If you’re not familiar with ROWE (the Results Only Work Environment), here’s the 30-second elevator pitch: Employees can do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as the work gets done. Just like in college, they can’t lie, cheat or steal. But as long as they do their work, they can work wherever and whenever they want to.
I actually like ROWE. A lot. In college, your professor didn’t care where you wrote your paper or when you wrote it, as long as you met the requirements and got it in by the deadline. Why do we treat employees like grade schoolers again once they hit the working world?
That said, ROWE isn’t perfect. Today, I want to tell you why I don’t like ROWE.
People will lie, cheat and steal
Ok, not everybody. Probably not even most people. But there is a wealth of data demonstrating that when you only measure outcomes, unethical behavior increases.
Just like in college, there are rules in a ROWE against lying, cheating and stealing. But you’re only measuring and paying people for what they produce, often with little or no insight into the “how.”
Not measuring how people work is an integral part of the trust model of a ROWE. And I believe that as a result, unethical behavior is more likely to happen.
Cali and Jody, the founders of ROWE, dismiss this, saying that unethical people will be unethical in a ROWE or a traditional workplace. I disagree.
People behave differently in different situations (are you the same at work as you are around your friends?). ROWE proponents are quick to assert that a ROWE creates better results because people who work in an environment where they’re trusted to do good work do better work. That’s situational behavior. It doesn’t apply to only the positive aspects of ROWE.
People who require a more structured work environment will fail
In a ROWE, you can still come into the office you want. But you’re not required to. And even if you do, your manager may not be there. Or your coworkers. You’re really expected to completely self-manage.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, that’s a really nice thing. But some people need more structure. It’s not a bad thing. It’s just how they are.
In a ROWE, if you need that structure, you can’t get it. Chances are pretty high that you’ll fail.
Working remotely is awesome. But it also sucks.
I love working remotely. Everyone has a preferred work environment, and in a ROWE, they have the ability to work how, when and where they work best. That’s great.
But working remotely also sucks. Working with other people in a shared environment is an integral part of building a culture. And I believe that a strong culture is an integral part of performance.
Sure, Twitter, wikis, forums and social networks can help create a sense of culture for a remote team. But at the end of the day, it’s not the same as real, face-to-face interaction. It’s similar, but not quite as good.
Managing a workplace culture is hard enough with a physical team. When people are remote, it becomes exponentially harder.
So that’s why I don’t like ROWE (even though I do). What are your thoughts?
RSS
I have to agree with you 100% on your view of ROWE. Everybody prefers and works better in different environments, so maybe offering a choice on which environment they would like to work in is an option. If employees did attend college they will understand the concept of ROWE and there is no need to regress back to grade school days. It is great to work remotely, but you lose that sense of cohesiveness and teamwork due to the lack to interaction.
This is a tough debate and I think it varies on a case by case basis, but both ROWE and onsite. Both options have their pros and cons, so I’m not sure there is a right or wrong here.
@ReviewSNAP – Well said!
I believe Best Buy has had a relatively good experience with implementing and managing a ROWE. http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/24/54/28/
@Glen – Have you read any of the data around Best Buy’s experience? They often cite increases in productivity, but the measure is actually “perceived increase in productivity.” I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t say I’m being less productive if I was told I could do whatever I want, whenever I want. Best Buy also has a stake in saying it works. They own Culture RX, the consulting firm that helps other organizations get ROWEs going at their own company. I’m not saying that means they’re lying. I am saying you can’t trust them to give you fully accurate, unbiased information.
I’ve actually spoken to Cali and Jody (the people who created ROWE at Best Buy) about a few of the points I brought up in this article. I haven’t been terribly impressed by their answers to these questions. So like I said, I really like the idea, but I do think it has some pretty big flaws, and I’m not sure there are great solutions to them.
What do you think about the unethical behavior thing? Working remotely and never seeing an actual team face to face? What about employees who need structure and won’t get it? It’s easy to cite Best Buy. What about everyone else?
I love ROWE – I actually worked with ROWE before it was called ROWE or was anything that we thought we could name and roll out. We just called it the tech start-up life and we sold the hell out of it.
Personally, I don’t think that ROWE is for everyone and perhaps more appropriate for select industries or departments within certain industries.
To bring this back to the beginning of your post, college can be an amazing experience for some highly-motivated people…and then again, I knew some brillant minds that just couldn’t swing the college thing…Same as ROWE. Great post.
@really HR – Funny how when you’re getting a company going, you don’t really think about it. You just do whatever makes sense at the time. Thanks for the perspective, and for the comment!
Chris,
Over the past few years, I’ve read a bit on the Best Buy ROWE. I see your points on unbiased info – I take everything I read with a grain of salt.
For the majority of my career, I’ve worked in a “standard” non-ROWE. However, for the past 2 years, while not officially designated as a ROWE, I work in a position where I can work from home any day that I am not required to physically be in the office for a specific event requiring me to attend in person. Which is at approximately 60-70% of the time, and sometimes a week at a stretch.
I personally love my flexible work environment. On days when I do not go into the office, I save about 90 minutes of total driving time, allowing me to be more productive and spend more time with my family – precious time that can never be replenished or replaced. When working from home, there are no office distractions – I can focus 100% on the task at hand, often getting projects done in a fraction of the time they would if I was in the office.
I get plenty of “face time” – it’s just not every day of the week. Would I thoroughly enjoy a job where I NEVER got to interact with people in person? Probably not. But I would choose it over some of the work environments I have had the displeasure of working in and witnessing. Pick your poison.
Certainly, there can be no question that ROWE’s are not for everyone. No single work environment is the ideal scenario for every employee. Some individuals simply do not have the self-management skills and ability to work in a ROWE. I think it would be a best practice to have companies with an existing ROWE or those contemplating implementing one have employees earn the right to do so – a right that can be revoked based on behavior and performance.
Of note is that the success of a ROWE also depends upon the specific role and responsibilities – some roles don’t lend themselves well to a ROWE.
Flipping the coin over – I could just as easily say that work environments that require people to be in the office 100% of the time have big flaws. Am I the only person to see them? Is being required to commute into and work 8-10 hours in an office environment every day that is not be guaranteed to be healthy (emotionally, psychologically, physically, etc.), productive, or positive a perfect scenario?
Regarding the unethical behavior aspect – sure, if people aren’t able to look over every employees shoulder every minute of the day, there is the opportunity for people to behave unethically when working unsupervised. But I would not use that point to prevent a company from considering a ROWE. Besides, there are so many ridiculously unethical things that happen in broad daylight in the workplace – you cannot prevent bad people from doing bad things – any good company can manage through and seek to minimize them.
That’s my $.02
@Glen – Wow, that’s an impressive response! First, thanks so much for that incredibly thoughtful comment. I actually agree with you on almost every aspect. The one are where I’d like to clarify is the unethical piece.
The data I’ve seen isn’t that people behave unethically when not supervised. It’s that they’re more likely to behave unethically when the only measure of performance is results (as is the case in a ROWE). Like you, I don’t think this should prevent organizations from considering a ROWE, but I do think that it’s something important to consider.
Again, thanks for your incredible response!
Chris –
I also like your post and have been watching the ROWE phenomenon with interest for a while. I agree with some of the points you and your commenters have already made – that remote work isn’t for everybody, that there will always be those who’ll take advantage, and that there aren’t a lot of metrics available regarding the effectiveness of ROWE as an HR strategy. There are a couple of other shortcomings I see as well.
What about jobs where presence is required – retail customer service, manufacturing, nursing, to name a few?
What about mentoring and employee development? Depending on the nature of your work product, this may be tough to achieve without in person interactions with your manager.
Cali and Jody have commented in the past on my blog with respect to how archaic absence management practices are, yet people (and legislative bodies) still very interested in fair pay practices. I’m as much a fan of flexible work options as anybody, but there are still gaps in the ROWE concept that need fleshing out to make it relevant beyond white collar back office workers.
@Joyce – You’re absolutely right that some jobs just aren’t made for ROWE. I think even Cali and Jody have (rather reluctantly) admitted as much. The fact that Best Buy still can’t figure out how to roll it out to their retail stores is, I believe, proof that a ROWE just isn’t a good fit for certain jobs.
I think the mentoring piece is a huge downfall of a ROWE. It’s one thing to move an existing team to a ROWE – there’s already (hopefully) some semblance of team culture in place. Imagine being a new hire, though, starting at an organization and having team members drift in and out randomly. How would you learn? How would you get that face time that IS really critical when you first start somewhere?
New hires are worried about things like where the bathroom and cafeteria are. Adding things like, “will I be able to learn my job responsibilities from Bill today?” shouldn’t be another thing we add to the list. I’d love to hear a good solution to that from Cali and Jody (beyond the vague and expected response of, “It’s up to teams to decide how to best train new hires.”)
Thanks for you comments. I think you’re spot-on!
I am a big fan of any practice that gives employees more freedom to accomplish their work in the manner that they see fit. As many have pointed out, ROWE is not for everyone, some folks would get too distracted at home or in Starbucks and feel they need the structure of the office and the ‘normal’ routines. But as Glen so rightly notes, many other employees are just the opposite, the ‘normal’ routine is far too stifling, is not conducive to their non-work lives, and tends to force everyone to the lowest common denominator solution, i.e. everyone come to the workplace and be ‘present’ from 9-5 every day. Just because office work (and that is what we are primarily discussing here), has been organized on this rough schedule and process for 75 years or so doesn’t mean it makes any sense and needs to be continually perpetuated.
Everything else about managing organizations and employees is different today than it was when ‘knowledge work’ first came into prominence, why does the structure and schedule of work have to be immune from change? The truth is it should not be.
To me concerns about team building and mentoring suffering in a ROWE could be easily addressed by more competent management and by setting and forging agreement on performance objectives, installing clear processes and procedures for evaluation, and holding employees accountable. If part of my job is to train and mentor new staff, then hold me accountable to accomplish that. The ‘how’ and ‘where’ I do that, as well as all my other responsibilities should largely be up to me to decide. Maybe my ‘mentee’ and I want to talk over coffee at Starbucks or in a library or in the park?
To me, most arguments against ROWE are really just excuses for tired management practices. Grade school teachers take attendance, managers should lead, inspire, coach, facilitate. None of those things ‘require’ face-to-face meetings. What about today’s large, global organization? The truth is many groups have to work ‘together’ in situations where they are never physically in the same location.
I totally understand that ROWE is radical, and very few companies today are capable or willing to take it on. But I ask this, whenever the labor market gets tight again, don’t you think that companies that support ROWE and have it as an option will be best positioned to attract and retain the very best talent, wherever in the world that talent resides? ROWE allows me to find the best fit for the job, not the best one that happens to reside within 40 miles of my office.
Chris, great post and I really enjoy the blog.
@Steve – Well said! Just to play devil’s advocate, how would you define “mentoring a new employee” in a way that is measurable? One of the things I struggle with is how managers are evaluated in a ROWE, because all results have to measurable (according to Cali and Jody), and many of the softer skills aspects of good management aren’t necessarily captured with hard data.
Sometimes teams or individuals succeed because of great managers, and other times they do so despite bad ones. How do you tell the difference, and what are good managers accountable for in a ROWE?
I think one of the biggest undiscussed potentials for ROWE is, as you noted in your last paragraph, the freedom from geography when making hiring decisions. You truly can hire the best person for the job, with location being less of a factor in many cases.
Those are great points, Chris and I guess all I would say is the evaluation of management skills, or of the job an experienced employee does mentoring a new hire are difficult in all circumstances, ROWE or not. I would start by simply asking the new hire at a point in time, ‘Did Mary Jane teach you XYZ, was she available and accessible to you when needed, did you feel like you were ever ‘lost’ and had no assistance?’. Again, to me these same questions a manager would ask if Mary Jane was sitting in her cube all day long.
I am also playing devil’s advocate, and that is what make this a great debate, and full marks to you for getting it going, and keeping us all engaged.
@Steve – Totally get the Devil’s Advocate thing. I wrote an article about why I don’t like something that I really like!
And you’re right – measuring those things is difficult (and highly subjective) even when you’re not in a ROWE.
Great post, Chris. I share your concerns about ROWE, and greater concerns about the way the program has been reported. I have not heard sensible or forthcoming replies to questions about discipline, training, dealing with people who don’t WANT to work on their own, and much more.
I also know that the more freedom we can give people over their worklife, the higher their morale and productivity are likely to be. That’s not an assessment of ROWE, it’s based on research and experience going back three decades.
My biggest problem with ROWE is that it’s a one-size-fits-all solution. Some people don’t want to work that way. Others don’t have the discipline or the skill level or the willingness to pitch in. Some just want to beat the system. You need to have a system that grants maximum freedom to people who have earned it and want it, but that’s not everyone.
@Wally – I generally agree with you. I get a bit anxious when I hear about “earning flexibility” though (and not just from you). The notion that flexibility is for anyone who wants it is a core part of ROWE, and probably one of my favorite aspects.
Making flexibility a privilege is basically saying, “I don’t trust you, but I do trust Bill, which is why he has it and you don’t.” If we hire adults, why shouldn’t we treat them that way?
There’s two things I expect from a team member to “earn” the privilege of working on their own. First, they need to be willing to pitch in. That’s almost always a global characteristic. I suggest to new supervisors that you always assume that unless the team member behaves or performs in ways that indicate something’s changed. The “trust switch” default position is on for willingness.
Not so for ability. A supervisor needs to know that a person can handle a job before sending them off to work on their own. Not doing so means poor performance, but more importantly it means a “failure” for the team member. So for ability the “trust switch” starts off in the off position. How soon you move to the “on” position depends on lots of things.
Summary. I trust people to work hard and pitch in unless they show me that’s a bad idea. I need to be sure that people have the skills and abilities to work unsupervised before I let them do so. That’s a process where my role involves coaching and training.
@Wally – to play devil’s advocate here, might one in infer that you’re hiring people whom you’re unsure can actually do the work?
Play away, Chris. It’s not an issue of “unsure” as much as “making sure.” You never really know how someone’s KSAs match up with an actual job until they’re on it. You never know how they’ll fit with team or team leader either.
As an aside, I’m not sure I want someone in a knowledge worker position who can do everything without supervision as soon as they join them team. There might be trouble keeping them interested unless they’re working on projects.
Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best independent business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2009/08/05/8509-midweek-look-at-the-independent-business-blogs.aspx
Wally Bock
Awesome – Thanks Wally, and thanks for all of your comments on the post as well!
Nice post Chris – and some great comments. A couple additional points…
1. The team nature of work today will mitigate some of the unethical behavior you mention. Even in a ROWE most work is done by a team and the social norms of the team should help curb that issue.
2. The parallel to college was interesting – and one I hadn’t thought of. Interesting that we go from a ROWE to non-ROWE as we get older vs the other way around. One thing struck me was in college you PAY to play – in work you GET PAID to play.
When it’s my investment I have a different set of motivations. ROWE might be one of those things that you PAY to play in – take a deduction in salary to have the freedom – or have some other perq withdrawn. If that were the case I’d have some skin in the game and it might eliminate those that wouldn’t perform well in that environment. Just thinking outloud.
@Paul – I wonder if that kind of flexibility and freedom isn’t the perk itself. For many people (myself included), having almost complete freedom over how and where I work would be a pretty strong motivator to keep doing well and do the right thing.
I agree it is a perk – for you – but not for all. One of the issues in ROWE is that it is an all or nothing gig and someone has to man the phones or work the front desk – not ROWE type jobs. However, knowing that the ROWE work force are paying for the privilege in some fashion reduces the negative backlash. Not everyone is as good an employee as you and I :)
@Paul – and as you mentioned, not everyone cares about flexible work.
Great post,
At first blush I have to admit I was taken back a bit as my focus has always been measure the outcomes, and not be as concerned with how things get done.
In my experience the 80/20 rule continues to be evident. 80% of your team is there for a job, a paycheck and you motivate them by providing the safety of process, procedures and roles and responsibility definitions coupled with a comp plan that rewards desired behavior(s). The other 20% are in this for something much more. It’s not a job but a quest. Unfortunately I am wired in the other 20% range. So working when ware, ect… is how I operate anyway.
What I have found that helps me lead both types of team members is to inspect what I expect. I wrote about this in my blog post recently: Mentor Moment #7: Inspect what you Expect http://nosmokeandmirrors.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/mentor-moment-7-inspect-what-you-expect/
This gives you an understood alignment to the goals and key initiatives while empowering the other 20%. When you inspect what you expect, you create an insurance policy your team is working on the activities that will add the most value.
Mark Allen Roberts
@Mark – Thanks for the comment. If I may be so brazen as to attempt to boil your comment down to a one-sentence elevator pitch, are you saying: If you’re clear about what your expectations are, many of these issues go away?
If so, I don’t think this adequately addresses ethical concerns that arise when you’re only measuring outcomes and ignoring the “how” of work. It does provide some of the structure I noted is lacking in a ROWE, but also fails to account for the fact that, frankly, working remotely can suck if you really want to bond with a team. Thoughts?
Your points are very interesting and it does raise some questions about ROWE as an overall solution. However, I tend to think of it like Winston Churchill described democracy “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” In that vein, I think everyone can agree that today with the internet and other technological applications the old mentality of slaving away at a desk from 9 to 5 is not the best way to motivate or keep workers productive. In addition the baby sitting approach of most companies prevents workers from accessing cost cutting applications like Skype or iPhone aps because the management and/or IT Departments do not yet understand the technology.
Personally what I took away from ROWE was not so much being able to work whenever you wish (which is nice), but rather the idea of pushing down management to even the most entry level workers. They are now in control of their destiny at the company, and the company plays more a support rather than dictatorial role too common in today’s workplace. Personally, I think this empowerment will increase productivity and engagement among workers.
I agree though that such a system is potentially ripe for abuse, and this is why company culture will play such an important role in the future. Management must find ways to engage their workers and rebuild a family or community style that has been lost in the relentless drive for cost cutting and efficiency gains. Without a strong culture that also brings together its employees outside of the workplace, companies will struggle with adopting the program. However, I also feel that over time managers can identify and get rid of unethical people, and since the managers/executives no longer have to baby sit their workers one of their main goals should be to build a strong corporate community.
Finally, I had thought that in addition to the productivity gains that Cali and Jodi mention in their book, they also described how involuntary turnover (quitting) went down substantially. Each saved employee through this program would save Best Buy between 50 and 100% of that person’s salary, so saving several employees per year could add up to a million dollar cost reduction or more very quickly.
@Brett – Generally, I agree with you. I actually really like ROWE, but think there are a few major problems or gaps with it that haven’t really been addressed yet.
A few thoughts on your comments:
1. A company’s job is to make money. Letting employees control their destiny is nice, but if that ultimately is profitable, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s the best way to do thing. We should make sure we’re motivating people to do the right kind of things – not just great things. As mentioned earlier in the comments, having clear goals and a strong culture are important here.
2. A lot of people keep bringing up this idea of abuse in a system. My concern isn’t that people won’t do their work (which is I think what most of the commenters are referring to). If you don’t do your work in a ROWE, people find out pretty quickly, and you’ll find yourself jobless.
What I’m referring to is doing unethical things to get the results you’re being measured on. Organizations that focus exclusively on results and not competencies (ENRON, anyone?) tend to see an increase in unethical behavior.
3. You can’t believe all the stuff you read in Why Work Sucks…. Cali and Jody have a clear interest in selling their consulting services via that book. Ever wonder why they only cite three teams and don’t give you data for all of Best Buy Corporate (the whole corporate office is on a ROWE)?
I believe retention may be slightly up overall, but they show you the most extreme examples of increased retention – not the norm. If ROWE really is this powerful, show me the full results. Show me productivity measure increases that aren’t subjective (ie. I think I’m being more productive – WTF kind of data is that??). Correlate retention to performance.
They still have voluntary turnover. Tell me why. I asked Cali and Jody why people who leave voluntary choose to leave a place where they have total control over how and where they work. They couldn’t (wouldn’t?) tell me. I think that’s pretty important to know. Don’t you?
I’d like to piggy-back on your response to Brett, Chris.
I’ve been advocating that people should have maximum control possible over their work life for a couple of decades. See my blog post on “8 Characteristics of Highly Effective Workplaces” ( http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2009/05/26/8-characteristics-of-highly-effective-workplaces.aspx ) It’s also a guiding principle in my programs and Working Supervisor’s Support Kit. So I should like ROWE.
But I’m skeptical. The proof in the book is very sketchy and carefully chosen. Much of it is “self-report.” That’s not good enough. Give me third-party verification using common measures of productivity, turnover, etc.
Explain to me why this is only used at Best Buy HQ. Why isn’t it used, even in modified forms, at other Best Buy locations? Why aren’t there other companies willing to share their excellent results?
Then there is the issue of “results-only.” I share Chris’ unease about how a concentration on results alone can and has resulted in unethical behavior. But my concerns go to the basic nature of supervision.
As I’ve noted in the Working Supervisor’s Support Kit and dozens of blog posts and comments, bosses have to jobs: to accomplish the mission (results) and to care for the people. If results are everything, there’s no incentive for supervisors to help people grow and develop or to take time to learn or to get some slack when things are tough at home.
Great article and thought-provoking comments by everyone.
What kinds of ethical concerns are you talking about exactly? Doesn’t this only apply to certain kinds of work? Take my job for instance – I’m a translator; what kinds of unethical methods do you think I might use to finish my work?
For industries that are more susceptible to unethical behavior, or where such behavior may have a larger impact, couldn’t we look for solutions in the ROWE model, rather than putting it off as inherently worse than the traditional model?
I realize that your point is for the general, but ROWE seems to really make sense for certain types of work, and most companies won’t even consider this possibility. I am excited to see that people are finally experimenting here. Best Buy is definitely a curious mouse.
Saying that face-to-face interaction is always better is very subjective. For who is this better and why? Sometimes managers and the general bureaucracy get in the way of work. Often managers are very results oriented already. Training and mentorship from employers are not found everywhere. We can’t compare the best of the non-ROWE world with the worst of the ROWE one, that’s just not fair.
I concede that face-to-face interaction has its benefits, but I also believe that we could find greater benefits from loosening our tethers – who knows? Why does ROWE have to mean no face-to-face interaction? Those who choose not to interact as much in the ROWE model may do the same under traditional settings, or are we assuming that ROWE automatically means non-interaction as well?
Does anyone have information outside of Best Buy? I thought that other companies have been doing this as well, such as AT&T and Sun Microsystems.
@Chris on voluntary turnover. I think you are being too picky. I love that you are trying to look at this from all sides, but you sound a little too assuming of your devil’s advocate position here. There will always be voluntary turnover. It could be that they just didn’t like the work. It could be that they still don’t like their manager (just because the manager isn’t in your face, doesn’t mean he won’t be in your face).
@Wally Bock. I absolutely agree that when results are everything, there will be incentives for supervisors to be less humane. It seems that we will have to figure something out here. We could have quarterly surveys of employees regarding supervisors, and have some questions about training and growth on the job. Most likely you may just see higher turnover with some supervisors over others. If it’s a trend, then take policy action.
Luckily you will be able to spend more time with your wife and kids, and probably could take time to sign up for classes at a local school and get training that way. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t rely on my boss as my sole source of learning and growth. I definitely learn a lot in my free time.
In general I think there are way too many assumptions being thrown about. How many people in here have actually worked in an ROWE environment? We can’t assume that any new idea is a “fix-all” – just take it situation by situation. Discussion is great, and of course we all want more answers, but there is too little data to conclude anything right now – even if ROWE will lack structure.
@Jason – First, thanks so much for your incredibly well-thought out response. I don’t have all the answers, but I would like to address a few of the things you brought up.
I want to reiterate that I actually really like the idea of ROWE. I loathe control-based management. I think ROWE is the ultimate in commitment-based management. That said, people tend to act like, “OMG this is awesome!” or “OMG this is awful!” without much in between. I’ve spent a bit of time on my site talking about why it rocks – I wanted to look at some of the reasons why it sucks to provide a bit more balance.
From the “ethical concerns” perspective, unethical behavior is relative to your job and what your goal measures are. If you worked for a translation organization and the measure of your productivity was number of translations completed and accuracy of translations, unethical behavior might include just running documents through translation software, outsourcing to someone in a cheaper labor market, etc. Basically, cheating.
Yea, cheating is “against the rules” in a ROWE, but the data shows that people are more likely to do so when they’re only measured on outcomes. I’m not saying you would cheat. In fact, I think most people would not. But there are some people who wouldn’t in a traditional work environment and would in a ROWE. Cali and Jody made it very clear to me that in a ROWE you don’t measure competencies, JUST outcomes. That’s pretty cut and dry to me.
I also didn’t say face-to-face interactions are ALWAYS better. I’m saying its a better way to build a sense of team/organizational culture. Organization’s who manage remote teams struggle with the culture thing all the time. Companies that have multiple branches find that the cultures between them are often drastically unique, regardless of how often they telecommunicate. There are many tasks for which I prefer a quick email or phone call to a sit-down meeting. But if I’m trying to build relationships with people and feel a sense of identity around a group, I don’t think there’s a great replacement for physical, face-to-face interaction.
You said: Does anyone have information outside of Best Buy? I thought that other companies have been doing this as well, such as AT&T and Sun Microsystems.
I know the State of… Oregon, maybe? Ohio? I forget!… is trying to convert businesses to ROWE to ease traffic strains on their highways. I also know the Girl Scouts in one state are moving towards a ROWE as well, and blog about it. Beyond that, I have not seen any info on it. And while Best Buy seems to be enjoying it, there is a definite lack of transparency in their results with it. They’ve shown data about just a handful of teams, cherry-picking the best numbers to highlight.
I’d love to see retention/turnover data for the whole organization. I’d love to see true productivity measures, and not just “I think I’m putting out more work, so I must be.” Best Buy/Cali and Jody can’t – or won’t – provide them.
I also don’t think agree that I’m being to assuming in my voluntary turnover statement. I know you’ll always have turnover. I think it’s odd, though, that an organization can report those numbers but not tell you why people are leaving. If this system is literally the most amazing thing since sliced bread, and the only employees who won’t like it are those who can’t manage themselves (the not-so-subtle undertone in Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It) then why are people opting out. Literally, why are they leaving? Where they good performers or not so good performers?
Your comment about an in-your-face manager – that to me is poor managerial performance. But is that an outcome that gets measured? Probably not – it seems to be more competency related. I couldn’t really get a clear answer on that from Cali and Jody, either.
This isn’t nit-picking. Understanding this kind of data is critical to making educated, strategic decisions about organizational performance management. You said: but there is too little data to conclude anything right now. Exactly! Why would I want to make a massive investment in my organization without proper data on what might happen?
Just so you don’t think I’m anti-ROWE, check out (they’re links):
- Smashing the Clock: Best Buy’s ROWE
- Care about Earth Day? Tell your employees to stay home.
- Work is something you do (duh!)
- Valentine’s Day and ROWE
- Podcast: Ashley Acker on ROWE
Wow what a great response. Thank you for taking the time to respond to many of my questions. It’s nice to see such well thought out responses to comments – you don’t get that everywhere.
I realized from your post that you like ROWE and were just trying to highlight some of the negatives. I actually came over from a link from a friend (who I think found you on Google), so I hadn’t gone through your other posts, but I surely will this week.
I’d love to see true productivity measures as well, and it is very dicey of Best Buy to not be fully transparent and it undermines credibility. Who knows if we will ever get it..
As I do not work in a ROWE company, I’ve been here a little too long and should head out. Nearly 9:30pm on a Friday night…
PS. I’m big fan of your blog theme.
@Jason – My pleasure. Have a fantastic weekend, and I hope you’ll come back and hang out some more! (thanks for the props on my theme, btw. Kudos to Chris Coyier over at http://css-tricks.com for putting it together)
Hi Chris,
I know i’m late to the party, but came across this thread and wanted to chime in regarding your concern about ethics. My thoughts are that unethical behavior has a higher chance of increasing (ROWE or not) based on the types of metrics a company is taking. All too often, organizations get caught up in “one-size-fits all” models of performance management, which lead to things like numbers games and quotas. It is within those systems that I’d be willing to bet most of the unethical behaviors arise. People find a way to game the system. Competition in these environments breeds win at all cost mentalities. I can find it, but don’t have it at my fingertips, but there is recent data suggesting it is better to not pay sales people commissions. It actually demotivates them to perform. Read Dan Pink’s book “Drive” and it goes into the past 60 years of scientific research that proves this point as well. Knowledge workers actually perform worse when motivated extrinsically. It creates a culture of “box checkers.”
Managers would be wise to work one-on-one with employees to develop clear expected outcomes and performance requirements PRIOR to the performance review. Is it harder to judge performance in this way? Yes and no? No, because you’ve already discussed at length with an employee what is expected and what is pass and what is fail and the employee has contributed to that discussion. Yes, because there might be more subjectivity involved. Its harder when you’re not being judged on total dollars sold, units moved, etc. But what do those metrics really mean? At the end of the day, managers must be able to decide if an employee is adding or subtracting value to an organziation and be held accountable for the decision to keep or release them.
@Mary – Better late than never! Thanks for sharing your insights!