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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?