News

Two human resources professionals have come to a startling, if not unusual, conclusion: Work sucks.

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson have some radical ideas about how to make work not suck, starting with the notion that employees should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as they get the job done.

"You get paid for a chunk of work, not for a chunk of time," they write in their book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, published last week.

In a nutshell, writes Rebecca Dube in 'The workplace is broken' , they want to abolish the notion of a 40-hour (or 50, 60 or god help us, 70) hour workweek.

They've actually implemented their results-only work environment philosophy among the 3,000 employees at Best Buy's corporate headquarters in Richfield, Minn.

Ms. Ressler and Ms. Thompson joined us online to answer reader questions on Tuesday.

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson met while working in the human resources department of Best Buy and together created the results-only work environment (ROWE). They are the founders of CultureRx, where they help companies implement ROWE and speak publicly about their experiences. Their first book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, was released June 2 by Portfolio, a Penguin imprint.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Rebecca Dube, Globe Life reporter: Hello, and thanks to everyone who is joining us today. Monday's Globe Life Q&A with Jody Thompson and Cali Ressler has sparked some great discussion and a number of interesting questions. We'll try to get to as many of your questions as possible in the next hour.

Mark Swartz from Trawna Canada writes: Dear Cali and Jody, I had heard about ROWE last year and was fascinated. Can it be that some employers actually value output more than face time?

The question I have is one of demographics and shifting values. Given that North America's economy is under pressure in many areas, and that the senior management ranks in organizations is being swelled by people in their late 40's and early 50's, what do you think it will take for employers to provide their staff with more time flexibility, at least in those roles that lend themselves to this sort of approach?
Thank you in advance, Mark Swartz, CareerActivist.com

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Mark — It's going to take a complete paradigm shift. The culture of work needs to change and we need to stop implementing flexibility programs over the existing industrial model of work. Flexibility programs are all about TIME, and tracking WHEN people are working. They assume that work should happen between a certain time — 8 am to 5pm — on certain days — Monday through Friday — and in a certain place — the office building in a cube. Any variation from this is counter-culture, and requires a 'program'.

We need to shift the focus to results and results only. Just about every employer says they value output more than face-time, but then they reinforce outdated rules and policies about when, where, and how long work should happen. We're serving two masters: Time, and Results. Until we completely eradicate time from the equation, we will never be fully invested in RESULTS.

Organizations are full of management in their late 40's and early 50's who have clawed their way to the top using the industrial model. But, they too want a better life. Generation Y will force the issue, and ROWE will be the vehicle of change that will allow all of us to achieve the lifestyle we want.

Andy Bruce from Toronto Canada writes: What is the impact of a ROWE-type structure in a small business where collaboration and a 'family' feel are an integral part of success? Do you suggest any tools/strategies to help everyone stay in touch? Is it even a good idea for a small business (30 employees)? Thank you.

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Hi Andy. ROWE is a perfect idea for small businesses. We just recently migrated a company of 20 employees to a Results-Only Work Environment and they are experiencing wonderful benefits. Their collaboration and 'family' feel are getting stronger because relationships in a ROWE are more genuine and conversations are more purposeful. And, the CEO and founder of the company has said that ROWE "is fostering an entrepreneurial spirit in everyone" at the company. This is something he's been trying to do for a long time, and ROWE is finally making it come to life.

In a traditional work environment, people depend on physical presence and "face time" to keep in touch and disseminate information. In a Results-Only Work Environment, where work is something you DO, and not a place you GO, people can't depend on that anymore. Because each person is free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as the work gets done, it's likely that you won't physically see people as often as you did before. But that doesn't mean that relationships will suffer or that the work won't get done. In a ROWE, many modes of communication are utilized very effectively — e-mail, voice-mail, text messaging, Instant-Messaging, and in-person conversations are all equally utilized.

Also, it's interesting to note that management doesn't need to prescribe ways to stay in touch in a ROWE. When expectations are clearly defined, people know what they need to do in order to achieve their results and they'll do it. If that means coming together to get something done face-to-face, they'll do it, but it doesn't need to be mandated. Things like teambuilding don't need to be forced on people to keep relationships strong. Employees will come together when they feel/have the need to do so.

For more information on the 20-person company CultureRx migrated to a ROWE, see this article in the New Richmond (Wisconsin) News .

Lauren Larose from Victoria Canada writes: Hi, I just began my first business co-op work term with a government ministry. It's a great work environment and it relates well to my future career goals. However, as a co-op student I find myself bored and with my supervisor out of the office most of the time, I am not assigned very much work. Work sucks for me because I have nothing to do and I feel like I'm not treated as a serious employee. [Any advice for Lauren?]

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Hi Lauren. With that being the case, we're not surprised work sucks for you! But it doesn't have to. You have two foundational pieces that are very important to have — what you describe as a "great work environment" and a belief that you are in the right place to further your career goals.

Now, here's what you can do:
1) Don't focus on the fact that your supervisor is not physically present. Other modes of communication can work just as well as face-to-face communication.
2) No supervisor wants their employees to be bored. If you're not clear on your expectations, have a conversation with your supervisor about that.

If you're meeting all of your expectations, do you have ideas for other projects you could be working on? Mention those to your supervisor. This would go a long way to letting him/her know you are committed and can be seen as a "serious employee". Self-motivation is something all supervisors look for, and it sounds like you have it!

J Broomer from Toronto (but really Etobicoke) Canada writes: Does this not just set up a cat and mouse game between employer and employee? After all if the employee performs all of his/her functions in, say, 25 hours a weeks, doesn't the employer feel cheated and in retaliation simply increase the workload to 'fill up' the worker's week? In the end, wouldn't efficient workers end up with more work while inefficient workers have less?
Rosalie Dunbar from United States writes: I think letting people work the number of hours they need to do the job is a great idea, but as a supervisor how do I deal with a situation where employee A can do the work in 5 hours a day while employee B needs 8-10 hours? Employee B could conclude that 'A' is skiving off when he/she may be the one doing superior work. (Which would only be even more alienating for 'B.')

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: J and Rosalie — in a ROWE, nobody counts hours, so nobody knows how many hours they are working. And, better yet, nobody BRAGS about how many hours they're 'putting in'. So, as a manager, it's important to get clear on the work that needs to get done and stop focusing on how long it takes to get done. And, more importantly, reward the outcome of the work, not how hard it appears someone is working to get it done.

Today, people are 'counting' their hours by when they arrive at the workplace — say 7:30am — and when they leave — say 6:00 pm and saying "I put in 11 ½ hours!" But we all know that people are not 100% productive 100% of the time. They get interrupted. They daydream. They go to the bathroom. They eat. They talk around the water cooler. So putting in 11 ½ hours and talking about and tracking the 11 ½ hours says nothing about the WORK.

What got accomplished during that time? Anything? We MUST stop looking at work in chunks of 'time' and start focusing on what needs to be accomplished to achieve business outcomes.

If it takes an employee 20 hours to do the same work as someone who takes 40 hours and you give the more efficient person MORE WORK, how is that a reward for efficiency? Next time, that person may drag out their work so the manager doesn't pile more on them. It's not about giving people work to FILL time, it's about being crystal clear as a manager about what work needs to get done to drive the business. And the REWARD for everyone is control over their time.

At Best Buy, ROWE teams, on average, had productivity increases of 41%. When people started focusing on the work instead of time, people got more done and actually asked for more work and took on more work — willingly instead of begrudgingly. How can you beat that? Remember: get clear about the outcomes and forget about how long it takes to get there. Celebrate the achievement.

What has the world come to from Canada writes: I completely agree with your ROWE concept. I used to work in the private sector for a manager that allowed me a great deal of flexibility in my schedule and would rarely question where I was or what I was doing, as long as the work got done. Unfortunately, I have now moved into the public sector where logging time accounts for everything, and what gets done, almost nothing. The stories of political BS and strong-arming, top down management styles, lazy workers, coupled with a unionized environment where it is extremely difficult to fire poor quality, stale workers, are not only true, but almost contagious. I used to be extremely motivated in what I did at work and cared for the company I worked for. Now in an environment where productivity is close to I say, 30%, I could care less, since most people are shirking and you can't get your job done on time anyways. Do you think that a unionized public sector organization based on collective agreements that specifically state how many hours an employee must work, will ever be able to change to a ROWE?

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Time is an outdated measure. The measure for today's day and age is productivity. Unfortunately, companies are still focused on both — time and results. Some companies will move faster toward a ROWE mindset than others. This is a movement that is starting now, but will take decades to reach all companies. It starts with one person in an organization — and that person could be you.

Two things you can do right now:
1) Point out the fact that time is an outdated measure. That just because people are physically in the work environment doesn't mean they're working at all. There are resources (including a ROWE business case) on www.culturerx.com that will help you with these conversations.
2) Be aware of the language you're using in the work environment — be sure it's not Sludge. Don't make judgments about how other people are using their time or how much time it's taking to get work done.

Eve Plourde from Montreal Canada writes: This 'revolution' seems to be really based on objectives. How do you plan to train the leaders on objective-setting? Could the revolution really happen if the objectives are unclear? How could one approach her manager about objective setting? And most importantly what is a good objective?

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Eve — great question. Why aren't managers basing work on objectives now? Why are we all working — really putting in our time — and not knowing clearly what our goals and objectives are? We're always so surprised when managers exclaim "in a ROWE, will I know what my people are doing?" and we retort "how do you know NOW"??

Whether or not you are in a traditional, or a results-only work environment, managers should be setting clear and more importantly, MEASURABLE goals. Right now managers are monitoring the hallways and making sure people are putting in the appropriate amount of TIME. Because of this, it's easy for all of us to get lazy in terms of measureable results. Take away the ability for managers to monitor halls and track time and it forces them to focus on only one thing — RESULTS. And, many companies have intricate Performance Management programs and tools. Now, managers can dust off these tools and start using them in a ROWE.

Christina Hopkins from Edmonton Canada writes: One of the things that strikes me as most challenging for a switch over to ROWE is how to manage for results. It's easy to verify if a worker is at their seat or not at a specified time, however judging on results takes a much greater level of organization and communication between workers and managers. What advice would you give a manager who wants to employ a ROWE style, but isn't sure how to measure work, particularly work that may involve colaboration with others within and without the organization?

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Christina — good question. We believe all work can be measured. And should be. In the case of work that involves collaboration with others, it can be measured using customer satisfaction metrics or other surveys that have questions aimed at what you want the employee to achieve - whether it be communication style, leadership style or whatever. Some organizations use 360's to measure how others are viewing style. It's time to stop defaulting to what's 'easy' — ie., checking to see if someone is in their seat a certain hours each day — and start focusing on measuring work output and development!

Allison Dick from Toronto Canada writes: I find your theory intriguing. But I'm not entirely clear on how it would address the need for interaction in the workplace. Although a meeting heavy culture can be counter productive, so many problems can get solved so much more quickly when people meet in person or have a quick phone call, as opposed to emailing back and forth about it.

Standardized hours ensure that generally speaking, staff are in the office between certain windows of time. So how do you meet the need for conversation and meetings if everyone is marching to their own drummer in terms of how they use their time?

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Allison — great question. Today, people can 'meet' in so many ways. Instant Messaging, phone, mobile phone, Skype, VoIP, Webcam, in a meeting room face to face . . . . so, the point you make about solving issues is exactly what people should be focused on —and then how to get it done is the next step.

We've found that a quick 'drive by' to get a quick answer is one of the problems with work today — when a colleague stops by with their issue, it's an interruption. And, the person being interrupted has no control. They've lost their train of thought, and often times has to react to something without giving it ample thought. And, it's not planful.

Also, just because someone is not in the office during standard business hours, doesn't mean they're not available or working. In fact, we've found that response time is actually faster in a ROWE than in a traditional work environment where everyone is in the same building all day!

In a ROWE, your office is the planet. Reach out using technology and people will answer. And, be clear with yourself about whether or not the answer needs to be IMMEDIATE, or if it just needs to be answered. Sometimes we think we need an immediate answer when in fact, we do not.

Alber Tan from Oil and Honey Canada writes: Hello Ms. Ressler and Ms. Thompson, I like the premise of your interview and think that you can't expect results by treating modern 'knowledge' workers, (Engineers, Accountants, etc) like they are employed by an 18th century coal mine. In addition to giving workers the freedom to do their work, it seems like the employees react particularly well to a challenge. Can you speak to what other changes can be made to motivate employees who are given greater freedom and when to step in when there is a problem? Thank you.

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: Yes, employees do respond well to challenges. We have some challenges that employers can take on that will motivate employees (and will, at the same time, move you closer to ROWE):

1) Make every meeting in your organization optional. This doesn't mean that there won't be meetings anymore. It means you're trusting your employees to make the right decisions about they spend their time. It also means you will eliminate unproductive meetings — which is good for the business.

2) Eliminate work schedules. Focus on the work, not on when people are doing it — as long as the work is meeting or exceeding expectations, and is meeting deadlines, that should be all you look at.

3) Eradicate Sludge from the work environment. Sludge is the toxic language that makes judgments about how people spend their time. "10:00 and you're just getting in? Wish I had YOUR job!", "Did you see Jill leave again at 3:00 to pick up her kids? Wish I had a kid!", "Steve's kid is sick again — can't his wife stay home with their son sometimes?", "I worked 70 hours last week — I think Jack only put in 40. What a slacker." Sludge is a detractor from productivity and the biggest thing that brings people down in the work environment. It doesn't focus on the work at all — just on the old beliefs we have about time and place.

Managers only need to step in when results aren't being met. When expectations are clear, managers can stop monitoring the hallways and be coaches and mentors to employees.

For more assistance on how to motivate employees and create a foundation for them (and the business) to thrive, go to www.culturerx.com.

Rebecca Dube: That's all the time we have for today. Thanks to Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson for being so generous with their time, and thanks to all the readers who sent in such thoughtful questions. Ms. Ressler and Ms. Thompson, any parting thoughts?

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson: We're confdent that we hit some key points for your readers, and hope they felt the same.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to interact with them - we enjoy spreading the word about ROWE and can't wait to see companies in Canada implementing it. We're excited to be offering tools and services on our site, www.culturerx.com, to help companies challenge their paradigms and move into the future of work!

We hope our book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, resonates with your readers - our hope is that after people read it, they will see that the current system of work is outdated and that it's time to change it. And, that they will employ some of the proven tactics in the book in their own work environments...and seek to become fully ROWE.