I have SO MUCH to write about this topic!  So this may end up being one super-long blog post, or multiple shorter blog posts.  Or multiple super-long blog posts.  That seems more like my style.

But first, let me introduce the subject and provide a little context.

Context

I feel I’ve had the most success as a manager when I clearly outlined areas of responsibilities for team members, and then let them do their work.  Instead of me telling everyone what to do from day to day I would just make sure they knew what they were responsible for, then help out if they need anything.  I enjoyed it more, they enjoyed it more, and we tended to get better results.

That’s a gross oversimplification, but it’ll do for now.

Hybrid and remote work has challenged my management style.  I didn’t want to just do it how I’ve done it and hope it turns out alright.  I wanted to find out who has taken this idea the farthest, and how it went.  So I did some googling and I purchased three books (and then a bunch more, but we’re only talking about those first three today) and read them.  The goal was to improve my ability to manage.

Results-Only Work Environment

The first two books are by the same authors (Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson) and outline what they have called the “Results-Only Work Environment” or ROWE.  These books are:

• Why Work Sucks and How to Fix it: The Results-Only Revolution
• Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix It: A Results-Only Guide to Taking Control of Work, Not People

I’m going to come clean right off the bat.  I did not like these books.  I REALLY didn’t like the second one (Why Managing Sucks).  I disliked it so very much that I didn’t finish it.  I almost never give up on a book!  I have read textbooks cover-to-cover.  That’s just to be clear about my bias right up-front.  We’ll talk about why I didn’t like the books more in a second, but let’s talk about what ROWE is.

The idea behind ROWE is that you clearly define what people are responsible for, and then you just hold them responsible for those deliverables.  There’s nothing else.  No work hours.  No checkins.  No project planning meetings (if the worker doesn’t want them).  They codify the philosophy in 13 guideposts.  They are:

1. People at all levels stop doing any activity that is a waste of their time, the customer’s time, or the company’s time.
2. Employees have the freedom to work any way they want.
3. Every day feels like Saturday.
4. People have an unlimited amount of “paid time off” as long as the work gets done.
5. Work isn’t a place you go — it’s something you do.
6. Arriving at the workplace at 2:00 PM is not considered coming in late.  Leaving the workplace at 2:00 PM is not considered leaving early.
7. Nobody talks about how many hours they work.
8. Every meeting is optional.
9. It’s okay to grocery shop on a Wednesday morning, catch a movie on a Tuesday afternoon, or take a nap on a Thursday afternoon.
10. There are no work schedules.
11. Nobody feels guilty, overworked, or stressed-out.
12. There aren’t any last-minute fire drills.
13. There is no judgment about how you spend your time.

The books have a focus on rooting out judgment and judgmental language (what they call “sludge”).  I think this is one of the strengths of the book, because most people wouldn’t think about it.  HR may implement new policies, but cultural expectations are significantly more influential than the employee handbook.  Addressing it is smart, and I really appreciate that aspect of their philosophy.

They also make some very good points about respect throughout the book — how many common management techniques are pretty condescending.  They point out that managers sometimes treat employees like children — telling them where to go at what time, giving them permission to do things, telling them what they can and can’t wear.  They stress that you should hire people that you trust, and then you should, you know, trust them.  I’m with them that far.

My first problem with these books is that they do exactly what they say not to do.  They condescend.  They condescend the heck out of everyone!  They claim that their methodology is the only way to work in the 21st century, and that any other method is horribly outdated.  They claim that any attempt to do something like ROWE that isn’t their exact version of ROWE is doomed to failure.  They go so far as to claim that you shouldn’t even consider changing the wording of any of the 13 guideposts.  In one section they say:

… we’d walk by the corporate cafeteria … see people who had not transitioned to a ROWE yet, and say to each other, “Look at all of them in there.  They’re still sleeping.” … they hadn’t been awakened yet to this world, one where they were free to make their own decisions … [they] still had empty eyes that were glazed over; they had resigned themselves to waiting for retirement to catch some glimpse of happiness … they were still walking around like they were trying to claw their way out of the world that was holding them back from living.

Condescending?  Oof.

That quote actually brings me to my second problem with these books.  They are straw-man assembly lines.  Every person who isn’t completely sold on ROWE is “sleeping” or part of the old-guard, intent on maintaining the status-quo.

This burned me up because this is not the way to make your point!  I want to do this!  I am highly motivated to learn and try new things!  I think ROWE, or something like it, could really work! (more on that later).  I want them to make their case in a compelling, convincing manner so that I can bring it to my manager and say “Hey, we’re doing THIS!”

Instead, we get straw-man after straw-man.  Caricatures of what bad managers are.  In a section called “Typical Questions” they have the following exchange:

Q: Some people need to be managed and like structure.

Hey, this is a good question (I mean, technically not a question, but I get what they were going for), I am very curious about this myself!  I actually HAVE had people in the past who preferred more specific and directive management.  I’m really curious how I can help these people when I’m implementing ROWE.

A: “Some people like to have me breathing down their neck, telling them when they can use the restroom, rejecting their vacation requests, and identifying a good time for lunch.  Some people just like that.”  Really?  Really?!  And some people just like me to poke them in both eyes with rusty nails, too.

Uh huh.  So you’re not actually going to answer the question, you’re going to just claim that anyone who would even dare to ask the question is some kind of cartoon villain, and move on.  It’s a good question!  And I would like a good answer!  I want to implement ROWE!  I’m not trying to join a cult, here, I’m trying to improve my management abilities.

And so we arrive at the third problem.  In the latter part of the book they talk about how successful ROWE is because voluntary turnover reduced dramatically, and involuntary turnover increased.  They claim that this is evidence that high performers stayed, and low performers were forced out because the focus on results revealed them for the time-wasters that they are.

But there’s another, equally as likely explanation.  No one is going to leave a job voluntarily where you get paid and can do anything you want as long as you produce results — even if they stop producing results, or are having a very hard time producing results, they’re not going to quit!  They’re just going to keep going until they’re fired.

In that case isn’t it likely that some people like ROWE and it works great for them, and others don’t like it, or it doesn’t work great for them?  According to the authors those people are low performers who should be shown the door.  But maybe they just … would like to be managed.  Maybe they like structure.  We’ll never know because there’s no further data provided about why people were fired, or how their exit interviews went, or what they think could be improved in ROWE.  Their proof of ROWE’s effectiveness is also a straw man.  And that’s the thing that really killed it for me — I loved so much of the book, but couldn’t trust it because in the end it was a sales pitch (for their ROWE transition consultancy), not a movement.  Certainly not a revolution.

Speaking of Revolutions

The third book I got on this subject is called “The Work Revolution: Freedom and Excellence for All” by Julie Clow.

Allow me to explain my bias a little bit here, too.  I had just stopped reading “Why Managing Sucks” and was frustrated with the whole subject.  I picked up “The Work Revolution” and decided to give it a shot and it was … in many ways the complete opposite of the ROWE books.

Instead of tearing down work it explained the history, and how Taylorism got us to our current workplace.  The author points out that there have been advancements, and many workplaces today have improved things.  She offers a self-assessment that allows you to see how your workplace is doing, and then focus on the areas that need improvement.

It was such a switch from the ROWE authors’ “My way or the highway” mentality that I got whiplash.

Most importantly, instead of 13 guideposts she outlines a handful of “principles that can establish a flexible framework.”  She says:

A single set of rules, even if they are new, to fit every situation and organization is exactly what we have now, and exactly the wrong approach.  A single set of rules is easy; black and white.  It’s similar to the notion of zero tolerance in schools.  It eliminates any need for judgement, evaluation, critical thinking.  It also quashes any sense of empowerment, individualization, and “gray-zone” thinking, which make life interesting and organizational agility possible!

I’m quite sure Clow didn’t intend for this paragraph to be a repudiation of the ROWE books (especially since she references those books in her own book), but that’s what it felt like to me.

There is a significant overlap in terms of content and philosophy between the “Why X Sucks” books and the Work Revolution, but the Work Revolution presents it completely differently.  It’s full of data, references other books to help the reader expand their knowledge, and the tone is humble but instructive.  It is exactly my kind of book, and coming off the other two it felt like a breath of fresh air.  So, to sum up, I am strongly biased in favor of this book because of how it goes about communicating with the reader.

Now that bias is out of the way, let’s talk content.

As I mentioned, you start with a quiz to see where your business is at.  Depending on the results of the quiz you can jump into one of several chapters, each one outlining one of the principles with the intent to help you know how to turn your organization around in that area.  These principle are:

• Impact, Not Activities
• Energy, Not Schedules
• Strengths, Not Jobs
• The Right Things, Not Everything
• Grassroots, Not Top-Down

The first two principles have a lot in common with ROWE, but the last three diverge from it fairly significantly.

In “Strengths, Not Jobs” Clow makes the argument that you should hire people who fit your organization’s culture, and worry about what they’re going to do later.  People should be free to find the role they can contribute the most to, and even move around the company frequently.  This felt … more ambitious, let’s say.  Impact and Energy are both fairly easy to sell, but I can’t help but think that “Strengths, Not Jobs” would be difficult to get people on board with.

“The Right Things, Not Everything” and “Grassroots, Not Top-Down” both deal with the issue of strategy in different ways.  The main point is to have clearly articulated strategy that keeps the organization focused on what they do that is uniquely valuable, and with the clearly articulated strategy allow everyone to find ways to accomplish it.  It was good, but she didn’t mention the best book about strategy (Good Strategy/Bad Strategy by Rumelt), so five points from Ravenclaw.

I would highly recommend “The Work Revolution” to anyone who is looking to improve their work culture.  That said, there’s still one main problem that all the books don’t address completely (although Clow gets closer by recommending a book that might address the problem — that book is currently on my desk for my next read).

The Thing that Still Bugs Me

There is an underlying assumption that all three books make that I don’t think has been adequately addressed.  All three say something along the lines of “You don’t work on an assembly line, you work in an office and therefore you are paid for results, not for time.”  They point out that people may avoid improving their productivity because if they can accomplish more they’ll just be given more to do.  They are disincentivized from doing their best work.

But the assumption is that people are paid for results and … well, that’s not true.  Hourly workers are paid directly for their time.  They are obviously paid for their time.

And salaried workers — well, I don’t know any company that transitions someone to a salary and then says “Great, we expect to see way less of you now!”  No, the assumption is that you’re still putting in 40 hours a week.  Or more.

I don’t say this as someone who wants to maintain the status quo or is against working from home or anything.  I am a huge proponent of remote work.  I enjoyed it during the pandemic.  I read several books about it and wrote a guide for our workplace on how to do it effectively.  I tell my team to work from the location they work best, and during the hours they’re most productive (Energy, Not Schedules).

Nor do I think time is all that matters, or that schedules are particularly important.  My personal philosophy is that people should work as much as they need to to get their jobs done.  And if they end up bored ask for more, and if they are working way MORE than 40 hours, ask for less.

But the bedrock of most work relationship is the idea that you are trading time for money.  If you were responsible for results you would have a contract that outlines the results that are expected.  Your pay structure would look different.  While we work with a time/money trade as the foundation of work we cannot escape the problems that come with it.

There are already jobs where people are paid for results, and only results.  They are freelancers or contractors.  There is a contract that outlines the deliverables, and they are remunerated based on their ability to, you know, deliver those deliverables.  ROWE didn’t invent the idea of paying someone for results.

When you really boil it down what ROWE is saying is that you should treat people like freelancers, but remunerate them like full-time employees.  And that’s a bit of a contradiction because freelancers already exist.  If an organization wanted freelancers, they would hire freelancers.  They want the time/money trade.

So ROWE and even The Work Revolution (as much as I loved it) are still building a new system on top of an old system.  I can’t help but think that there’s a better way.  I’m not sure if that means changing how people are remunerated, or changing how work is done, or some mixture of the two.  I’m still working on it, and I’ll keep working on it.  Maybe my next book (“The Sin of Wages: Where the Conventional Pay System has led us, and how to find a way out” — thanks for the recommendation, Julie Clow) will show the perfect solution.  Maybe not.  Maybe a new system built on top of the old system is the best we can do for now.  Stay tuned for my next blog, when I review another book and we figure out how to solve all the problems of the modern workplace!

So I guess multiple super-long blog posts is the answer.  I should’ve known.