Aaron has never worked in the environment or 2) the environment was said to be ROWE, but in fact was not.
Releasing the chains of 9 to 5 allowed me to work when I was most productive (typically late at night and/or early in the morning) and produce well beyond expectations (mine and the CEO’s). It empowered me to do a better, both personally and professionally. It’s a paradigm shift and it is obvious that Aaron is still locked into the old paradigm.
Does it take getting used to? Yes. Does it require process documentation, adequate planning, competent goal setting and a shift away from counting the minutes? Yes. Was I ever not available? No! I could be reached on the gold course. I made time to meet formally and informally with colleagues. I carved out time for quiet work (if you use MS Exchange, anybody can view your calendar).
When my company made the cultural shift, customers were not informed, but happened to comment on recent improvements in response times and turn-arounds (I must disclose that the shift occurred before my time there).
Here is the bad news… about 10-15 percent of the employees could not handle the new environment and left. However, that percentage of turnover dropped to nearly zero when new recruits were identified. Just like Best Buy, productivity increased over time (not at first).
You two can continue to argue about it, but one of you has made the shift and the other has not. You’ll both be frustrated until you’re at the same place in your belief system. Just my two cents!
Thanks,
Pete
Pete. Your failed to understand one very important element of this conversation. I like ROWEs. I think they have serious potential and could revolutionize the way businesses think about how to get the most out of their employees.
I’m just not willing to blindly accept that a ROWE is going to improve every business in every industry and I would not encourage any business to jump into a ROWE until there are more documented successes and the obstacles they had to overcome.
Michael, yes the traditional work environment has been around for well over 10 years, but as a result we know exactly what the obstacles are and the stumbling blocks that might arise.
When Apple released the iPod I didn’t hurry out with the masses to buy the latest and greatest, I waited to see what people were saying about them and found out the problems that arose over time, as the iPod aged and as people relied more and more on their new toy. Once I decided that the Pros outweighed the Cons I went out and made my purchase.
Similarly, I am waiting to see more information from companies that have implemented ROWEs. I want to see what obstacles they had to overcome and what drawbacks their shiny new business model had.
That being said, the company I work for absolutely will not adopt a ROWE. It just isn’t possible, unfortunately
Aarron - you’re right. In any kind of big, revolutionary change there are early adopters - those that jump right in and act as ‘test subjects’ so to speak. And then there are those that wait until more and more people get on board - cautiously optimistic. And, there are those that hold on til the bitter end - refusing to change no matter how much proof positive is right in front of them.
You have healthy skeptism - that’s good. As for your company? NOTHING is impossible.
What’s interesting is that some companies have to jump on board in order for there to be companies with documented successes. If we all sit back and wait, nothing will ever change.
I appreciate your post Cali & Jody.
Unfortunately my company has very strict security requirements so its impossible for us to do our work from any location other than our office. We have to have badges to get in our doors, passwords for our computers. We are not allowed to bring visitors into our work area, etc etc.
Still, it would be nice if they cut down on meetings and used technology to communicate better inside of the company instead of calling meetings all of the time.
I’ll definitely be keeping up with ROWE and see how it progresses for other businesses and maybe if I ever start a new business or go to work for another company it will be something I can be involved in.
Aaron,
I have to use a badge to get into my building and use passwords to log on to my computer (who doesn’t?)…I work in the field of Medicaid reimbursement for special education children, therefore I have access to highly confidential, personal information…but it can be accessed via web based applications.
See, I do not actually store the info. in my pocket…its on a secure server being maintained by techies. Does your firm not have a network? Web based capabilities?
My point is, I have and could, access such info. from anywhere in the world where I had access to the internet.
Is this not a possibility or has it never been truly considered at your company?
Aaron,
The fact that you “like” ROWEs was not lost on me. However, I believe my paradigm shift comment may not have been clear… it appears to me that each time you use “ROWE” you could actually substitute “Flex-Time.” In those cases, I would tend to agree with you. Flex-Time does not work in every scenario. A results-oriented work environment should be able to be adapted for ANY workplace. From my perspective, it is all about empowering the employee and shifting from time counting to customer service (expectations of consumers, but also co-workers, supervisors, venders and other customers). I really like the comment from Cali & Jody about your healthy skepticism. I’ve also heard it phrased statistically… 10 percent will embrace, 80 percent will arrive at some point, 10 percent will never arrive. That said, blind acceptance of ROWE is a bit of an oxymoron. Every employer should be looking at results instead of counting the hours, but so often employers blindly accept a time report w/o assessing results.
Thanks,
Pete
Michael, unless you handle the entire worlds Medicaid (and even if you do), I doubt security is as important.
I don’t blame my company one bit for not trusting its employees to keep their home computers secure. They would have to make sure that each persons computer is on a secure network, in a secure building. It would be far far to easy for high secure information to get leaked.
All it would take is someone to open the wrong email, let the wrong person into their home for a few minutes, or not properly setup their home computers network, and thousands of companies worldwide would become vulnerable to a some jerk who knows how to spy on a network.
I’m not even allowed to put a cd or a usb drive in my computers at work. I doubt they are going to let me take my computer home.
On another note, it would seem to me that you (Michael) are approaching this conversation without considering the idea that I might be able to use some bit of reasoning. Yes I know how to keep my password a secret and I’m well aware of my companies capabilities. I’m EXTREMELY familiar with out local network and work with the internet as a work platform as well.
As soon as I read about ROWE I considered the possible ways for my company to implement such a system (I’ve certainly considered web applications to make work more efficient…thats ROWE 101) and its just not feasible. At the very best my company could implement a flex-time component, but I don’t think they are to worried about that.
When I say its not possible, I mean its not possible =)
Peter, you may be right. I definitely lump Flex-Time and ROWE into a group with one another… but it would seem to me that ROWE is built around Flex-Time.
The employee does what they want, when they want, as long as a goal is met, correct?
Perhaps, I’m ignorant on this specific topic. Can you give me an example of a ROWE that does not include a flexible schedule?
Thanks.
Hey Aaron! Flexible schedule is an oxymoron. In a ROWE, each day looks different - when your work is driven by what needs to get done. ROWE is like TiVO for your work. And, there are no core hours, and Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm isn’t the standard work week. Flexible schedules can only happen if there are set office hours to be flexible around.
YIKES!!!!!
Aaron, your assumption about Medicaid and security could not be any further off base. I mean…way wrong.
Allow me to share two acronyms with you…HIPAA and FERPA:
HIPAA: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) website, Title I of HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs. Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative Simplification (AS) provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers.
The Administration Simplification provisions also address the security and privacy of health data. The standards are meant to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s health care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in the US health care system.
FERPA: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA or the Buckley Amendment) is a United States federal law codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, with implementing regulations in title 34, part 99 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations cover violations such as parent volunteers grading another child’s work, school employees divulging information to someone other than the child’s parents about a child’s homelife, grades or behaviors, and school work posted on a bulletin board with a grade.
This privacy policy also governs how state agencies transmit testing data to federal agencies. For example see Education Data Network.
The law allows students who apply to an educational institution, such as graduate school, permission to view recommendations submitted by others as part of the application. However, on standard application forms, students are given the option to waive this right. Many applicants do waive this right.
FERPA specifically excludes the treatment records of students in higher education from its definition of educational records. It also excludes employees of an educational institution if they are not students.
Not only is there a tremendous focus on secuirty, Federal laws have been enacted to protect an individual’s information…so, while you adhere to “company policy”, I must comply with Federal and State laws and district policies.
As Cali & Jody have indicated, but allow me to add in an attempt to satisfy your thirst for info., a ROWE is a work culture, whereas Flex Time is a perk (your word, remember that?).
As for ROWE being impossible to implement at your company, I will have to respect that as I am unfamiliar with your company. But do you realize the infrastructure and technology that already exists to afford other (thousands) companies the ability to function and compete on a global level is similar to the functionality of a ROWE? Same concepts, just applied locally.
Your choice of TIVO as an analogy is interesting. It could look that way in certain cases, but the primary focus may not be flexibility in hours committed. I truly believe that what we are discussing is customer satisfaction where customers are not limited to your boss (blindly doing what your boss tells you to do… following a particular schedule for no particular reason or benefit… doing enough to get your annual increase…).
A receptionist may need to be available during certain hours. If those hours consume all of his/her day, a ROWE might not be about time-flexibility. However, I would challenge that company to look at their structure. More accurately, I would challenge that company to empower an employee workgroup to assess the requirements of that position. We eliminated a receptionist position at my company. The person was absorbed into a clerical team, the tasks were divided amongst the team (assigned by the team) and the work space was adjusted to include the receptionist area. In this way, no one individual was the “face” of the agency, but the team became more sensitive to customer service. They supported each other, agreed to insure front desk coverage, and answered phone calls as they came in. Peer-review allowed them to also critique each other. I will tell you, customer satisfaction increased. Though it would take planning, you might be able to adapt this to other settings (manufacturing, retail, call center, etc.). I have come to believe that the important question is, “What results do we want or expect?” If something can be improved and you empower the employee at the same time, you are likely to see increases in productivity as well as employee satisfaction.
So, TIVO might be the correct analogy with knowledge-based professionals, but the key is empowerment (I do some of my best and most creative work in the middle of the night) to achieve positive outcomes (improved product). Just my two cents!
Hmm.. I guess I just had a different idea of what Flex-Time is… although your definition makes sense. Here at our offices people take off an hour or two early pretty often because they don’t have much to do… and I guess I considered that a flexible schedule, but I guess its not since by what I think your definition is, they’d still have to make up those hours somewhere and here we don’t.
Wow! I am completely new to ROWE, and have found the above ‘discussion’ fascinating. I do share some of Aaron’s concerns for potential obstacles.
As an HR Manager with 15000 staff in the Railway industry, I would love to migrate to a ROWE environment. However, as many of my staff are train drivers, signal operators and other safety critical workers, I simply cannot see how I could integrate any type of system other than “you drove trains for 43.5 hours this week so you will get paid for 43.5 hours”.
After all, our “results” are that the trains arrive at their destination safely and on-time, thus requiring a strictly managed roster with strong attention to equity (of distribution of over-time hours) and fatigue management protocols.
If anyone has some bright ideas to other ways ROWE can be achieved in this environment, I am all ears.
Keep up the healthy and entertaining exchange of ideas.