A Tale of Two Schedules…

Companies and municipalities are struggling with some thorny issues around the best way of scheduling work that supports both the humanity and productivity of employees.

Earlier this month, Jim wrote a post for this blog on Seattle’s “secure scheduling law,” aimed at creating more predictable hours at the cost of flexibility that some desire from those jobs. Then, there was this short piece on Inc., describing one startup’s move to eliminate hours tracking in favor of greater flexibility and a focus on results. According to the post, it’s a strategy with some positive results for major retailers as well.

It is interesting to see the divergence of solutions that address the same fundamental question: how can we improve employees’ experiences of work?

In practical terms, that question means meeting the unique expectations of workers while encouraging greater performance and meeting the needs of the business. No small feat given the rising pressures in today’s fast-moving environment.

It will take some time to know what type of approach will ultimately be successful, but there are some practices that are sure to play an important role.

The truth is the employee expectations-experience relationship will never be homogenous across the workforce or even among teams. Some employees will want more stability from their schedules and some greater flexibility to manage their own unique set of work and life responsibilities.

Approaches that emphasize individual voice and empowerment, as well as the option for flexibility, seem to be well-suited to meet a diverse range of expectations like that, while also encouraging employees to find efficient ways of working that fit their own personal style and preferences.

Organizations will also need to emphasize practices that replace the diminishing role of structure and hierarchy. Instead of formal processes, the role of continuous conversations around feedback, recognition, and coaching will become increasingly important. The startup’s CEO from the post above reaffirms that point:

We're not saying any of this is easy. Nor should it be. It requires over-communicating feedback, setting specific goals that are measurable, and vetting new team members that you trust will thrive.

Public policy will also need to evolve, to give organizations the flexibility to provide a positive employee experience rather than mandate a specific practice at the expense of another.

Perhaps a part of that evolution is legislation that can shift from metrics that have traditionally defined the work experience (such as hours worked) to metrics that more accurately capture a flexible and modern experience. We may not be there yet, but I feel that we may also not be that far off from such a possibility.

What are your thoughts on meeting the expectations that employees have of their work experiences?

As Globoforce’s Vice President of Client Strategy and Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. He is the co-author of "The Power of Thanks" and his articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

While I feel that "over-communicating feedback" may be impossible, Derek, I agree that valuing work by clock-time is highly dysfunctional in most modern employment situations.

Can't recall many cases where employees complained about too much feedback from management; more rather than less communication is generally needed. Still, the more important the work, the longer the time required to confirm its adequacy. There are massive obstacles to continual feedback on results, so process adequacy may have to be the proxy.

Better metrics for the work experience will be an even bigger challenge. Many institutions with vast political and regulatory power are deeply invested in status quo time measures that ignore output quality, quantity or costs. Sweeping social change may be required to shift attention from "how long did it take" to "how good was it." Otherwise, management may be required to impose even more draconian controls over work processes to assure their efficiency in the absence of more sensible worker autonomy efforts complicated by time-based laws.

[Tony Bergmann-Porter]

I have no doubt that there would be an explosion of innovative approaches to this and many other aspects of employment relationships if the dead hand of government regulation was removed.
Some would argue that in such case there would be a considerable temptation for unscrupulous employers to exploit the most fungible, least able, and least mobile employees. I agree that finding non-regulatory ways to protect such powerless people would be a thorny problem. But that does not mean it would be unsolvable.