However, I need to let you know that you are missing some critical components of ROWE.  First of all, ROWE can work in ANY environment.  Since the only thing that matters in a ROWE is results, saying that ROWE won’t work in a given work environment is actually saying that employees in that environment can’t focus on results!

The Results Only Work Environment is not a REMOTE ONLY work environment…therefore, in places like a retail store for example, a ROWE may not ‘look’ any different than a non-ROWE one. What is different, however, is that employees whose job dictates that they be in a certain place at a certain time in order to achieve a successful outcome, will CHOOSE to be where they need to be when they need to be there.  They are treated as adults and empowered to own their own job…which means making decisions regarding the best way to achieve their outcomes, not being told by their boss that they need to do so. We talk to employees who have location-specific roles all the time, and they all know where they need to be to get their work done. They just wanted to be treated as adults who make that decision.

We have successfully implemented ROWE for hundreds of happy, engaged employees and are continuing to migrate companies all over North America and soon the world.  ROWE is in nursing homes, IT departments, government agencies, religious organizations, and more corporate environments than I can mention here.  We are consistently seeing productivity and engagement go up in every team that goes ROWE.

ROWE is the future of work…just ask the newest generation to enter the workforce.  They have no interest in sitting in unproductive meetings, or putting in hours of ‘face time’, or working only within the walls of an office building.  They know the world doesn’t function only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.  They don’t tolerate time-wasting activities.  Considering that this Gen Y is 80 million strong, it is time for companies to move into the 21st century working world along with them.  Those who don’t will soon be extinct.

I'm not just talking about desk workers either. There is a very substantial population of people who aren't knowledge workers and who work in arenas where time is critically important to results. There are alternative ways of engaging and gaining productivity when it is necessary that everyone be in the same place, at the same time to accomplish a task (like build an airplane, put out a fire or serve customers).

Seems like you've entirely missed the point of ROWE, which is of course INCREASED productivity. Now, the big question is, how do you measure INDIVIDUAL productivity? I contend that most don't know how, and if this area were given more attention, managers would be better prepared. Most managers and supervisors are largely not experienced in this area, substituting their subjective “impression” of an employees performance based on direct observation. But the business and the investors could care less about “subjective impressions,” which are just like opinions and we know how many of those there are. The business want results. Hiring a contractor or consultant is not that much different: Managers can sit down and consider the tasks they need to accomplish and can demand specific results. It's not that hard to apply it to your full-time staff too…but it takes practice.

Your commentary reveals that you yourself may hold onto that “sticky” byproduct of the industrial revolution: the notion that controlling time equals controlling productivity. As you said, ROWE is a radical new approach. Since when has a radical new approach been easy to sell to management, or easy to implement? If “easy” is the price of entry for new ideas, we're all in big trouble.

Are you really downplaying “modest” gains in productivity? You did say Gain, right? Isn't that what the company is after? Your question should have been; Is the gain worth the cost?” More importantly, “What is the cost?” Is it in weeding out those undisciplined employees who need to be told what to do for 8 hours every day and replace them with motivated workers who get the job done because they value their contribution? Is it weeding out ineffective managers who don't know or can't learn how to measure productivity?

There are always naysayers, and maybe you just don't get it, and that's OK. There are serious employee trust issues that are exposed in this article, which is not uncommon among so many that have been immersed in a lifetime of Weber-style Bureaucratic management influences. I suggest you dust off the old theories of Druecker and Maslow and consider the possibility that ROWE might be the ultimate expression of empowerment, while at the same time crushing the “Peter principle.” Measurable, results-based productivity means no one can hide behind their desk anymore, protected by the “impressions” they work hard to leave with others instead of the actual work that they do. This is “Natural Capitalism” at its best, where businesses and employees alike can both chart their rewards as a function of their individual and collective energy and efficiency.

As far as Semco being a one off, I guess time will tell, I happen to believe more and more companies will use their model. One of the challenges companies have in trying to be less focused on profits and more focused on purpose is corporate structure. In response to that there are new corporate structures emerging. Ones that focus on purpose and the see profit as a beneficial side effect.

I don't think it's important that a philosophy like ROWE work in every circumstance, even if it would only work in 30% of businesses, it would have a strong positive change in the world as we know it. While I like and admire the ROWE philosophy, I'm more focused on spreading the Motivation 3.0 gospel: Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose.

It just may be my crotchety nature coming out but this seems overly simplistic. We bash one size fits all work initiatives unless it is ROWE (or 6S or Kaisen)?

Employers are certainly culpable for the command and control culture but employees are as well. I've seen many employees uncomfortable in progressive, non-controlling environments. They ultimately leave for a job where a boss tells them what to do for eight hours a day. We can have a chicken and egg argument about it all day but both pieces will have to move for it to be truly a success.

Again, SEMCO is special. You look at these few companies that get brought up every time and there is a reason for that. There has been a willingness of both employee and employer to engage and change the workplace for the better. I think people underestimate how difficult the change in culture and expectations really is. You can see the benefits at the end but the real pain is getting there.

I worked as a designer (R&D), but in a certain occasion I had to go to the floor and perform some work “in the line” for a couple of hours. I noticed two things: the majority of the people were not very engaged with their job, and that I engaged with the task at hand the moment I made a tiny improvement on it.

If ROWE engages people on the task at hand, I can assure you that it would lead to results. But if you try to implement ROWE with a “you must do what I tell you” attitude, it is certainly going to backfire (that's what happened, IMHO with the implementation of Kaisen in western companies).

ROWE is about responsibility of your own work. That was what occurred on SEMCO (or at least that's what you can read on Semler's book) and that's the reason it worked. I don't see why it couldn't work elsewhere, except for an excessive insecurity translated into a need for control.

Ups… that's what you find in most of the workplaces I've known