
There’s been a lot of buzz around results oriented work environments (ROWE) and the freedom and flexibility they allow in terms of employees setting their own hours and taking vacations. BusinessWeek is no exception, recently profiling the liberal vacation policies of the IT consulting firm, Bluewolf:
Michael Kirven, 38, and Eric Berridge, 39, didn’t worry about a vacation policy when they started Bluewolf, their New York IT consulting firm, in 2000. As the startup added employees, the founders let staff take paid time off for holidays, travel, and rest when they wanted, without asking permission—just letting managers know as a courtesy. About 18 months later, with 10 employees, they made their ad hoc policy official. “If you want to take a vacation, take it,” Kirven says. As long as workers met their goals, they could take as much time as they wanted, when they wanted. In other words, no formal vacation policy.
Unlimited paid vacation? Available anytime I want it? Amazing! What employee wouldn’t think this is a great idea?
Indeed, Bluewolf puts such faith in its employees to police themselves that they’ve eliminated the need for an HR department entirely:
Kirven says the company’s turnover is next to nil—so low that three people who left recently decided to return. Bluewolf has no HR staff. Instead, it relies on a quarterly audit from a lawyer to make sure the company complies with labor laws. And Kirven estimates the company saves $250,000 a year by not having bean-counters tracking time.
Most of the media articles on ROWE focus on the benefits of trusting employees and allowing the freedom to surf the net, take the afternoon off, or otherwise do whatever they please—as long as their work is being done.
But what none of these articles, blog posts or podcasts seem to address is how exactly do you create an environment where everyone is productive, trustworthy and responsible?
“Results only” work environments are only successful if each employee is assigned an individual, measurable set of requirements that are assigned a specific due date. It’s been my experience that most companies can barely define each employee’s job (I once worked for a year in position that had no formal job description), nor set reasonable, measurable goals for each of them. The foundation of ROWE is a competent management team that is able to both see the big picture and quantify it into doable steps. How many people can say that their managers successfully accomplish both of those things?
I’ve responded to several bloggers touting the benefits of ROWE and advocating that employees should be trusted to act responsibly. My question to them is always,
“What do you do if you give your employee all this freedom and they don’t perform?”
The unanimous answer is always,
“Fire them.”
Clearly, these bloggers have never had to deal with a poor performing employee, do the dirty work of firing someone, or ever worked in government.
Some people just aren’t self motivated. They need a boss looking over their shoulder (either figuratively or literally) to be productive. Could we argue that the lack of motivation these employees have is because they are in the wrong job? Maybe. But that is a reason for them to quit, not necessarily for a company to fire them. Isn’t it a manager’s job to ensure their employees have an environment which enables them to be most productive? That seems to be the argument for ROWE, but can also be applied to a structured work environment as well. Just look at how many lost, undisciplined souls have been “straightened out” by the military.
While I think ROWE workplaces are awesome places to work if you’re lucky enough and could have been tailor-made for people like me (ambitious type-As), I acknowledge that they might not be right for everyone and shouldn’t be touted as the panacea for unhappy workers that the media makes it out to be.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.

Print This
Email This




It sounds like you are trying to apply the old paradigm to a new mindset. We are no longer in the industrial mindset where workers work and managers are there to watch them work.
Instead of asking what do we do about the crappy employees in the ROWE environment (which is, fire them), why not ask how many awesome employees you lose when you have managers who are constantly looking over their shoulders.
At this time there are a lot of bad managers who are worried about losing their jobs. So they micromanage even more. If you have a ROWE, you have the opportunity to recruit and retain the BEST employees, because having freedom over your life is something that is valued.
So, why do I think I know something about this? Ten years ago, the association I work for went virtual. That means we are a ROWE. During that initial transition, some people could not handle it and had to go. Since then we doubled revenue and tripled reserves. We are now able to recruit the best people from anywhere in the world. And we all know how good we got it and are extremely loyal and hardworking. And when our goals are met, our time is our own.
Oh, and to answer the government question: That’s why government is so bloated and inefficient. Even under the current system, they are not worried about outcomes. I worked in a public institution for nine years. You are correct in that they would have the hardest time creating a ROWE, because results aren’t the focus there, process is.
“But what none of these articles, blog posts or podcasts seem to address is how exactly do you create an environment where everyone is productive, trustworthy and responsible?”
I don’t see this as the goal of the changing workplace to make people change. Rather it’s to change the environment because most people already are productive, trustworthy and responsible. Most people dislike or even hate being treated like mischievous 4 year olds. People that need someone hovering over their shoulder will either change to fit the majority or find somewhere to work that fits their style of working.
“But what none of these articles, blog posts or podcasts seem to address is how exactly do you create an environment where everyone is productive, trustworthy and responsible?”
My job inherently has a product with a specific deadline and I both manage and create the product. The deadlines don’t change, if the product isn’t finished, then I haven’t done my job and my position would be in jeopardy.
While other people’s jobs don’t have these clear-cut rules and deadlines, I think its the employers job to figure out how to give them these things. This type of work, where one could essentially take the time off they needed while still finishing their projects, wouldn’t always work for every company. Other companies I’ve worked for need someone on a daily basis which obviously wouldn’t work.
But back to the point I made before - if you know you’re not going to HAVE a job if you don’t finish your projects, then negative motivation and a watchful eye aren’t going to make any difference in the productivity of this individual.
In a perfect world, yes, a ROWE is ideal. However, unless the company consists solely of honest type As who are totally dedicated to their jobs, it just doesn’t work. Or at least work like Bluewolf does.
I personally am all for it–I know myself and know a company would get more than 100% out of me if I were given that kind of flexibility, and in no way would I abuse it. But then I look at my husband’s experiences–he’s been a manager for almost 20 years and I’ve seen countless times that, in the real world, it’s the vast exception rather than the rule to have loyal, hard-working employees. The assumption that “most people” are productive, trustworthy and responsible is just not true; in fact, it’s been my experience over the past 18 years that most people are NOT any of those things.
I totally agree with Jacqui that ROWE is definitely not a viable option for most companies.
And just like Jacqui does–LMAO at the notion of “just firing them.” I personally am lucky enough not to have had to deal with that stuff–and hopefully never will–but I’ve seen the hoops my husband–as COO and HR director–has to go through to fire people who flat out don’t do their work, steal, lie, talk back, etc. It doesn’t matter if an employee comes up and spits in his face–after not coming to work for a week and wearing short-shorts and a tube top–firing that person is a huge ordeal involving lawyers, time, thousands of dollars etc.
ROWE is a great concept. Won’t work for engineering and manufacturing.
You said: “It’s been my experience that most companies can barely define each employee’s job (I once worked for a year in position that had no formal job description), nor set reasonable, measurable goals for each of them.”
Exactly.
Setting measureable goals, and sticking to them, is incredibly difficult. Only the best managers, with plenty of time, and a great work environment, can manage it.
Most can’t. So this won’t work at most companies.
These are my questions.
If the ball must always be passed to the captain, how slow will the team be?
Which league will you play in?
Will your take home pay be matched by the general quality of the players and the league you play in?
And then two followon questions:
What do we do with people who are not up to playing competitively with other people who can think? Some subsidies or sheltered employment will be necessary but need not be degrading. This is largely a matter for public and community policy which requires managers too.
If you are a young person, who is a manager, CEO or leader that you find an adequate role model and where is the career trajectory that allows you to gain those skills in an orderly manner?
ROWE essentially focus on measuring Result rather measure by Time at work(9to5).
As GenerationXpert pointed out, the post is applying old paradigm to a new mindset. It’s Like saying how can we trust Wikipedia if we don’t know who wrote it.
——————-
There is the book ‘why work sucks’ that shows how to create a ROWE environment, I think this is one of the origins of the term ROWE. These authors came from change Corporate at Best-Buy into entirely ROWE culture through grassroots methods.
This was a 1hr teleseminar with the authors, Dan Pink(Free-Agent Nation) & Jason Alba.
http://caliandjody.com/blog/2008/06/21/virtual-book-tour-why-work-sucks-and-how-to-fix-it-2/
There are also 2 earlier teleseminar available & one of them with David Allen (GTD) & Tim Ferris (4-Hour work week)
Call me cynical, but I thought we weren’t supposed to entirely trust wikipedia (i.e. take everything with a grain of salt) precisely because we don’t know who wrote it?
That’s why they have editors (i.e. managers) to police the content.
@Ian - I love the book Why Work Sucks. It’s awesome.
@Office Newb - I think you can trust wikipedia, you just shouldn’t use it as reference in formal writing, because it’s not peer reviewed.
@Ofiice Newbie: That’s the point, manage results/content. ROWE doesn’t mean nothing going get managed, it’s just a different way of managing & measuring.
It is result based so the poor performers would be identified much quicker, since that’s exactly what we are measuring. So they can either improve, get them into a role that’s a better fit or leave for a 9-5 company. (It might not work for union environment)
This isn’t really a completely new concept, it wasn’t apply in cubical life.
Many product companies hires manufacturing companies to build product for them (Honda, Sony, IBM…)
Freelancer has been doing this for ages (Web designer, programmers, photographer, writer, designer, tax accountants…)
Do you care if your personal tax accountant be in their office for 8 hrs? as long as it’s done on when it’s needed.
I think the point is to Trust people that they will get their work done on their schedule, rather than treat adults like children with the silent bell-rings at 9am & 5pm.
I think this a moot point because a ROWE isn’t applicable to every workplace. People who don;t work well in this kind fo environment will always have plenty of other job opportunities.
Also, yes, you can fire someone who doesn’t fit well in the work environment. I have fired someone (and it was no fun at all) so I guess I’m qualified to say that it’s absolutely acceptable to fire someone who just doesn’t function well with the work or the manager.
I found Maggie’s post to be hilarious. Her husband is an HR professional. So, needless to say, she is somewhat biased.
In addition, based on her description of her husband, he seems to fall right in line with the the widely accepted opinion that HR departments (and the employees inhabiting them) are broken.
In general, employees that are not producing find themselves being shifted to their companies HR departments. All the other departments realize this is where people with limited drive can go to hide.
Maggie’s overall tone sums up the majority of your typical HR professionals outlook: Cynical, cynical, cynical…
HR Cynical? Is the Pope the Catholic? If everybody in the world thought like HR people we’d all work in video taped padded rooms, with no direct contact with other employees. Maggie’s post would be laugh out loud funny, if it wasn’t for the fact that its so depressing how being in HR takes away people’s ability to have any faith in other employees. The truth is HR as an institution is living on borrowed time, the future is smaller, nimbler, companies that operate without red tape, and can make decisions without clearing it through 4 different departments and the mailroom. It’s really sad to hear someone so cynical that firing employees is funny to them, and not easy enough. There should be support groups for anyone in HR, Corrections, or the Police Department, because obviously their jobs make them lose faith in the basic goodness of most people
Wait a minute…. people are basically good?