Selecting workers for fun and profit

Isn't It obvious?

One of the constant issues facing managers is that of maintaining a happy and productive workforce. A good part of that is establishing the proper work environment. Three significant parts of that are physical: location, location and location; downtown, home, elsewhere.

From our very first test of telecommuting in 1973 we insisted that the participants all be volunteers wherever they were working. We have adhered to that requirement ever since. The reason is simple: if you want to have a work environment that is largely proactive, avoid including those who were dragged into it kicking and screaming. They will find often ingenious ways to sabotage the works.

This works both ways: for people forced into telecommuting full time and seasoned telecommuters forced to work in the office full time. Why is this true? Because most people, myself included, like to arrange their work environment so that it becomes invisible to them; things they need are just there, accessible, not sources of irritation. They can concentrate on the task ahead without unnecessary interruptions or worries. If they continually can’t do so because of the work environment they get first annoyed, then testy, then actively hostile to the situation.

Hostility is contagious. It can spread from one disgruntled worker to another. Ways will be found to slow down the work process; mistakes will happen more often; work priorities will be changed and so on. Not just the disgruntled worker but the whole group can suffer.

Your job as manager is to spread gruntlement, not hostility. Contented, active workers make a fun-to-be-in workplace, even if the workplace comprises a set of home offices with one or more regional old-fashioned offices. Contented, active workers are also good to the bottom line, as we have repeatedly shown over the years. Discontented, sullen workers can degrade the entire organization. Not necessarily because they are malevolent but because they are uncomfortable.

Now, back to the telecommuter location issue. It’s clear that, given contemporary technologies, some things need face-to-face interpersonal communication in order to work effectively. Also, by Murphy’s Third Law, people who have face-to-face communication needs also have non-interlocking schedules with their f2f counterparts. Those who have Mondays and Fridays working at home only need to f2f with their mid-week in-office teammates. Or is it the other way around? Or should the schedule be weekly, monthly or even more widely spread? The hybrid in-office schedules need to be worked out by a designated manager or by the teams themselves.

We have seen that it is distinctly possible that such scheduling dilemmas can be resolved to all party’s satisfaction. When that happens the organization can be seen to be running smoothly, with increased effectiveness and with higher profitability. The very thing we’re looking for.