We think employee retention is very important. Too bad this new push to keep people sounds like the same old nonsense.

For example, “[w]hen employees suggest an improvement, volunteer at a charity event or complete a class, Assurance awards casino chips for chances to win prizes at company events four times a year.”

Just so we’re clear:

If you do something extraordinary, you might win a prize!

Then there is Townsend Analytics, where CEO Stuart Breslow offers workers free lunch on Friday, free breakfast on Tuesday, and a lounge with a pool table.

“The things Gen Y seems to be looking for are things all of our employees are looking for,” Breslow said. “Doing right for your employees is a pragmatic, practical thing to do.”

Has it come to this? “Doing right” for employees means free food?

Our hopes picked up a bit when we read about Emerging Solutions, an IT management consulting firm, that is “considering adding instant messaging because its youngest workers are so accustomed to it.”

The article goes on to note that what started out as a tool used by younger workers is being adopted by older workers. That’s what we like to hear: using technology to change the culture of a workplace so that people can have more power and freedom to do their jobs when and where they want.

But then we went back and read it again and picked up on that word “considering.” So I guess that means they’re thinking about it.

We don’t want to grab anybody’s free sandwich out of their hands or interrupt their mid-day pool game or throw a wet blanket on Company Casino Night.  But let’s not, as this article suggests, call these petty bribes a move toward a more “progressive” workplace.

No perk can ever compete with the freedom and power to live your life how you see fit. You get should get money in exchange for your work, not free pizza.

Michael makes his first ROWE trip!

Originally uploaded by Results-Only Work Environment

Hey, ROWE world! First, I just want to thank Cali & Jody for all they have done, and continue to do, and for giving me this incredible opportunity to be part of the ROWE movement!

That’s right – I have recently jumped on board as a ROWE facilitator and am anxiously looking forward to spreading the word about ROWE, as well as helping organizations migrate from those soul-crushing traditional work environments into an engaging and productive ROWE.

The journey…

It was late 2007, I searched work/life balance and a link to the BusinessWeek article Smashing the Clock appeared. I clicked on it. I read it. And then I read it again. After thinking about what was really happening at Best Buy, I realized this was less about work and more about life.

Over to CultureRx.com I headed. After I read everything on the site, I just thought “Wow! This is how it should be!” Then, I hit Cali & Jody’s blog. Oh, the blog. The more I read the blog, the more I commented, and the more I truly felt a connection to the ROWE philosophy. It was so obvious to me. Live your life, get your work done.

This is also the time I started sending emails and talking to friends and family about ROWE. Next, I began sharing little tidbits about ROWE with colleagues. More blog time followed by more pROWEmoting to anyone who would listen. I felt so confident in the benefits of ROWE, I requested it of my employer. And I requested it again. And again. Ooooh, and then Cali & Jody’s book came out! And I requested ROWE again. And yet again.

What I found most annoying about my ROWE requests being denied were the reasons given by my employer. One of my all-time favorites was, “A ROWE philosophy is not aligned with the performance appraisal mechanism…” Seems like a fair assertion, right? But here’s the cute part: In my five years of employment, I had never been evaluated, reviewed, assessed, observed, reprimanded, rewarded, or even appraised. How could this happen, you may ask. How did they know you were doing your job? I’ll tell you how. Results! See, my director could not dispute my accomplishments, which could also be easily verified.

Therefore, my employer’s refusal was power move rooted in presenteeism. I’m sure you are familiar with this concept, which can also be referred to as The Big Show! After a year and a half of haggling and crazy commuting, I burnt out and moved on.

For the next several months, I was unemployed. However, I discovered a new interest in photography, continued my pursuit of my Masters, lost 40 pounds, and enjoyed playing drums with my band. Funny how much I was able to accomplish and enjoy when I had control of my time. The crazy part of it all, and this is what most people didn’t get, was that I wanted to work. I just didn’t want a job – at least not in a traditional work environment.

Tweet! Wow, look how things have changed. I connected with Cali & Jody about the ROWE facilitator position. But Twitter is only one of the fascinating ways social media has made it so easy to remain in tune with the ROWE movement and in contact with Cali & Jody. Technology has also created exciting capabilities for today’s employees, but that can be hard to see from a five-foot high box. Ever notice the various physical changes made to an office environment versus changes made to its culture?

For too long, work has been about the office space rather than the office person. ROWE can change that. ROWE IS changing that, and I can’t wait to help.

**Michael Barata, our newest ROWE facilitator, will be contributing regularly to the blog.**

It never lets up, does it? If it’s not the “emergency” meeting, then it’s the daily fire drill or the coworker or manager who stops by your cube for “just a quick question.”

As the saying goes, “This should only take a moment.”

So here’s an idea to bring to your boss (or try yourself if you’re a manager) that will give you a taste of what life can be like in a Results-Only Work Environment. It’s an experiment called No Interruptions.

But first, some background.

In a ROWE, people aren’t always physically present. They also may not be instantly available to respond to your every whim. In a ROWE, people may NOT WORK FOR AN ENTIRE AFTERNOON to do what needs to get done.

Not having everyone be instantly available may sound like a recipe for disaster, but workers in a ROWE aren’t addicted to availability like they are in a traditional work environment.

That’s because a ROWE fosters natural teamwork and cross-training. Coworkers cover for each other seamlessly. Also, people plan ahead more. If we know we need XYZ from you by noon on Wednesday, then we’re not going to wait until that morning to ask for it. We respect your time and expect you to respect ours.

Now back to No Interruptions.

In this game (and if it’s easier to sell it to your people or to management as a game, then go ahead and call it that), you pick one person on the team to be “it.”

That person then picks an afternoon the following week when they will work WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS for the afternoon.

This “no interruptions” rule is absolute. They are not to be bothered. Furthermore, they can pick ANY DAY THEY WANT. No hiding this challenge in a slow time.

The rest of the team’s job is to protect that person’s time and space. If an issue comes up that this person would normally handle, then other people have to step up and cover for them. If there is some piece of information that you know you’ll need from that person, then you’ll have to get it ahead of time.

The person who is “it” is, of course, still obligated to do their job. They cannot use their protected time to blow off deadlines or not make their deliverables.

But they get to choose what to do with that afternoon. Most important of all, they’ll get a taste of what it’s like to control their time and their workflow, which are two vital parts of ROWE.

So what happens when you play this game?

The first thing people will notice is that having someone walled off for a day isn’t that different than most days. It’s not that people are expendable, but more that on a typical day, people are out of commission because of illness, family emergencies, meetings, retreats, business trips, etc. The people who are not “it” are already accustomed to adapting to temporary absence. (If they’re not, then that’s a deeper, more serious problem.)

The second thing people notice is that having planned for a lack of availability makes their own job go much more smoothly. It’s just like when you do a big trip to the supermarket and take care of two weeks’ worth of shopping instead of flying by the seat of your pants. You think that being prepared takes all this extra work, but it’s really “convenience” that sucks the life out of you.

The final thing that people notice will only be noticed by the person who is “it.” At first, that person will feel weird because they’ll be able to concentrate for a big stretch of time. (They may even notice how woefully out of practice they are.) Then they’ll discover that having control over their time is pretty great. They may or may not move mountains, but at the very least, they’ll be productive.

The aftermath of this experiment is, perhaps, the most important part. The person who was “it” will likely be protective of the experience. If they say it was great, then people will get jealous.

Similarly, the people who weren’t “it” might make jokes about special treatment.

The manager in this scenario has to make sure the culture of the workplace doesn’t undermine the experiment. Keep the conversation positive. Focus on results. Then give someone else a chance to be “it.”

This experiment is adapted from one of the exercises we use when we migrate companies from a traditional work environment into a ROWE. In our experience, it opens a lot of eyes. Give a try and let us know how it goes.

• You’re blocked from Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc.
• You can’t use popular browsers like Firefox.
• You can’t share documents using Google docs, IM or other programs that foster collaboration.

As Manjoo points out, part of the rationale for these policies is security, which is completely understandable. When we’re out talking to business leaders, this is a common concern.

But equally common is the worry that if people had more control over their computing then they’d be less productive. As Manjoo points out (and demonstrating the ROWE mindset very nicely, by the way), this is silly:

You might argue that firms need to make sure that people stay on task—if employees were allowed to do whatever they wanted at work, nobody would get anything done. But in many instances, that claim is ridiculous. My fiancée works at a hospital that blocks all instant-messaging programs. Now, she and her co-workers are doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals—they’ve been through years of training in which they’ve proved that they can stay on task even despite the allure of online chat. Can anyone seriously argue that the hospital would suddenly grind to a halt if they were allowed to use IM at work?

Manjoo is on board for doctors, nurses and medical professionals, but we’d take it a step farther. We’d change “in many instances” to “in all instances.” In our experience with ROWE, companies that give their employees control over their work do anything but grind to a halt. In fact, they blossom and thrive.

And what happens when they don’t have control?

We found this interesting theory from Mike Elgan at Datamation.com, who also picked up on the Manjoo story in a piece titled Information Wants to Be Free:

Why do people multitask? Some people may simply enjoy the thrill of information overload. Others might believe they’re working harder and getting more done. But I think many multitask because they’re being directed externally by bosses, company policies and having to perform extra tasks to get around the software forced on them by the company. They feel they have multiple priorities and multiple obstacles, so the solution is multitasking.

Exactly. Take out the software portion of the argument and it still stands. The bottom line is that very few people actually LIKE multitasking. We multitask because we have too many competing demands on our time and attention so we make due by trying to do it all, and all at once. Is it any surprise that we lead the world in burnout?

“When I first came across the idea of Results-Only Work Environments, I was immediately floored.  “This,” I thought, “is how we’re supposed to work.”  So I gobbled up every article I could find, often reposting them madly on Facebook to spread the word.

It took me longer to get to the book (a sign of my attention span), but once I really dug in on a flight back to Seattle, I continually pestered my wife with realization after realization – not only was this a great way to work and a great way for me to work individually, but ROWEs also seemed ideal for ministry, both in function and in principle.

Functionally, working in a ROWE has clear advantages for any organization.  It’s natural to articulate those advantages in the context of private-sector work, but churches and other non-profits have at least as much to gain.  Recently, a fellow church administrator asked about other churches’ experiences with shifting to four-day workweeks, and I was happy to suggest and share our experiences with making the more significant shift of moving toward a ROWE model which addresses far more breadth and depth than any ‘X-day workweek’ approach.  Some of the benefits we’ve seen:

• Staff continue to be available, collaborative, and responsive to needs, but without time and schedule expectations that really weren’t serving anyone.
• We’ve flourished with greater empowerment and freedom to figure out the best ways, times, and locations to get things done, recognizing none of us has two lives (personal and professional), but just the one.  We’re more available for our families’ needs as well.
• Invariably, our staff sees more of our church and the city by regularly working outside of the office (which is still a very necessary and useful place).  So access to the church and its staff is very high!
• We don’t pay utilities, etc. for times that we don’t need to be.

But perhaps even more compelling than the external benefits are the principles on which a ROWE operates:

• As a church, we have a mission to be present as salt (preserving and flavoring) and light in our world.  A ROWE gives us the flexibility to do just that – we always see and connect with more of our church and our city when we’re free to be wherever, whenever as we work.
• “Sludge” is such a great term because the phenomenon is rooted in some really toxic stuff: Gossip, envy, worry, greed, lying, etc.  Dealing with it head-on and making it unacceptable in our staff culture is a big step forward toward fostering wholeness, healing, and renewal.
• We also have a responsibility to address institutionalized injustice and oppression.  Though it may seem strange to see ROWEs in this light, it seems like they truly may have the potential for addressing issues at this level (e.g., mistreatment of workers, social and environmental impacts of unnecessary commuting, etc.)
• So many of a ROWE’s core principles are compatible with our views on stewardship, vocation, personhood, dignity, and human beings as bearers of the image of God.  Integrating our approach to work with who we believe people to be and shifting work cultures from arbitrary control mechanisms to environments that function through individual and community responsibility and collaboration simply makes sense.  This is important because it gives and honors life, and it opposes things that tear that down.  It also happens to work for that reason.

On so many levels, moving toward a ROWE model seemed a risk worth taking, and we’ve very much been enriched by the fruits (and even the challenges!) that move has produced in our work and lives.”

The American Society of Human Resource Managers found that while the number of companies offering things like flextime, part-time and telecommuting schedules had been increasing steadily leading up to the down-turn, the latest measure showed a drop of five percent.

We recently wrote about Eli Lilly becoming part of that five percent drop. We see this trend growing, especially among larger companies in older sectors of the economy. Any company that was dragged kicking and screaming into the “flexible” work movement now has an excuse, er, reason to back out of the commitments they made to their people.

But perhaps instead of appealing to corporate America’s sense of shame, we should appeal to their self interest. A recent BusinessWeek poll found that despite the recession, members of Generation Y are still seeking work-life balance in prospective employers.

The BizWeek blogger dismisses these numbers as a sign that Gen Y has their head in the clouds:

If these statistics are true (Universum surveyed over 60,000 undergrads about the most important characteristics of ideal employers), they seem to play into the stereotype of Millennials/Gen Y as a rather entitled, spoiled group of young workers.

We don’t see entitlement. We see smarts.

If you’re in your early twenties, then the working world you’ve witnessed in your relatively short life is much different than those of previous generations.

• You’ve seen the disappearance of the traditional career track
• You’ve seen wave after wave of corporate layoffs
• You’ve seen the declining power of labor unions
• You’ve seen jobs of all kinds outsourced to other countries
• You’ve seen vast and sudden technological change disrupt entire industries

Given the circumstances, who wouldn’t insist on balance? Who wouldn’t want to make sure that their job didn’t also take their life away from them?

Gen Y has wised up. They are demanding more, and like their parents’ generation, they have the numbers to get what they want. For all you organizations out there who think you don’t need to treat your employees with respect because the economy is bad, you need to get smart yourselves. A sane approach to work may take a long time to get here, but it’s going to come.

First this:

Though more Americans than ever are living alone (25 percent of U.S. households, up from 7 percent in 1940), the connection between single-living and loneliness is in fact quite weak. “Some of the most profound loneliness can happen when other people are present,” says Harry Reis, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester.

The article goes on to talk about how college freshmen feel very isolated during their year even though they are surrounded by people. This reminded us of our years in corporate America, where you could be in a meeting with twenty people and feel like the only human being alive.

This is what the face-time and team-building junkies never quite seem to get. Getting people together doesn’t automatically lead to constructive social interactions. If the meeting isn’t meaningful, then it may do more harm than good.

The other passage that stood out was this bit about the subtleties of face-to-face versus virtual:

Social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace may provide people with a false sense of connection that ultimately increases loneliness in people who feel alone. These sites should serve as a supplement, but not replacement for, face-to-face interaction, [says John T. Cacioppo, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago]. He compares connecting on a Web site to eating celery: “It feels good immediately, but it doesn’t give you the same sustenance,” he says. For people who feel satisfied and loved in their day-to-day life, social media can be a reassuring extension. For those who are already lonely, Facebook status updates are just a reminder of how much better everyone else is at making friends and having fun.

That second-to-last about how social media can be a boon to people who already feel connected is an important point. One of the fears people have when migrating into a ROWE is that they will lose touch with the people they are close to at work. Managers especially worry that their team will lose the “chemistry” that good working groups have.

What they find is that teams that already have good chemistry keep it. Increased reliance on technology can alter the nature of relationships, but it doesn’t destroy them.

Teams with bad chemistry don’t necessarily get worse, but their flaws do become more apparent. ROWE’s critics will say, “Aha!” so technology does cause dysfunction, but we argue that having flaws be more apparent is a good thing. We’d rather know where our weaknesses are then have them hidden by a culture of time and physical presence. Because there’s nothing lonelier than pretending that nothing is wrong.

The Harvard School of Public Health recently sounded the alarm about the readiness of businesses to respond to an outbreak of the H1N1 virus:

• Only 33% believe they could sustain their business without severe operational problems if half their workforce were absent for two weeks
• Only 20% believe they could avoid such problems for one month
• Only 35% of businesses offer paid leave that would allow employees to take care of sick family members
• Only 21% allow paid time off to care for children if schools/daycares were closed

This is what happens when work is a place you go instead of something you do. You ask a business leader what’s going to happen if their people aren’t on site and the answer is DISASTER. Even the authors of the survey couch their remedy in terms of physical presence:

“Businesses need to start planning how to adjust their operations to account for greater absenteeism and to slow the spread of H1N1 in the workplace,” said Robert Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at HSPH.

Another way to look at the problem is to redefine absenteeism.

In a Results-Only Work Environment, the only question is whether or not you can get the job done. So if your kid’s school is closed or you have to help your sick mother in another state, then those things aren’t seen as automatic barriers to getting your job done like they are in a traditional work environment.

We have a number of stories in our book about people who continued to deliver results in circumstances that would have otherwise required them to take extended unpaid leaves of absence. It’s all about your frame of mind.

It’s also all about planning;

1. Start getting crystal clear on goal and expectations

If people know what is expected of them then it’s easier for them to deliver outcomes . . . even if they’re not in the office.

2. Get the right technology in people’s hands

Even today, we find a lot of organizations that make it unnecessarily difficult for people to work remotely. Time to make it easy. Workers who can work remotely will stay productive no matter what the crisis.

3. Empower them to deliver results in the way that works best for them

Praise (rather than shame) the people who take the initiative to get the job done in unconventional ways. If H1N1 hits your company hard, those “weirdos” who work odd hours and from unconventional places may be the only workers healthy enough to produce.

Bottom line:

If your definition of work is in a building during core hours, then you’re going to be in trouble.

If your definition of work is a series of actions executed by individuals and a group who collaborate to deliver specified outcomes, then you can get through anything.

But we wonder if their status is in jeopardy given the fallout of the company’s recent move to downsize. According to the Indianapolis Star’s website, Eli Lilly has abolished flexible work schedules. That’s it. Done.

Here’s the rationale as delivered by spokesperson Carla Cox:

“Time goes by, and things sort of morph into what necessarily wasn’t expected,” she said. “We have really important work to do here, and we want to make sure we get this done in the most effective way. We’re really trying to make sure we are focused on the business, that people are here when we need them here and that they are here during the core business hours.”

First, we empathize with Eli Lilly having to cut its workforce.  We understand that laying people off and making budget cuts is never easy.

But let’s also take that statement one piece at a time and look at all the assumptions, biases, and wrong-headed thinking that conspire to make this one bad decision.

Time goes by, and things sort of morph into what necessarily wasn’t expected

We agree. The global economy in the 21st century looks like nothing anyone ever expected. The businesses that adapt to the new realities are the ones that are going to succeed. Not the ones that go turtle. Do you honestly think your shareholders want to see you try to turn back the clock?

We have really important work to do here

Classic work-as-a-place-you-go bias. The “important” work happens in an office during traditional work hours. Not sure what kind of work those weirdos with flexible schedules are doing, but it certainly isn’t important.

We want to make sure we get this done in the most effective way

Do you mean effective or familiar? No question having everyone in their cube is a comforting sight. A manager can walk the aisles and if she sees everyone at work, then they must be working, right?

We’re really trying to make sure we are focused on the business

Focus is key. You can only focus on work when you’re at work. You know, that place with the endless meetings, constant interruptions, office politics and other distractions.

That people are here when we need them here

As managers, we’d rather have you be available than effective. You need to be here to answer our questions, respond to our fire drills and cover our asses.  Heaven forbid you get the freedom to plan and execute the work you were hired to do.

That they are here during the core business hours

Oh, that core! That strong, vital, powerful core. Everybody knows all the best solutions, ideas and innovations happen between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Where have you been?

We don’t wish any company ill, but we hope Eli Lilly takes a hit for this. We also hope that all you good people in the “Best of” business take note. We have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more companies betray their workforces like this. Don’t give any of them a free pass.

Gap Outlet, a division of San Francisco-based Gap, Inc. has officially migrated 137 Corporate Headquarters employees to a Results-Only Work Environment.

The work began back in February 2008, when Outlet’s production and technical services team piloted ROWE.  When the voluntary turnover rate dropped by 50 percent and employee engagement rose by 13 percent, the program was expanded in September ‘08 to include 137 headquarters employees (adding merchandising, design, HR, and finance).

HR Magazine, which is published by the Society for Human Resources Management, recently did a nice piece on the positive effects of Gap’s journey. The story is not available online, but we’ll be writing about the Gap experience in the coming weeks. In the meantime, please join us in officially welcoming another authentic ROWE into the world.