The Happy Employee made a post about the new book about Results-Only Work Environment and mentioned that absolutely zero HR bloggers had mentioned it. Count me as one of those people who are unsurprised by this revelation.
I know that this is a hard thing to swallow from someone who has very much advocated ROWE in the past. There are some things holding people back from advocating ROWE and I want to address them here:
- HR people don’t trust the system - HR people in general don’t trust employees or managers to do the right thing so they’d rather not rock the boat and expose their weaknesses as an organization. They believe by keeping people at work, they can compensate by being able to monitor what a person is doing every minute of the day.
- Managers don’t trust their employees - Instead of seeing the benefits in recruiting and retention that this program would bring, managers focus on how their lowest performers would do. Instead of admitting their weakness in developing their own employees, they would rather compensate by punishing their best workers.
- Managing by results scares everyone (except your high performers) - This is the big one. If you don’t feel confident that you can manage people by the results they bring to the organization, then what are you managing them by? I can tell you but you’ll never admit it: attendance and keeping busy. If you can’t manage in a results-only way, that’s what you’d prefer to manage by.
Look, ROWE is radical because it is something that is common sense based but is hard to wrap old school (and even some new school) minds around. If you ask a business person what they are hiring a person to do, 100% of the time they should say “to do [insert something].” Yet almost all of those business people will also manage not based on whether someone is doing that something but also on a litany of non-related criteria (whether or not you’re chained to the desk properly). If a person is successful at doing their job well and can do it working from home, on a schedule they dictate, isn’t that better (especially if that person is happier)?
I almost always get an e-mail or comment insinuating that I’d just rather work at home all day and not come into the office. No, I’ve done that already. I want to be in the office (if at least for a little bit).
I’d like to believe ROWE is going to be adopted on a large scale but I am not that foolishly optimistic. I am guessing that ROWE will get implemented at progressive large corporations and smaller companies that are looking for that competitive edge.
Flexibility is low cost and it is absolutely stunning to me that people can’t see the huge low cost opportunity that is standing right in front of them.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Big surprise: I disagree with you. Just like Punk, I think that ROWE’s not dead
You did a great job explained why ROWE makes sense. Now it just needs a few people with a realistic view of things (like you) spiced up with a little idealism and ROWE might still work.
Soyons fous (let’s be crazy)!
I’d love to be optimistic but I really don’t think management (including HR) is ready for it. Will they be ready for it? Meh…again, I have my doubts.
And I know it was shameless self-promotion on Scott’s part but his post about why ROWE sucks is exactly what I think advocates are going against.
http://www.whyrowesucks.com/
I don’t think ROWE is dead or that it sucks, it’s just going to take some time (longer than we thought) for everyone to accept it. We’re all stuck in a 9 to 5 world full of people scared of change. I hope we can all get over it soon and start using flexible scheduling to everyone’s benefit.
I heart ROWE!
Hey all -
Where to begin. Let’s start with no bloggers focusing on ROWE. I personally posted two, one directly on the value prop (”ROWEing in the RIght Direction” - http://www.inflexionadvisors.com/blog/2007/04/04/rowe-ing-in-the-right-direction/) and more recently in a post on alternative work schedules (”The Merits of Alternative Work Schedules” - http://www.inflexionadvisors.com/blog/2008/05/19/the-merits-of-alternative-work-schedules/). I know there are others out there but I’m too lazy to look for them.
ROWE is controversial. ROWE is different. ROWE in uncomfortable. And these are all the reasons why I like it. Whether you believe that ROWE is the right construct for you is irrelevant. What is relevant is that employers are conversing on the topic and beginning to evolve forward from the old paradigms of management and clock-punching. Whether ROWE becomes a sustainable and widely adopted business model remains to be seen. In the meantime, I’d like to see ROWE continue to shake up the market.
Best,
Mark
@Mark
I fully agree with you. Lets change the way we think and approach work and schedules. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether it’s called ROWE, something else or nothing at all. Businesses want to make profits and employees want to have a life. But I think that right now ROWE is our best chance of achieving this.
Some of you probably saw our post over at The Happy Employee, but it’s worth repeating here. We absolutely love watching this conversation unfold. Whether you’re pointing out the positive sides of ROWE or challenging its foundation, you’re furthering the movement.
Continue the buzz and keep your minds open. Ask questions and share your knowledge.
It’s time for an upheaval of the foundation of work…and we think ROWE is the ticket.
Cali & Jody
http://www.caliandjody.com/blog
ROWE only works in certain envirionments. PR, Marketing, Sales and so on are great. But such things as Engineering, IT, and Manufacturing just won’t work. Anything that involves processes that depend on specialized equipment, moving materials and production of tangible items isn’t flexible enough to be adjusted to ROWE.
“But such things as Engineering, IT, and Manufacturing just won’t work. Anything that involves processes that depend on specialized equipment, moving materials and production of tangible items isn’t flexible enough to be adjusted to ROWE.”
I disagree. There is still room for cost reductions, shorter design/tool making times (concurrent enineering), streamlining processes/procedures and product flow, always room for continuous (and measurable) improvement.
Yeah, there are some difficulties with implementation in certain areas. The core concept makes sense though: focus on results. People who are goal and results driven love this sort of system.