ROWE and Relationships
September 3rd, 2008 by Cali & Jody
One of the common criticisms we hear about the idea of a Results-Only Work Environment is that it’s anti-relationship. Focusing on results is cold and formal, and the autonomy people have means that they aren’t in the office forming those important (and often intangible) social bonds that make a strong organization tick.
The corollary to this idea is that if you’re not in the office raising your profile, you become a nonentity in the organization. You may deliver results, but you’re a ghost. When it hits the fan, you’re the forgotten one.
We’ll take the second one first. Having control over your time doesn’t mean you go it alone. In a Results-Only Work Environment, people still meet, collaborate, chat, get sidetracked, refocus their efforts, and even have fun.
The difference is that people don’t have to engage in any of those activities in an office during regular busines hours. Quite often, they do. But it’s not required. If you’re the kind of person who puts a premium on interpersonal relationships in the workplace, a ROWE doesn’t make fulfilling your face time dreams harder, just different.
Which brings us to a larger point about how we live today. This article on MSNBC about social networking in the workplace cites a U.K. study that says that workers spend an average of 30 minutes a day on Facebook and MySpace.
[Pause for a moment to judge these people as "slackers".]
Now that we’ve done that, let’s look at what those social networking users are really doing: they’re building relationships. The social impulse that critics of ROWE want to preserve in the workplace is the same impulse that drives people to ”waste time” on MySpace.
We’re social beings. We have to interact to survive. That strong social impulse isn’t something that can be turned on and off at will, or directed toward only constructive activities. Before Facebook, people met at the watercooler. In the future, when whatever strange (and possibly disturbing) technology replaces Facebook, watch as people think back to the “good old days” of social networking.
Technology has changed our world in ways we’re still struggling to comprehend. But no matter what happens, we’re always going to be people. A ROWE makes work look and feel different, but it can’t change who we are.
***********************************************************************************************************
ROWE and Why Work Sucks were the topic of an interview we did with PBS Nightly Business Report that aired the other night. Check out the interview here.
People just don’t want to work in their work environment. Their personal life creeps in along with the time-wasting activities of MySpace and Facebook.
But is working from home really the solution? At first it seems very Ferris Bueller-esque and clever. Bosses are (sadly) used to low employee productivity from an 8-hour day. When you work from home, you work harder and do your old eight hours in, say, four. Yay, you’ve reclaimed four plus hours a day. Less commute, less costs, no business attire.
Seems great, right?
But… it’s only a matter of time before bosses figure it out and adjust. They will probably be the last to be allowed to use a ROWE schedule. Ahead of the curve, this ROWE phenomenon is going to be great. For a while…
Then say goodbye to your four hours of saved time. Bosses are just going to assign more (home)work to compensate. Pretty soon, you won’t be able to finish in four hours and make little Timmy’s little league game. Or you’ll be on a conference call during it, missing out on the whole reason you’re there.
Mark my words, if this takes off, prepare for blowback. This whole ROWE system is predicated on it’s difference and novelty compared to the current system. If it becomes the de facto standard across corporate America, it won’t be so effective anymore. If payment for services rendered (payroll) is decoupled from hours and applied to results, how exactly does one measure results, with firm metrics, for many jobs? When in doubt, bosses are going to pile it on. And how much of the time exactly does a boss now spend keeping up with these new metrics? If we actually kept up with how little we did each day aside from busy work, wouldn’t are bosses pile more on if we showed that pathetic list to them?
And if it’s that easy, why not outsource for far cheaper?
If you have not already, may I suggest you purchase Cali & Jody’s book and read the section about work environment beliefs and time…oooh…and Sludge. That may help shed some light on the 8 hour workday…
You asked, “If payment for services rendered (payroll) is decoupled from hours and applied to results, how exactly does one measure results, with firm metrics, for many jobs?”
Two things jump out at me and punch me right me in my brain!
1) Paying people for time worked seems to imply people are productive, performing at a desired level, or at the very least, contributing within a specific time period (like 9-5). Is this really the case? I am sure lots and lots of people can share lots and lots of stories about employees doing everything but work.
2) The bigger question…how are employees in today’s traditional work environment measured indeed? I would hope defined metrics, even if flawed, exist in everyone’s work environment. How do you know if you are doing a good job? How do you know when you need improvement? The fact you ask the question is alarming.
Because employees currently seem to be measured by the amount of time worked, being punctual to start the day, adhering to the end of day “whistle”, and other vague non-results oriented pseudo-metrics has cheapened the meaning of job performance and eroded accountability. This is why it seems no on can ever be terminated for doing a poor job…because the employee’s generated results in relation to company goals and objectives are rarely considered.
Defined roles and company expectations should drive an employee.
I hear what you’re saying Brian, but you’re basing these thoughts on nothing. Do the real world results from Best But mean nothing???
ROWE is taking off, and as it does it has companies saying, “Why didn’t we do this earlier?”
“Based on nothing?” Not at all. I am a “boss” for about 30 people so I trust I can speak for some bosses out there. My example is based on the lack of productivity of the average cubicle-dweller. Have you read Dilbert, watched Office Space or The Office lately? The stereotype is sadly true in a lot cases. Quite a few office workers are generally lazy. Don’t think so? Hire an outsourced Indian personal assistant for $4/hr and be amazed at what true productivity is. I have. And we wonder why jobs go overseas. But I digress…
Since I’m clued in to the concepts of sludge and busywork, let me give you some buzzwords and phrases to play with: “productivity gains” and “work creep.” Being away from your desk and its inane busy work means you are free to do real, productive, effective, and efficient work. The problem I see is ROWErs assume that they can have that time back and get paid for it. Nope. After I figure out how to get more out of ROWE, I am going to get the equivalent of 8 office hours of ultra-productive work from you. Maybe 10. Now you’re working much harder and getting paid the same. No cooler stops, BS bathroom breaks, or Myspace surfing. So it’s definitely a win/win for a boss. Yeah you get flexibility, but you’re working much, much harder. I get way more work out of you, whenever I want. In fact, since there was no more delineation between work time and personal time, I would pile even more than 8 hours on–completely ignoring your nights and weekends. I’ll go ahead and request that TPS for Monday on Friday afternoon at 4:55PM. Productivity shoots through the roof! Sweet!
You’re going to quit? Given the attractive nature of a ROWE environment and the current job market, your seat will be filled in no time. Think that’s evil? Go work for the Dalai Lama.
ROWE is basically a trade. A new contract between office workers and management. Workers gain flexibility of schedule and in return are expected to increase productivity a noticeable amount. I get it. But are there unexpected negatives associated with implementing ROWE? That’s my question in a nutshell. Call it the “Dark Side of ROWE.” I probably should copyright that. <–obvious sarcasm
ROWE, like quality circles and other management theories before it, can work. But these systems aren’t without their weaknesses. Granted, this is Cali & Jody’s show, but I’d like some posts about how to deal with the inevitable issues this new and novel approach will cause. Because it’s not all peaches and cream at BBY. And what about BBY? ROWE isn’t in stores, where the money is actually made. How about letting the average $8 blue shirt have ROWE?
@ Brian
You can develop metrics for anything. If you can’t, then can it really be called work in the first place? I think one of the great things that can happen when developing metrics to support a ROWE is that it makes people realize how much ‘busy work’ they do each day. So, sure, once a ROWE is rolling there will be more REAL work to do, but because you have eliminated the ‘fluff’, the net change in time you spend probably is not much different. However, the freedom that EVERYONE has in a ROWE, including managers, on how that work time is incorporated in their lives makes it even less of of an issue.
As far as losing its novelty, who cares? Just because something isn’t avant guarde doesn’t mean it’s no longer worthwhile. As more and more companies adopt it, employees will have even more freedom in their lives. Their gripes about work hours will no longer be an issue so they may choose to stay with a company they might have left in previous times. And if there are more ROWE companies besides their own, they will have more opportunities to leave to do some work that means more to them personally. Judging everybody by their results is not a novelty - it’s how business should be.
In relation to the article, who says I or any of my co-workers are always going to be working from home and not see our colleagues or managers in a ROWE? I do need to meet and coordinate with others and there are resources at my office that I can’t get at home. Beyond that, if I am a responsible adult, I am going to go wherever needed to get the work done, but at least it will be my decision. If I can’t get it done at home because of distractions, I will go somewhere else. At least I won’t be FORCED to go somewhere because current thought on workplace productivity hasn’t progressed in the last 100 and some years.
I think Brian does bring up a legitimate point, though about creating metrics. How do managers create metrics that are reasonable. If they wanted, managers could say that to be successful an employee has to complete X number of Y product. Well, if it takes most people 80 hours a week to do so, is that a legitimate metric? Sure, you’re in a ROWE, but you only have time for work and sleep. Or, if a new work requirement is developed, when is it appropriate to heap that onto the employees? Should they wait until their annual or whatever review period and say “hey, you’ve done great, now we’re adding this to your requirements pile and if you can’t do it you’re fired”? I do see a danger of power reverting back to the manager’s and company’s hands. These are the kind of details that concern people about a ROWE.
That said… I love ROWE!!!
LIstening to Brian talk, and how he “sees” his employees and outsources to India. Let me state that there is no way I would work for him. He may not realize it, but he is a toxic boss. You don’t reward hard workers with more work. You don’t threaten workers with outsourcing their jobs if they don’t put in 10 hour days and get paid for 8.
I’m sorry, but ROWE isn’t going to help him — nor will any other management program. When you view employees as “tangible assets” to be thrown away at will; when you have zero trust; when you only look at how much work you can get out of people — just how many super stars will want to work there? I’d rather work for Wal-Mart as a cashier than have to put up with that kind of toxicity day in and day out.
Regarding relationships at work, I noticed that often relaionships are much more focused if you don’t see the other person everyday. When I go to the other side of the floor people hardly notice that I said hi. When visiting another site however people will often walk over to me, shake my hand and spend a couple of minutes catching up.
@Brian
Congratulations, you started a very interesting discussion!
However, I think you were mixing up the concepts of Ferriss’ 4HWW and ROWE. 4HWW is about reducing work hours as much as possible with the end goal of having an automated income. ROWE is about deciding where and when you work, without necessarily working less hours.
Finally, I think that Dilbert and Office Space are very important resources which should be consulted frequently
Great comments, everyone! Love that this discussion is happening.
@Brian - you bring up about some good things to think about. ROWE is indeed a new contract between office workers and management…a much healthier, trusting, productive contract. Giving people more work when they *seem* to have more time is always a gut reaction for managers - that’s not uncommon. What happens, though, is that managers start to understand how they can really get more out of their employees - and it’s not by forcing more work on them. In a ROWE, it’s about treating time (that they’ve earned by being efficient) as the ultimate reward.
If you fill someone’s time with more work, they will go back to being inefficient. Why not just spread your work out and *milk the time* (the term we’ve heard countless employee use) when the time you might save won’t be your own anyway?
@Etienne - relationships do become much more focused and genuine when people don’t see each other as often. In our experience, we’ve heard every team that’s migrated to a ROWE say this.
@Brian
ROWE probably won’t turn boses who are nice into bosses who are jerks, and vice versa. If you have a boss who is the kind of person who would pile on extra work just because you now work in a more open system and who would be evil and require TPS reports due on a Monday morning just to make you work over the weekend - well that person was probably not very nice before ROWE either.
And ROWE does have its challenges and downsides - but I don’t think any more (and if anything a lot fewer) than a traditional work environment. In discussions about ROWE, my staff have brought up some concerns - especially in relation to how you can truly make ROWE fair for everyone. There is concern about what happens if supervisors are different levels of “nice” and “fair” and therefore employees are treated differently depending on who supervises them. But the truth is, how is the traditional work environment fair? Some people have nice bosses, who let them leave early for their son’s baseball game - and some have mean bosses who purposefully schedule meetings when they know their employee really wants to leave.
Ugh! I cannot believe how defiantly resistant some can be to change (ROWE) or even the thought of change. It is both mind boggling and disappointing.
To assert weaknesses about a ROWE without experiencing it is one thing, but to reference tired, old threats about the traditional work environment is just so lame.
As for the worker who does not perform or under performs, I ask,
Was he/she evaluated on performance?
Were performance expectations defined - not with a job description either?
Were incentives/reprimands handed out?
As for piling an additional 8 hours of work on someone, did you calculate the amount of time needed to complete that work on your capabilities, market averages, etc.? What happens if someone completes that amount of work in 2 hours? At some point, will you run out of work to pile on?
Or…wait a minute…..could that be considered a productivity gain? Hmmmm…
My approach to a ROWE is that it should, at the very least, be an option for employees….
Also, please reference, Cali & Jody’s latest blog entry “Its Like This…”….
There are some people who will NEVER be able to abnadon the idea that time should be a metric for accountability and productivity. Time can’t be used like that in a ROWE because ‘nobody talks about how many hours they worked’ (Guidepost #7). So for Brian to say that he wouldn’t allow employees to get paid for ‘empty hours’ doesn’t make any sense in a ROWE because no one gets paid for hours anyway. It’s not like pay in a ROWE is not much different than the current system anyway - no one who is a salaried, exempt worker in the USA right now gets paid for their hours, per FLSA. (It is unfortunate the FLSA makes a distinction for ‘hourly’ workers).
When the focus is results, the only time factor is a deadline. So, if a jerk boss who doesn’t understand this wants to pile on more work because he feels his staff isn’t working enough hours - good luck meeting your goals and deadlines! The boss’ focus will be back once again on clock watching and not results watching… and the employees will be back to stretching projects to make sure they have those hours. Also, those extra assignments will start to turn into busy work if employees are already meeting deadlines and providing results.
This may surprise some of you, but I’m in the process of implementing some aspects of ROWE now in my organization. While I don’t think it’s the magic pill to cure all workplace evils, it’s at very least interesting and at best a great addition. Worth a shot.
I think some of you missed the point of my two posts and my devil’s advocate approach to the potential ills of ROWE. If you missed it, note the change of tone in the last two paragraphs of my last post.
“Toxic bosses?” Take a look at El Jobso over at Apple. How about Jack Welch? Henry Ford? In fact, take a look at the long list of mercurial, successful business leaders throughout US history. Did they hold group hug sessions and sensitivity training? Nope. To steal a classic line, “this ain’t show friends, it’s show business.”
My staff and I have a brutal, and often unintentionally funny procedure we follow when introducing new ideas. We propose an idea and then open the table to pick it apart. It’s pretty rough for newbies, but what I find it almost always forces people to bring their A-game and the ideas that are presented at these meetings are usually very well thought-out, researched, and polished. We don’t encourage mean-spirited tear-downs, but a “inspecting for flaws” mentality that prevents implementing a terrible idea that sounded good at first. Sometimes feelings are hurt, but almost always the ideas are much stronger by surviving this environment. No committees, no future meetings, no feasibility studies.
How is this relevant? If you read my post, I ask questions about quantitative metrics, work creep, productivity, and potential ill effects. A few people ignored the questions entirely and got stuck on the sarcasm.
For those of you who didn’t follow along, my point was that there probably will be some unforeseen issues with implementing ROWE. No system is perfect and addressing legitimate concerns make any system stronger.
Casual (and rude) dismissals of points that even Cali and Jody concede are valid reek of sycophantic pandering. I respect Cali & Jody and questioning their ideas isn’t mean or naughty. “Have you thought of…”, even if a bit sarcastic, is not a bad thing.
The only implementations of ROWE that I’ve read about are in office environments, which is arguably a low(er)-productivity environment. Anyone care to answer my question about implementing ROWE for BBY blue shirts?
@Brian - when is BBY going to implement ROWE for retail? That’s our question, too! A retail ROWE pilot is still on the table, but timing is uncertain. Similar to an office environment, there are plenty of internal retail advocates that see the benefits of ROWE for the business. But there are always those that see it as the fall of the everything, so there’s a bit of an internal battle that goes on.
Whenever the pilot begins, though, we can tell you that the blue shirts will be jumping for joy - they’ve been clamoring for ROWE for quite some time.