Tag Archives: Work

Get A Real Job Redux

IAM Community has republished an older essay of mine that I still like a lot. It’s called Get A Real Job. Go check it out!

It is difficult for people to try something that is counter to what they’ve always known or been taught, but I think hierarchical leadership really does throttle companies. Read: The Myth of Hierarchical Leadership on iAM Learning.

I am still intrigued by the concept of the results-oriented work environment, or ROWE, and I love to see stories about how it’s working in real workplaces. Here is another one: Results-Oriented Work Environment a product of changing work landscape | … Continue reading

Are jobs obsolete?

Are jobs obsolete? by Douglas Rushkoff at CNN.com is an interesting thought piece. Jobs are indeed disappearing. We can either bring them back artificially or structure a new paradigm that works better.

Here’s the crux: “Our problem is not that we don’t have enough stuff — it’s that we don’t have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff.”

It really requires a shift in thinking. How can we turn the negative into a positive? Perhaps we could shorten the amount of time that people are expected to work, or move from a time-based system to one that’s based on output instead. There would be more jobs available and we’d all have more time for having an actual life. Or maybe we should consider a guaranteed basic income for everyone; if you wanted more money than that, you could work, but you wouldn’t have to. I’m sure that idea wouldn’t go over well in our current society.

Changing our long-established ways of thought is probably one of the hardest things for us human beings to do. We forget that we made up the rules, and we can change them.

They won’t buy the cow: Why writers should not give away their work

I saw a couple of posts on this subject on the World in the Satin Bag, and the subject of whether writers should give away their work for free is a perennial debate. So in case anyone cares, here are my two cents’ on the subject.

I was a working writer for 9 years. By “working writer” I mean that is how I earned my living, full-time. I never once gave away my work without getting paid a fair wage. I wrote nonfiction, and I was usually paid by the job. I actually set an hourly wage for myself that I felt was fair and reasonable for the quality of work I produced. When I got a new contract, I divided the total amount by my hourly rate, and that is how long I spent on the job. Just like a plumber or an electrician, I made sure that I was getting paid what I was worth for each hour I worked.

When a writer gives away his work or accepts a very low payment, that writer is essentially saying, “This is how little I value my own time and skills. My work is worth less than the work of the guy flipping my hamburger at McDonald’s.” Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the writer to value his own work. Publishers will always, always try to get away with paying as little as possible. It is up to writers and aspiring writers to stand up for themselves and to not accept substandard pay.

Anyone who wants to be a professional, working writer would never just give their work away. Even if they never sold a thing, they believe their work — and the time they spent on it — has a tangible value, and they act accordingly. You do not break into the business by giving away free writing — that’s a myth perpetrated by publishers who don’t want to pay up. You do what other writers do: Work hard, hone your craft, get good and then find an agent who is willing to sell your stuff for a reasonable sum of money.

Somewhere along the line, someone is attempting to make money off your writing. If they do, then the writer deserves a fair share of that. If the publisher is selling the work in a book or magazine, the writer deserves a cut. If the publisher is using the work to attract visitors to a website or blog, where they hope to sell a good or service, then the writer should receive payment. What if a big-name company approached you and said, “Write all our advertising copy. We can’t afford to pay you but you’ll get great exposure.”  What would you say? Most people would say, “No way. I need to get paid.” It’s no different when a magazine or publisher or website says the same thing. And if they can’t afford to pay, then maybe they can’t afford to be in business.

After all, if you went to your day job tomorrow and your boss said, “We can’t afford to pay you any more, but we still expect you to come in for 8 hours a day and give us quality work,” what would you do? Most people wouldn’t agree to work for nothing. So why is it somehow different for writers?

If you really want to work for free, in order to develop your writing skills or get exposure, there are plenty of legitimate avenues to do so. Join a workshop or a writers’ group, or take a class. Start a blog and publish excerpts there. At the extreme, self-publish, but at least charge a little something for your e-book or whatever.

People do not value what they get for free. When a writer gives away his work, he is essentially saying that his writing has no value. And that’s usually true — free writing is generally, in my experience, bad writing. But good writers, professional writers, know their worth, and they charge accordingly.

How can we bring a Web 2.0 sensibility to international development work?

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the Global Health Council 2009 Conference, where the theme was global health and technology. While I heard many things that excited me (you can read my thoughts here and here), I couldn’t help but notice that the traditional approach to international development still prevailed. As someone who has become immersed in social networking and the tools of Web 2.0, I had to wonder how we could bring that kind of sensibility to our development work.

As I see it, this would mean:

  • Build from the ground up rather than the top down.
  • Start by sharing and making connections.
  • Then let a community emerge that can collaborate to solve the problems they identify as important.
  • Large institutions (donors, big NGOs, government) need to facilitate this process or get out of the way.
  • Above all, we have to let go of our need to control.

Working this way would certainly require a fundamental shift in mindset. No longer could we design every step of a project in our comfy offices, take them to the field and work the plan, measure and report our results, then leave when the funding cycle is over. But there are already successful models for working in a different way — Kiva and OpenMRS come to mind.

Web 2.0 has exploded because it fills a human need and fits in with natural human behaviors. That makes it less like work and more like fun, and people who are having fun can accomplish a lot. I think we could too, if we don’t let fear of change or of trying something new stand in our way.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Alternet has posted a compelling argument for why environmentalists should work less (like we needed any more encouragement to work less). I think this article underscores a pervasive problem with our capitalist culture: that more is always better. We’ve seen plenty … Continue reading

My personal results-oriented work environment experiment…

I have been reading a lot about ROWE (results-oriented work environment). If you want to know more about what ROWE is all about, the Bamboo Project blog has a nice article with pointers to more information. The article “Smashing the Clock” in Business Week was the one that got me started thinking about it in the first place.

When I talk about ROWE with other people at my company, I come up against a lot of confusion about what it is exactly. ROWE is not telecommuting or flex time. It is tying work directly to results. So there is no need to work the 8-hour day if you can get the desired results in less. There is no need to come in to the office if you can get the desired results from some other location. The employee is treated as an adult and trusted to determine what is the best way for them to achieve the results they are being asked for. ROWE is all about turning the factory worker mentality that has dominated corporate life for so long on its head.

The best analogy I have seen is in this article on Brazen Careerist, which compared ROWE to college. In most college experiences, the student is given clearly defined expectations. You have to take a certain number of credits, usually in a prescribed selection of subject areas, and achieve a certain level of performance in each. However, it is up to the student to determine how to meet those expectations: which classes to take, what their schedule will be like, when and how much to study, even whether to attend class on a given day. I had one class in college that I stopped going to altogether, but I was still able to achieve the desired result — an A grade — and nobody, including the professor, cared that I wasn’t physically in class as long as I was doing the work to make that A.

In the workplace, ROWE hinges on giving employees very clear expectations and then leaving it up to them to figure out how to achieve those results. If your job is to be on the helpdesk and one of your expectations is that you will be available to support users and fix their computers during certain peak hours, then you probably have to come in during those hours. Otherwise, you won’t be meeting your job expectations. In the ROWE paradigm, those of us who are supervisors have to be more willing to give clear feedback to employees on their performance, listen to them if they say that the expected results are unreasonable, and even fire employees who are not able to meet the results we expect. If there are slackers in the system, the system won’t work — but do we really want slackers on our teams, anyway?

The problem with my industry is that our work is tied to hours — hours that we can bill to various projects. The whole idea behind ROWE is that you don’t work a set number of hours; you work as long and when you need to in order to get the work done.

That being said, I doubt I’ll go completely anarchist and slash my working time down to 20 hours per week without letting my company know. Rather, I’d like to stop keeping track of how much time I work per day. I’ve noticed that when I work according to my natural rhythms, on some days I’ll work 9 or 10 hours, some days I’ll work 6 or 7. It’s rare that I work exactly 8 hours on the dot, but I think I’m giving the organization a decent amount of time for their money, and I’m certainly achieving the results they need, according to the feedback I’m getting. And that’s not even counting the time I’m not precisely working, but I am thinking about work and formulating ideas, such as in the shower or on a walk with the dog, or the times I quickly read email or dash off a note to someone “off the clock.”

So for purposes of billing, I’ve decided to call time worked during a day a “workday,” equivalent to 8 hours, so I can stop tracking exactly how many hours I work. Each day that I work, I’ll charge 8 hours on my timesheet. Of course, if I work very little in a day, I’ll go ahead and charge leave time to keep things fair. I figure that with this loose system, it will all come out relatively even. I’m salaried, so I don’t get overtime. The only thing we’ll lose is a record of how long it takes me to do something, but my years in project management have taught me that this kind of data is generally useless. You usually have a sense of about how long something will take anyway, and since no project is like any other, you can’t say that because it took you X hours to design the website last time, it will take the same amount this time.

I obviously can’t tell my team that it’s okay for them not to work 40 hours in a week (although that group has more of a problem with working too much than too little). But I can tell them that it’s okay for them to schedule their weeks in order to be most productive and achieve the best results. Development often requires high-focus work that is not conducive to the interruptions of the office environment. While collaboration is a requirement, we don’t need to collaborate 8 hours a day, and a lot of it can be done remotely. So what I plan to tell them is that, depending on the needs of their projects, they can choose to stay home or come in whenever they like, as long as they remain available to the rest of the team even when working remotely. And I plan to give them very clear job responsibilities so they know exactly what is expected of them.

The only way this will work is with clear expectations and frequent feedback. People working in a ROWE environment have to be willing to take responsibility for achieving the results and they have to be accountable to the entire team. This is not about going off to do your own thing without regard for the needs of the team or the organization. It is about enabling people to manage their own work lives so they can produce their best results.

Working conditions that cause work-related stress

This is part of an ongoing series on work-related stress. The first post in this series was Understanding Work-Related Stress, followed by Misconceptions About Work-Related Stress.

Current research shows that the following workplace conditions, either experienced individually or in combination, will lead to stress in most employees:

  • Persistent overwork or lack of control over work: For example, employees may feel they have to work to the point of exhaustion to accomplish everything they have to do, or that they can’t leave their desk even to take lunch breaks. Employees may feel there is little room for flexibility or self-initiative, that their job assignments seem senseless, or that they do not effectively use their skills. Staff do not feel like they are participating in decision making or like they are subjected to micro-management without real consultation.
  • Poor communication: For example, policy decisions are not communicated well or employees are not consistently trained in fundamental work procedures. Policies may be enforced erratically or inconsistently across different parts of the organization. Employees feel as if they are guessing at what is required and then are punished when they don’t “guess” correctly.
  • Isolation and lack of collaboration: Employees feel they are isolated in their tasks, usually because co-workers are too busy for collaboration. Employees do not have time to socialize and network with their colleagues, even to go out to lunch.
  • Unclear roles and responsibilities: Employees may have conflicting or unclear job expectations or too many hats to wear. They may be given responsibility without real authority to make decisions, or they may be loaded down with too many responsibilities. They feel constantly pressured to perform to extraordinarily high standards. It seems like everything is a priority or a crisis, or that they have to please multiple masters with conflicting needs and expectations.
  • Job insecurity: Employees may feel that their job situation is unstable due to a project ending or reorganizations in the company. Any kind of rapid change can lead to feelings of insecurity. This may be exacerbated by a lack of opportunity for growth, advancement or promotion, or by a feeling that their efforts are simply not appreciated.
  • The nonprofit “culture”: Employees who work for nonprofits face additional pressures. The goals they may set for themselves are so high — change the world, save lives, end poverty or disease — that they cannot do enough to help their organizations fulfill their missions. They feel guilty about taking time off or making time for themselves. They can become inseparable from the cause they are working for, losing sight of their own needs. Constant fundraising, catering to unrealistic expectations of donors, complying with burdensome reporting and documentation requirements, and chronic underfunding naturally contribute to pressure on strapped staffs.

In the next post, I’ll propose some benefits to the organization of preventing or reducing work-related stress.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Misconceptions about work-related stress

This is part of a continuing brief series on work-related stress. First post: Understanding Work-Related Stress.

Work-related stress is often confused with challenging employees. However, the two have very different effects. Employees who are challenged are energized and motivated. They are engaged with the work, actively seeking out new skills in a desire to master their jobs. After meeting a challenge successfully, employees feel satisfaction with the results. Challenge is an important part of encouraging continuous growth and development in employees, and sustaining interest in their jobs.

However, work-related stress will result when, instead of healthy work challenges, employees are faced with job demands that cannot be met. Employees who are under stress are exhausted in their work and cannot maintain a sense of pride and satisfaction in their jobs. Work-related stress ultimately hurts the employer as much as the employee, since it often results in absenteeism, turnover and job failure.

Managers may be completely unaware that their employees are experiencing work-related stress. Driven employees may feel the need to push themselves even harder because they aren’t meeting expectations and won’t speak up for fear of reprisal or looking unprofessional. People who normally set high standards for themselves or feel an advanced sense of responsibility will often try to wear many hats, increase the time they spend at work and respond to unrealistic expectations even at the expense of their own well being. Immersed in a culture that values hard work and productivity, and preaches sacrifice for the higher cause, employees will tend to blame themselves for being unable to “meet the challenge.”

Employees are often held to account for their own stress by their managers and/or co-workers, as well. There is a conception that they “are wrong for the job” or “they just can’t handle it.” While differences in personality and coping style are important in determining which employees are more susceptible to work-related stress, research suggests that certain working conditions will be stressful for most people. Current evidence argues that working conditions are the key source of job stress and organizational change the primary prevention strategy.

The next post will describe the working conditions that most commonly lead to work-related stress.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]