Results-Oriented Work Environment: ROWE Feasibility and Challenges

Introduction

The results-oriented work environment (ROWE) model has gained significant attention in recent years, with many companies attempting to implement it at different levels. The primary tenet of the ROWE model focuses on the concept that employees should be paid for results rather than the number of hours worked. This strategy can empower employees to design their own schedules and take responsibility for their own performance. It also frees the responsibilities of management so that they can focus more of their time on value-creating activities rather than having to micromanage employees' schedules and daily activities. Employees can be highly motivated by this model and leverage their empowerment to meet organizational goals. However, this approach remains highly controversial and has been subject to considerable criticism. This analysis will examine some of the major arguments made for and against the ROWE model.

The argument has been made that leaders can be more effective if they delegate more responsibilities to their employees. This assertion rests on the premise that employees are able to set their own schedules, prioritize their own activities, and be responsible for their own performance.

ROWE Builds Leadership

As one proponent explained: "What ROWE does is make an organization more employee driven than management driven. A manager isn't in charge of assigning goals and making sure employees show up every day at 8 a.m. Instead, the manager is there to help a team develop results, track those results and clear barriers to performance. Each ROWE team is expected to work together to develop an agreement that lays out what results each employee in the group is expected to accomplish and what days or times each person will be in the office—agreements are flexible and can change as employees or caseloads change (Kerrigan, 2012)."

The idea is to empower the employee, which in turn also empowers management to focus on high-level organizational goals. If a manager does not have to spend time micromanaging activities but can delegate these responsibilities to employees instead, they will have more time to focus on important organizational needs.

However, not all people agree that delegation is the right strategy for leaders. In fact, Best Buy was one of the pioneers in the adoption of ROWE and has since abandoned this strategy. According to Best Buy's former CEO Hubert Joly, "This program was based on the premise that the right leadership style is always delegation. It operated on the assumption that if an employee's objectives were agreed to, the manager should always delegate to the employee how those objectives were met (Bhasin, 2013)." In some cases, the right leadership model requires that the leader takes full responsibility for their employees and focuses on coaching and motivating rather than simply delegating.

ROWE's Application

It has been argued that the ROWE method is not as limited in its potential applications as one might think. For example, many positions require an employee to be physically present at certain times, such as to open the doors to a retail operation. The employee would then need to have a schedule to know when to actually be at work. However, there is generally still some of the employee's time that could be used flexibly, and ROWE could be applied to that portion. Furthermore, a team could be designated to decide who would open the store and when, allowing individual employees more flexibility in scheduling. This takes the results-first approach and lets employees collaborate to decide the details and responsibilities.

However, many people feel that this is the wrong approach and that it simply does not work. It is argued that people are more collaborative and innovative when they are together and working as a team. Thus, a physical presence is required, and it is necessary to schedule in the top-down fashion to which everyone has grown accustomed. Companies that initially implemented ROWE systems, such as Yahoo and Best Buy, have now abandoned these systems and require employees to be on site. They feel the traditional approaches to work are more appropriate, especially since both companies experienced downturns.

ROWE Empowers Employees

The argument is made that the ROWE system empowers employees to make many of their own decisions. This in turn significantly increases employee satisfaction and reduces turnover. Employees can also design their own schedules that mirror the peaks and valleys of business cycles and can reduce overall absenteeism. The empowered employee is more motivated based upon their own freedom in making these decisions, and this will result in better overall performance, which in turn results in better organizational performance.

However, many argue against these points and cite the fact that there is often diminished productivity when employees are given more flexibility. Telecommuting and other "flexplace" arrangements can be disastrous, or at the very least a productivity drain, if used by employees who are unwilling or unable to put in a full day of work amid the non-work temptations (television, pleasure reading, housecleaning, etc.) of a home setting. Not all employees have the ability to be self-disciplined enough to make a ROWE system work, and many are liable to take advantage of the power they are given.

ROWE Empowers Managers

Another argument for the ROWE system is that it can free up a significant amount of a manager's time and empower them to focus on a more relevant set of goals. Under a ROWE system, a manager will not have to worry about keeping track of scheduling and providing leaves of absence to employees. This will in turn free up their time so that they can focus more on organizational results instead of daily requirements. There will also be more time to coach and develop employees and teams instead of micromanaging their daily activities.

While this seems plausible on the surface, many argue that it actually makes it harder for management to function. With so many different schedules and approaches to work introduced under a ROWE system, a manager has to deal with a greater level of complexity. Managers may have no idea how their employees are progressing towards their results at any one time, and it can be more difficult to track progress and spot problems. Furthermore, since this is a radical and new approach, many managers are not prepared to work in this environment and can struggle to keep pace with their responsibilities.

Conclusion

Several arguments, both for and against, have been proposed about the effectiveness of ROWE systems. The system is appealing to many people, and it is easy to understand the attraction to it. However, its effectiveness on a pragmatic level is debatable. It is conceivable that a ROWE system could work well under certain circumstances, such as with a highly motivated and trained employee base. However, it is likely not suited to work well in many scenarios, and its implementation could cause disruption in an organization. The pros and cons will have to be carefully weighed by each organization interested in a ROWE system before the decision is made to attempt to integrate it in practice.