Last week, I looked at how Capital One has applied the principle of flexible work design. Another company that has adopted flexible work design is Best Buy, a consumer electronics chain. The Best Buy experience raises important questions about whether a focus on results actually gives employees, especially those at the front-lines, more choice, control and meaning in their work. 

Best Buy introduced what it calls a Results Only Work Environment (ROWE). ROWE’s premise is that work performance should be measured by results, not by hours and face-time. Employees are empowered to take responsibility for delivering results and figuring out the best ways to do that – a culture shift that requires managers to trust employees to do their work.  ROWE was a major step beyond offering structured flexible work arrangements because employees at any level could regularly change their work times and locations without seeking the permission of a manager. ROWE is team-based, and at team training sessions members explore flexible work options together. ROWE teams believe they are transforming how America works – another powerful motivator, no doubt. This suggests that employees themselves are catalysts for changing the culture and redesigning work.

The impact of ROWE at Best Buy’s head office was evaluated US academics, who compared teams that had implemented ROWE with those that had not over a 6 month period. Results showed that individuals in ROWE teams experienced a range of personal wellbeing benefits. ROWE employees also experienced improved health and wellbeing, as measured by less presenteeism (going to work when sick), less work-life conflict, better and more sleep, more energy, more exercise, and more doctor visits when they were sick. Best Buy benefited from improved organizational commitment, job satisfaction and perceptions of a family-friendly culture.

A second retailer, The Gap, implemented ROWE and documented modest improvements in productivity and quality, reduced turnover, engagement and quality of work-life.

These examples show what is possible, but their direct application to other organizations has limits. Both Best Buy and Capital One have relatively young workforces that embraced innovative work design. Not all employees may be so welcoming of such change, even if the goal is to improve their working life. However, these examples show that healthy outcomes for employees, customers and shareholders can result from simple changes in how work is done.

If your company is considering going down this road, two big issues consider are trust and responsibility. Will managers and front-line supervisors actually trust employees to be more autonomous in their work? And will employees themselves be prepared to take on the additional responsibility that is at the heart of a results-focused work environment?

I’ve been looking at examples of companies that apply the principle of flexibility to more than just work arrangements. Moving in this direction is critical for employee quality of work life and business performance. Capital One and Best Buy are two companies that have redesigned work to better achieve performance goals, respond to changing market trends, and meet the needs of their workforce. These firms have crafted conditions for sustainable success by applying the principle of flexible work. I look at Capital One in this blog post and Best Buy in the next.

Capital One Financial Services Corporation, a Fortune 500 company that has received numerous awards for its workplace practices, provides a range of financial products. The company’s collaborative, values-based culture encourages employees to be innovative and independent – and to take ownership of goals.

Capital One’s Future of Work program (FOW) redesigns how work gets done.  FOW leaves behind the standard office workspace, using computer and communication technologies (laptops, Blackberries, VOIP phones, reimbursed home internet access) to enable employees to choose how, when and where to work so they can be most effective. Most of the cubicle space was not being utilized, so facilities were redesigned to reflect preferred work-styles, work activities and team interaction. The goals were increased employee satisfaction, organizational performance, better real estate use and job flexibility. Employee surveys found that FOW increased overall work satisfaction by 41% and a 53% increase in perceived work group productivity.

What’s interesting is how flexible work design optimizes work space and performance goals by giving employees tools and choices for doing their work. To what extent is this empowerment? Does the enabling technology encourage teleworking outside regular business hours? And would this approach be effective with less tech-savvy workers?

If you know employers that have taken a similar approach please comment.

Last week, I had the privilege of two intense and absolutely fascinating days of discussion at the Institute for Work and Health (IWH). The occasion was the annual meeting of the IWH Scientific Advisory Committee, of which I have been a member for the past 6 years. The IWH is one of the premier workplace health and safety research centres in the world. Located in Toronto, it receives core funding from the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and its numerous research projects are funded by external grants.

Check out its website (www.iwh.on.ca). One of the things the IWH excels at is conducting “systematic reviews” of published research on important occupational safety and health topics, and distilling the findings down to basic lessons for practitioners. My personal favourites are its summaries of participatory ergonomics and effective return to work practices. 

One of the key points I took away from the discussions last week with IWH scientists is the growing gap in the worker health and safety protection system. Put simply, existing protections range from workers compensation to employer-provided short and long tern disability coverage. However, these systems were products of an earlier industrial age and are unable to provide adequate protection to the growing number of workers in “non-standard” work arrangements — that is, who do not have a full-time, on-going employment relationship with a single employer. Furthermore, in a knowledge-based service economy, there are fewer workplace risks to physical health and more risks to mental health.  Workers’ compensation rarely covers (for example, in cases of sexual harassment or assaults) time lost due to mental stress. And typically it is only workers in standard jobs with large employers who have access to private disability insurance, which does address mental health issues.

What’s the solution? Clearly there needs to be broader protection, especially for workers who become ill, injured or disabled as a result of their work, but who now are falling between the cracks of the out-dated protection system. What form this protection takes requires careful discussions with stakeholders — just as pension reform is now being addressed in Canada. Fortunately, the discussion about a new occupational health and safety protection system will be informed by an innovative “flagship” research project at the IWH. So stay tuned.

This is the first post on my new blog. Welcome! You’ll find observations, ideas and practical advice on how to create healthier, more productive and humanly sustainable organizations.

The blog’s launch coincides with the publication of my book, CREATING HEALTHY ORGANIZATIONS. As of last week, it is in bookstores and available from all the major on-line book sellers. I hope the book sparks discussions and actions that lead to workplace improvements that mutually benefit employees, customers and communities.

I was in Toronto last week speaking at the Partners in Prevention conference. People at the session asked some pointed questions. One question gave everyone pause: “What do you do if employees don’t get it?” This is a twist on the frequent comment that senior managers don’t “get” the importance of investing in healthier workplaces. But cynical and resistant employees can be a significant barrier to change too. I suggested that managers who want to move further down a healthy organization pathway, and develop a sense of ownership for this agenda among employees, have to build up trust, and that this takes time.

After the session I did a book signing at the conference bookstore (something I thought only famous novelists did, but anyway…). I was pleased that a few people from the session came by and bought the book, but not for themselves. They bought it for the company library or for their boss. I thought this was quite tactical — a good way to invite others to discuss how to build a healthier organization.

I welcome your comments. Please share with other readers of this blog your efforts to create a healthier, more productive workplace.