Today, I want to take that discussion a step further. Here’s a relatively short video (6:43) from Jason Fried* (37 Signals) on what’s wrong with the structure of the modern workplace:

Some of Jason’s solutions are: shifting collaboration to more passive things to avoid disruption, changing managerial approaches, and realizing there’s rarely business emergencies.

Most of you that read this blog are probably smarter than me so here’s what I want to know:

1.) What are some other problems you’ve witnessed in a traditional workplace? Inefficiencies? Hierarchical structure?
2.) What solutions do you propose for the problems Jason diagnosis (in addition to the ones he mentioned the video)?

I’d like to spend some time discussing both with the hope that together we can continue identifying problematic scenarios, I can discuss how’d I’d fix them here, and then you can come back and build off of my analysis so that we come up with an even more viable solution.

Tweet This: Why You Can’t Work at Work –> http://bit.ly/aVajK0

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

*Jason has inspired a lot of my thinking on how to optimize business for productivity, profitability, morale, and more.

“Trust Agents” by Chris Brogan & Julien Smith and “A Whole New Mind” by Daniel Pink. (Both are affiliate links). I received “Trust Agents” via a contest giveaway on Twitter, and purchased “A Whole New Mind” based on recommendations from Jenny Blake and Charlie Hoehn.

Both books are solid reads and worthy of your shelf. They were also really self-affirming, but not necessarily life altering or game changing (for me).

Have you read either of these? What was your perception? If you’ve read both, which one impacted you more? What other books should I get my hands on in the near future?

[Ryan's Note: I have a lot of respect an admiration for my community of readers and as a result I've been protective of this space and reluctant to allow guest posts. One, it's silly of me to think that you could learn everything from me when there are so many smart people out there. And two, since I rarely do this you know that I think highly of Rich and feel confident he's delivered the goods. Enjoy!]

I really love telecommuting. Want to know what I love more than telecommuting? Working for an employer that provides telecommuting as a productivity option. It is empowering to employees, and, well, let me stop there; I’m getting ahead of myself.

During my professional career I’ve worked for two companies thus far. Each had different opinions on telecommuting. The first company, Company A, was a staffing agency, and they didn’t allow telecommuting (unless you wanted to work after hours or on weekends). The second company, Company B, was a global software company, and telecommuting was allowed and even encouraged when needed.

Experiencing life as an employee in these very different companies gave me a first-hand look at why organizations should provide telecommuting as an option to its employees. So why should they? Here are 6 reasons:

1. Empowers Employees

Just having the option to telecommute will make an employee feel powerful and in control. Employees have busy lives outside of work, and if they know they are able to work from home when a situation comes up, they will feel that much better about their employer.

2. Less Pointless Meetings

Most meetings are poorly run, eat up productivity, and don’t have a point. When employees telecommute, managers are less likely to call a random, bullshit meeting that takes you away from your work. When the meetings are actually important, the employee will want to drive in, or fly in to attend.

3. Little to no Interruptions

How many times have you been in the office, working hard on meeting a deadline, when another employee stops by and starts chatting? More than you would like, right? A little bit of office chatter won’t hurt, but a lot is counter-productive.

4. Goodbye Commuter Stress

Driving to work sucks. People with a 10-15 minute commute should consider themselves very lucky. Most people probably report at least a one-way commute time of 45 minutes. Commuting forces us to sacrifice time, sleep, and the availability to perform other life activities. Introduce telecommuting and employees will be more refreshed and much less stressed.

5. Go Green Initiative

Does this need explaining?

6. Swine Flu

I’m sure you are aware of Swine Flu, but do you remember the Avian (bird) Flu, and SARS? It seems a new global pandemic scare pops up every couple years. When things like this come up, a company is responsible for protecting its greatest asset – its employees. Telecommuting is among one of the most effective methods for minimizing spread of infectious disease among company employees, while also keeping it from spreading around the globe.

If you are ready to play devil’s advocate, I know what your next two questions will be.

What about morale?
Most companies suck at morale. It usually starts and ends with management. When a company employs poor management, no matter which way you slice it, morale will suffer. At least with telecommuting, employees can avoid some of the stresses listed above.

What about employees staying focused while working at home?
This question is stupid. If I’m working from home and want to take 15 minutes to watch Regis and Kelly or do my laundry, then so be it. Don’t I take a 15-minute break when someone stops over to chat, or when a 15-minute random meeting is called? How about smokers? How many breaks do they take to go smoke outside during the day? When people aren’t working, it is pretty easy to tell. If a company trusts its employees, that trust will pay dividends.

What are your thoughts on telecommuting? Have you worked for a company that disallowed it? If so, how did it make you feel?

Rich DeMatteo is the creator of Corn On The Job, a job search, recruiting, and HR blog. Rich is a Philadelphia area HR/Staffing professional with experience in both agency and corporate recruiting. Connect with him through Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook, or subscribe to his blog.

Tweet This: RT @CornOnTheJob: 6 Reasons Why Companies Should Allow Telecommuting –> http://bit.ly/cqqsSC

A benefit of less, or no meetings is having enough “alone time” to let creativity flow and accomplish more without interruption. 37signals also prefers co-worker interaction to be the exception rather than the rule. Fried explains, “The conventional wisdom is to be together all the time. I think it is poisonous. Having too much of anything is bad for you. It’s better to appreciate the interaction you do have. We’ve made ‘away time’ the norm, and ‘together time’ the exception, so it’s something that people look forward to. — Jason Fried (37 Signals)

I’ve been obsessed with Jason’s approach to management and business design for quite some time now, and I’m not sure if it’s because it’s innovative, challenges the status quo, or if it’s just self-affirming for what I envision to be a really awesome and productive environment.

Just last week I discussed tactics for improving meetings stating that I often find meetings to be disruptive. Creative people need significant windows of time in order to process thoughts, develop strategy, code, write, etc. Task-hopping, meetings, and perhaps now togetherness (?) can be detrimental to those windows.

Sure it’s great to be able to turn around and ask a co-worker a quick question, but what if it comes at the expense of the co-workers concentration. Does she lose 10-15 minutes out of her day thinking about the thought she just lost? Getting back on task?

If you sent them an e-mail (or used task management software, Google Wave, etc.) they could answer on their own time, at their convenience, but then does that cost you valuable time on your own project?

I don’t know the answer. Collaboration can be invaluable and it’s certainly necessary, but how does that collaboration manifest itself in your workplace? If you only get together 3 times a week for an hour do people come more prepared with pressing questions and maximize that designated time?

Maybe what Jason is saying resonates with me only because I’m one of those people who needs time to process and work through things. I’m easily distracted, and can have a tendency to task hop. If I’m in the zone I don’t want to be interrupted.

But would it hurt my feelings if I wanted to bounce and idea off someone and they were too busy? Would I trust employees and/or co-workers to determine for themselves the importance of their questions/interruptions/distractions?

Maybe the answer is infinitely more complicated. Maybe a leader knows their subordinates well enough (an employee their co-workers well enough) that they know you can always ask Theo a question because he’s quick on his feet and can easily re-immerse himself. But don’t bother Cynthia because she really values her alone time in 2-hour spurts. If you send her something, she’ll answer during a break.

I certainly don’t know the answer so I’m looking forward to learning from you in the ensuing conversation in the comments.

Is alone time important? Is togetherness potentially poisonous? What kind of worker are you? What’s your ideal working environment for optimal productivity?

Photo Credit: dearoot

Tweet This: RT @ryanstephens: Is Alone Time Important For the Workplace –> http://bit.ly/9AGYUh

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

• I don’t like seeing hard work go unnoticed
• Despite Gary V’s insistence, I love LOST

For those two reasons I wanted to take a break from business/marketing discussions and share one of my friend’s LOST Season VI Preview (Embedded Below). It’s extremely thorough and the design is tasteful and engaging.

If you’re a fan of the show I think you’ll find it worth your time. If you are not, how could you design similar PDFs, slide decks, etc. to market and share something you’re passionate about? Your business?

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

I’ve enjoyed reading Seth’s posts (literally everywhere) to promote his new book Linchpin. First, because I think it is going to be a good read, but also because I love watching how often he takes a stab at meetings.

It’s not that I hate meetings. I just hate pointless meetings. You know the ones. I won’t get into it.

I’ve had a lot of meetings the last 2 ½ – 3 years. I have friends that work for big organizations that spend more time in meetings than they do actually doing work.

Meetings are disruptive. Sure they might break up a long Friday afternoon while you’re anticipating your weekend bar crawl, but most of the time they’re breaking up your train of thought, preventing you from finishing a report, or worse.

It’s my belief that 85% of meetings could be handled with a carefully crafted e-mail or two that the respective parties could answer at their own convenience.

Everyone once in a while a meeting is necessary, and when they are there’s FIVE things in my experience that greatly increase the likelihood of it being a success:

Understanding What Kind of Meeting You’re Attending

You would a treat a “Just so everyone knows meeting,” a lot different than a “What does everyone think?” meeting. Gosh forbid you bother with “hanging out” or “hear myself talk” meetings. Where I disagree with Seth is that I wouldn’t bother with a “What are you up to” meeting either. I say skip the two minute explanations (most companies do 5-10 at least), and go straight to the compilation of what everyone’s doing in one nice e-mail.

Have Clear Expectations Going In

The leader of the meeting should let everyone know what the meeting is about in advance. This ensures that everyone has time to think about the meeting and come prepared. Though it’s not always necessary, having a supplemental agenda handout with preliminary topics and background information is rarely a bad thing.

Collaborate/Participate

Nobody benefits if one person is doing all the talking. Everyone involved should participate and collaborate. This way a wide variety of opinions and insights get heard. Everyone should follow suit and respect everyone else’s contributions. Good leaders welcome all insights up front without ridicule and then narrow down to a solution later. They also let the team members know they’re ideas are valued.

*Side note. Just because someone won’t shut up doesn’t mean they have all the answers. Encourage everyone to speak up, but respect those that require time to process what they’re thinking by not putting them on the spot right away.

Put a Time Limit On It

Most meetings don’t need more than a half hour. Exchange pleasantries later. People have work to do. When the time is up, the meeting is over. If you didn’t accomplish you’re goal you’ll plan accordingly next time won’t you?

Next Steps/Responsibilities

Everyone should walk out of the meeting with their next steps and what they need to accomplish. Someone should be responsible for sending out correspondence immediately after the meeting so that everyone has a solid reminder, and no excuse to not be accountable.

So that’s what’s worked for me. What about you? Where am I wrong? What are some additional tips you have for having successful meetings?

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

When Jackie asks me to edit his weekly report, I don’t hesitate because he’s also my editor (and he probably makes less mistakes than me).

But how about that friend that always takes and never gives anything in return?

Is a 15 minute video interview worth 30 hits and 2 new subscribers to your blog?

These are the kinds of things we have to navigate not only in the online world, but in our everyday lives as well.

Check out my video rant featuring 4 things you need to be mindful of when approaching someone to ask them a favor.

And be forewarned I think we all take ourselves a little too seriously sometimes so I had a little bit of fun with this video. I also tried holding the camera on my own, which in retrospect was not a good idea (MILK WAS A BAD CHOICE!) so as a disclaimer: You may experience motion sickness upon watching this video.

Tweet This: (Copy & Paste into Twitter):
A Quick Rant on Favors –> http://bit.ly/cZPlYd

If you enjoyed this rant please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

I probably read about 50-100 blog posts a day. A good half of these are probably business/marketing/social media related; down from nearly all I read about 6-8 months ago. In truth, that’s still too many, but I live in constant fear that someone is reading more than me, thus knowing more than me.

[In reality, there are lots people that know more than me. There will always be people who read more. And the doers not the readers are probably learning way more anyway.]

Carlos wrote a great post on this phenomenon.

The point is there’s an ebb and a flow to everything. I can’t read enough to know more than everyone any longer than a great blogger can consistently put out top quality content. I know this because I used to put out a top posts from around the blogosphere (of what I was reading) each month.

I remember months when Chris Brogan was stellar, others where Valeria Maltoni’s writing stood out, or David Armano’s. (For the record, Amber Naslund’s on fire right now). Bloggers who put out so much content will be better some months/weeks/days than others the same way baseball players go on hitting streaks or get in slumps.

Sure, the best players are usually near the top; but those top spots, they fluctuate.

That’s why most people settle into a niche.

And I believe it may be why many Gen Y writers are shifting away from writing about business, marketing and social media.

Seth Godin’s Linchpin talks about having the ultimate combination of high passion vs. high wisdom. And if we’re being honest, most of us who are Gen Y simply haven’t been in business long enough to necessarily have high wisdom.

If we stay with the theme of honesty, most of our elder peers would be reluctant to put us in the top stratosphere of business bloggers anyway.

The solution?

Get out of the echo chamber and write about our own lives.

Sydney is a great example of this shift that I’ve been witnessing for awhile now. As she was finishing school and scouring for an internship/job Syd wrote about a lot of social media and digital marketing topics, but shortly after becoming full-time at Weber Shandwick she altered the theme of her blog and made the transition to a much more personal route.

I can’t speak to Sydney’s reasons, but here’s my rationale on why so many younger (I’m trying to get away from the whole Generational labeling thing) bloggers are transitioning to a more personal approach:

1.) We blogged about social media marketing as we were learning about it, but we have the foundation now, which leads to…

2.) It’s so tough to break through the echo chamber day in and day out in order to stay near the top of such a crowded space. Sure, you can write an incredible post one day, but the next 3 you’re probably just adding your $0.02 to what Jason Falls already said.

3.) We’ve realized that social media isn’t this ridiculous craze, but that it’s part of the fabric of a lot of other things we do with respect to business. With the shine gone, perhaps we’ve grown a bit burnt out by all the chatter. Maybe our heads are down and we’re trying to get results, new things to talk about.

4.) With an increasing emphasis on relationships, transparency, and ideas we actually find reading about the everyday lives of others and the challenges they go through more pertinent. We still don’t give a crap about what anyone had for breakfast (unless we’re reading a fitness blog, right?), but we do like witnessing how other people our age are navigating similar career and social situations. Especially once we’ve grown to know these people.

5.) We’ve come to understand that with so much information at our finger tips virtually anyone can find the information they’re looking for online (how they organize and synthesize that information is a whole different story for a whole different post), and so maybe one way to stand out is via our ideas and our personalities. This is the goal of Brazen Careerist.

What do you think? Is the climb to the top a difficult one until you reach a certain point in your career? One that probably demands you’re a little older?

Are the reasons I’ve mentioned responsible for younger bloggers writing more about their personal lives and their own experiences than social media?

Have you made a similar transition in your own writing?

Photo Credit: Twiga269

Tweet This: (Copy & Paste into Twitter):
Staying on Top & The New Gen Y Blogging Trend –> http://bit.ly/75QCj0

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

The Sundance Film Festival is about a week away. As a self proclaimed film snob, one of the films that I know will be phenomenal and that I eventually want to see is “Blue Valentine,” starring one of my favorite actors, Ryan Gosling, and the very talented Michelle Williams.

This isn’t a post about the film, it’s a post about Gosling and his approach to his career.

Ever since he slayed the role of Danny Balint in “The Believer” he’s acted in about one film a year, and none since 2007 until now. And guess what? He’s been great in all of them and most have enjoyed considerable praise. (I haven’t seen Stay).

In fact, I’m not sure anyone picks better save perhaps DiCaprio (since The Beach of course).

That’s an admirable trait of someone who takes great pride in their work, especially in world where Matthew McConaughy, Gary Oldman and Kate Beckinsdale’s agents all read a script like “Tiptoes,” and said, “You know what, you SHOULD make this film?” Wait… WTF?

And then there’s people like Eugene Levy who can’t wait to attach his name to anything that will claim him. And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. He was a fixture in the American Pie films, and he’s probably made his fair share of paper along the way.

We hear a lot of advice in the online world about taking tons of chances, failing fast, and learning from your mistakes. We’re advised to try countless different things and to determine what works for us. People will not remember your mistakes, only when you succeeded and made a profound impact.

I liken this to Levy’s approach. Depending on your definition, he’s probably pretty successful, and nobody remember “The Man,” and “New York Minute.” Well except the Olsen Twins. But everyone remembers the awkward Dad from American Pie.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with this approach, and it’s a philosophy I’ve subscribed to and used in my own life. But then, isn’t there is also something to be said for the person who carefully picks each project with the utmost patience and discipline? How about the person who intricately maps out and defines their career path in such a way that they always seem to jump ship right before it starts taking on water, landing on another barge right before they find buried treasure?

My point is that both approaches can work.

Whether you want to make one film a year or juggle writing for five blogs in five different niches, the choice is yours. And here’s the fun part: There’s thousands of ways to obtain success, and hundreds of thousands of ways to define what success means to you. Don’t get bogged down by the details, and don’t think you have to choose an approach today. But when you do, make sure you have some fun.

Tweet This: (Copy & Paste into Twitter):
[New Blog Post] Two Approaches: Which Are You? –> http://bit.ly/6NjOBO

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn

University of Texas head football coach, Mack Brown recently leapfrogged other prolific coaches Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer, John Calipari and national title opposing coach Nick Saban to become the highest paid collegiate coach.

Which begs the question? How much is enough?

In Seth Godin’s most recent ebook, “What Matters Now?” (a great read by the way), writer, speaker and thought-leader Merlin Mann shares his thoughts on enough:

How do you know when you’ve had enough?

Not everything, all the time, completely, forever. Just enough. Enough to start, finish, or simply maintain.

Unfortunately, foodbabies only appear after it’s too late. And, if your satiety’s gauged solely by whether the buffet’s still open, you’re screwed. Like the hypothalamus-damaged rat, you’ll eat until you die.

Before the next buffet trip, consider asking “How do I know what I need to know – just for now?”

Then savor every bite.

UT professors certainly think the salary is ‘unseemly,’ citing it doesn’t make sense with some lecturers, teaching assistants and staffers facing job loss.

It’s a fair criticism I think.

The opposite end of the coin would argue that Mack has helped build the nations’ highest earning athletic department.

“According to university officials, football revenues have quadrupled under Brown, from $21.3 million in 1997 to $87.5 million in 2008,” (ESPN.com)

Others will argue that coaches live and die by their performance, and that it’s easier to rally around a stalwart football program than things like academic research.

This is probably a reasonable juxtaposition.

Back to the question we started with…

How much is enough?

Does Mack Brown need $5 million dollars? Wouldn’t you expect that you could live a pretty luxurious lifestyle on $3 million a year? What kinds of things could you do with the additional money? Is pride a factor? Have you ever envied your neighbor? A fellow classmate who got a higher starting salary?

I’ll leave you with two articles to think about in context with this discussion.

Sports Illustrated’s Chris Ballard writes this gem speculating what would happen if LeBron signed somewhere in 2010 for the league minimum. Not only would it generate world-wide buzz, but the team signing LeBron could get at least two other high impact players. If LeBron was saddled with Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade is that not a guaranteed NBA title?

And then there’s CEO Derek Sivers who sold his company, CD Baby, to charity. Take a second to read about how he created a charitable trust to benefit music education. He had what most people will never have, enough.

I’ll leave you with this anecdote from another of Sivers’ recent posts, coincidentally entitled ‘enough’:

At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut tells his friend, Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch-22 over its whole history.

Heller said, “Yes, but I have something he will never have: Enough.”

Tweet This: (Copy & Paste into Twitter)
How Much is Enough? –> http://bit.ly/7iwwab

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn