When you are more autonomous in your work, you can better express your own talents. But… (Photo: Brooke Cagle for Unsplash)
DAMN JOB! is a section in which Olivier Schmouker answers your most exciting questions [et les plus pertinentes] about the modern business world… and of course its shortcomings. An appointment to read Tuesdays and that Thursdays. Would you like to participate? Send us your question to [email protected]
Q. – “Six months ago I made the decision to give members of my team more autonomy. You no longer have to ask me for advice on everything and everyone, but can make decisions for yourself. Their main task: to deliver the goods on time, no matter how they do it. The problem is that I'm noticing an increase in procrastination: a lot of people twiddle their thumbs for a while and then give 110% as the deadline approaches. It doesn't give good results. And it exhausts a lot of people to work like that. Should we go back and continue as before? –Alexander
A. – Dear Aleksandre, it is fashionable to lay off employees because it has many advantages. For example, the increased decision-making power alone is motivating, which has a positive effect on everyone's engagement at work. Being more responsible at work means that you have the opportunity to use your talents better and thus develop better in your everyday work. It can also be the source of greater well-being in the workplace; And as we know, a satisfied employee is often a successful employee.
But one thing is clear: More freedom at work entails certain risks. Often unknown risks. Risks clearly highlighted in a recent study signed by two law professors, Michael Frakes of Duke University in Durham (USA) and Melissa Wasserman of the University of Texas in Austin (USA). Let's look at this together.
The two researchers had access to a valuable database of tasks performed by employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), an agency within the Department of Commerce that plays a critical role in protecting and promoting innovation in the United States . They were interested in a specific period, namely the turning point in management in 2011: At that time, everyone was asked to change the way they work.
Until then, each employee had to thoroughly analyze a certain quota of submitted patent applications within two weeks. Perfect, it seems: everyone works the way they want, as long as they meet their bi-weekly goals. The autonomy they enjoy allows them to combine well-being and performance in the office.
The problem? The data shows that this actually encourages procrastination.
– Most employees had the unfortunate tendency to postpone until tomorrow work that they could do the same day. As a result, they worked like crazy as the deadline approached, like cooks who don't know where to turn when they're in the middle of a fire.
– The overall performance was not optimal.
You should know that the analysis of a patent application takes place in two steps: First, it is checked whether the application meets all the eligibility criteria. Then it is a matter of confirming the fact that it is indeed an innovation (often the applications are just a minor improvement on an existing invention, which cannot constitute a real innovation).
However, since the first phase of the analysis had to be completed at high speed in order to meet the set deadline, errors were often made by employees who hesitated. Result? The error was eventually discovered in the second phase, which was a significant waste of time: many requests would have been rejected in the first phase and therefore should never have been considered in the second phase.
– The accumulation of errors led to such delays that many inventors who filed patent applications eventually lost patience and withdrew their applications. As a result, important inventions for the United States may not have seen the light of day due to a lack of patents. All this because of a work method that encourages procrastination.
What happened in 2011? A major change in leadership. The principle of biweekly quotas was retained, but a completely new restriction was added: the daily payment of bonuses based on the average time spent analyzing a patent application.
In other words, we took into account the time the employee spent on each file each day. And if that time was close to the average time that the task typically takes, the employee received a financial reward. The idea couldn't be simpler: encourage everyone to work consistently.
Results? Hold onto.
– Fast end of work in “Shot” mode. Shortly after implementing this measure, the number of patent applications analyzed in “shotgun mode” fell by half just before the deadline. And in the months that followed, he flirted with Null. Not less.
– Drastic reduction in errors. The mistakes in the first stage, which took up a lot of time in the second stage, also disappeared almost within a very short time. Which means a significant performance gain.
“The change is spectacular and complete at the same time,” emphasize the two researchers in their study.
Here you go, Aleksandr. It is not enough to give everyone more autonomy, it is necessary to accompany and support the change in the way we work so that it leads to good results. As far as the US Patent and Trademark Office is concerned, this involved a combination of bi-weekly quotas and bonuses for regularity of daily work. It's up to you to figure out what might work in your situation. Maybe the same, maybe a slight difference. Please let me know if you find it.
By the way, the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne said in his Essays: “Whatever can be done another day can be done today.”