I was intrigued to read this article, as I'm always on the lookout for ways to build on strengths but also to understand and mitigate weaknesses. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing - strengths can become overwhelming if applied incorrectly or overdone. By developing complementary skills, you can work towards balancing strengths in ways that enable you and your teams to be highly effective and keep people engaged and performing.
Imagine you are decorating a room. There is large sofa, and you have some throw pillows decorating it, but it looks a little bare, so you get some more. And some more. And some more. How many is too many? 5? 20? 65? Like cupcakes or party invitations, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. This applies to collaborative teams as well.
I was hoping this article would at last be one that presented a solution to the issue of having employees and team members work remotely - i.e. at home. Unfortunately, it presents the same tired arguments with little in the way of creative answers. And that's too bad, because I think there are ways to make remote work feasible and effective. First, let's look at the four arguments:
Economic argument: office space is expensive, so having employees work remotely is cheaper. And clearing the roads of commuters is better for the environment.
I’m not able to do any economic analysis on this, but I would estimate that the cost argument is incorrect.
As for the environment piece, this is likely true. People not needing to commute will mean fewer cars on the road (and likely fewer car owners) and a reduction in the individual stress that comes from commuting. This latter piece does need to be balanced with the commensurate other stresses a home-office environment introduces (see work-life balance below).
Team work argument: collaboration and team work happen when people are comfortable, so letting them work remotely frees them to be more independent and actively seek out collaborative opportunities.
In my experience, the co-location of staff is one of the main factors in building team camaraderie and facilitating collaborative work. While independence and collaboration are not mutually exclusive, they certainly are counter-intuitive. When you are part of a team (or department or organization – whatever the group of people working with a shared vision is referred to in your world), being and feeling a part of that team is essential for effective communication, collaboration and productivity. Remote or virtual teams are inherently challenging because of that lack of face-time with colleagues. These can be somewhat overcome with technology tools such as Slack, Zoom, and other collaborative tools. But virtual teams are challenging because you CAN’T have people co-located. So introducing that challenge or complexity deliberately to a team that could in fact be co-located, is counter-productive.
Trust argument: leaders are afraid that employees working remotely will not get their work done. They fear a lack of control over what employees are doing will mean failures in productivity. They do not trust people that they cannot directly supervise.
This is a sweeping us-vs-them statement that reflects the poor leadership in place in some organizations. But it’s about as valid as “all employees will abuse the privilege of working remotely.” To some extent, leaders are right to have this fear. They will ultimately be accountable for the output of the team, so they should have control over where and how the work is done in a way that allows them to assure the quality and timeliness of the products.
This argument works just as well from the point of view of the employee, arguing against the remote work concept: good, supportive leadership means that it is easily accessible to me. Therefore, I want to be near to my leader, so I can get answers to questions, highlight my accomplishments, and be accessible for opportunities when they arise. If my leader can’t see me, they may not know about my achievements and skills and I may miss chances for development and advancement.
Trust is a two-way street and is required from both leaders and teams if a remote work arrangement is going to work. And especially if the next argument is to work.
Work-life balance argument: employees who work from home have a better balance, as they get to schedule and plan their work around their own styles and the demands of their life.
This sounds idyllic, but as anyone who does work remotely even part of the time will likely tell you, having your work omnipresent in your home can make this worse instead of better. One work-life balance benefit to having a separate workplace outside the home IS the physical division between work and home. For most office-type workers these days, work already intrudes into home life via mobile devices and the “benefit” of being able to VPN into the office at any time of the day or night. The balance is achievable, but with a home-based work environment it requires much more discipline to maintain that balance since the division between the two is now virtual. There is a cynical perspective that might argue that employers would LOVE it if everyone worked from home, because for the most part they’d be working all the time. So, working from home or otherwise remotely can more correctly be seen as one tool to achieving work-life balance, but it is not the panacea of balance that is imagined.
So, what might work? As with most things, the “it depends” principle applies. There is no absolute, one-size-fits-all solution, for employers, employees or work requirements. I recommend a hybrid approach, where working remotely sometimes (not always) is an option (not a requirement) for some (not all) team members.
When working remotely is done nearly 100% of the time, then a measure of an employee’s “work” – i.e. the way in which the company measures what and how they get paid – cannot continue to be just in hours. After all, one of the benefits of working remotely is that the specific hours worked matter less than the actual work accomplished. Timesheets and standard measures and reporting have to be replaced by review and confirmation of work to milestones, essentially making the measurements about pieces of work instead of time. This has the risk of turning employees into contractors (both legally and practically) and undermining the connection and engagement of employees with and to the organization and team.
It also requires a lot more time and judgement by leaders and supervisors to review and approve work in ways that directly affect if/how employees get paid. Most leaders consider overall performance across the year, rather than piecemeal evaluations. And so this new approach a) requires more time (and so more cost to the organization) and b) shifts the power balance in the relationship, something neither the leader or the employee anticipated or is trained for. Having remote work as an option for use when appropriate and effective (as determined by both employee and leader), can provide that desired flexibility while maintaining engagement.
Not all employees can or will thrive in a remote work set-up. In fact, some will loathe it, and may become more anxious and disengaged because of that lack of contact with their colleagues. When you consider that not all employees have the same work styles, it should be obvious that the more social ones will find that being removed from their colleagues is unsatisfying and unproductive. Also, not everyone is as adept at maintaining the balance between work and home, and so the requirement to work from home may be more oppressive than liberating. Having remote work as an option rather than a requirement means it can be use by those for whom it can be effective without undermining the confidence and security of those who prefer the community of the office space.
As described above, sometimes leaders have a legitimate concern about how productive a specific individual will be when working remotely. Let’s face it – not everyone has the integrity or commitment necessary to work unsupervised, and good leaders know both how to manage all team members effectively, including those with challenging work habits; when those team members have critical skills and abilities but also challenging work habits, good leaders need to have the flexibility and latitude (and fortitude) to manage the work environments such that everyone has the best opportunity to contribute productively and effectively. Remote work is not suitable for everyone, or for every type of work and working, and leaders need to be able to use remote work as a tool selectively and appropriately.
This means that a hybrid model is most effective – where remote work is supported and enabled, but not required. In my experience, this works very effectively to allow for employees to apply this tool when it makes sense. It allows them to contribute to their work-life balance by enabling them to be home for the business of life while maintaining progress and contributions to their work. It empowers them to create effective work time and space, such when the work requires a few hours of focus and concentration that is unlikely to be realized in the office. And it contributes to confidence, security and trust from both leader and employee that this tool is made available to them when and how the employee chooses it.
As an employee and a leader, I greatly value the opportunities that remote work options enable for me. I also recognize the inherent challenges and risk - for me, my teams and my employer - and so I treat the option respectfully, and work hard to bring balance to privilege and opportunity afforded by this option. I would not want it to become mandatory, for me or anyone else, and indeed I do not require it (establishing remote access) for anyone in my teams, but where desired and appropriate for an individual, I am supporting and supportive of it.
It is a fact in this day and age that team members – project managers and other professionals in “middle” management – are expected to maintain a virtual connection to the office outside of work hours. The advances of mobile technology intrude on our leisure time by creating an expectation/requirement that employees be available day and night. Leaders and organizations need to balance taking that next step – remote work options and expectations – carefully to ensure that employees can be productive and balanced in their lives. Applying a hybrid approach, where remote work is a tool with options and privilege, can help achieve that.
A regular reader asked me to write something about helping a team as they go through times of change.
Change is inevitable, and yet it takes us by surprise, and creates uncertainty about the present and the future. As a leader, I’ve been lucky enough to be in charge of taking teams and organizations through exciting and challenging times, as well as some sad changes. Major relocations of offices and labs. Big shake-ups in institutional and corporate leadership. Installs of new equipment and computer systems. In my experience, the hardest changes to manage involve changes in team members. The uncertainty associated with a change in personnel – for the person leaving, the new arrival, and those remaining – is complicated, as it affects individuals differently, and on many levels.
To maintain a sense of calm and comfort during a transition, here are some things I’ve learned to do as a leader of teams big and small.
Be there. To be relied upon, you have to be reliable. Similarly, to be a trusted leader, you need to be present all the time, building relationships of trust with team members. If you only show up when things are going wrong, people won’t know to trust you to lead them through the difficult times. (People might even start to associate your presence with difficulty, and become wary whenever you do show up.) Good leaders spend time with their teams often, taking part in daily work life as much as possible. This helps to know who’s working on what and what the ongoing issues are, so when a challenge arises, you can contribute to or direct responses from a position of knowledge, strength and empathy.You should also be prepared to pitch in when and where you can (remembering that sometimes your “help” might be just the opposite of help). If you’re capable of taking on some of the work, then do that. It may barely make a dent in the workload, but it can make a big difference in morale.
Respond to change appropriately, and in a timely manner. Knee-jerk reactions to change can often make a bad situation worse, introducing more change and uncertainty and undermining trust. Good leaders take some time to consider the options, the impact, and the hidden angles or features (see below re: opportunity) and make sure the team knows that’s what they’re doing (you’re not ignoring the problem, but you’re taking some time to make a good decision). You don’t want to be stuck in analysis paralysis, but you do want to make good considered decisions in responding to change, so that you get it as close to right as possible the first time. When implementing a response, be sure to be clear about the what and the why, and if there are some things you’re unsure of, say so.
Be honest and open. When change is happening outside the group, people can feel uncertain or left out (“how come we’re always the last to know?”). Leaders need to recognize when this might be happening – they may be up to their ears in the direct impacts of such changes, but they still need to be aware of the potential effects on teams and individuals. Keep in mind, some information truly is “need to know”. Providing what information you have and are allowed to share in a timely manner (and to the entire team at the same time, not just to those who you happen to see) can go a long way to mitigating the distress of uncertainty or of feeling left out.
This is a tricky balance. You can’t always tell everyone everything all the time. Sometimes, you can’t see that someone needs or wants to know about something. When you discover this, you need to remedy it by communicating immediately and directly. But if you work at maintaining those good trusting relationships with people, they should recognize that either they can ask you directly about what they want to know, or they will trust that it’s not something they need to know.
Never, ever lie. If you don’t know something, or cannot share something, say so. If possible, say why. If you’re speculating or giving an opinion rather than a fact, make extra sure that this is clear. This can be very difficult for a leader to do, but if you have good relationships with people, they can and will trust you, and vice versa. Don’t ruin that.
Be firm but fair. Make sure team members know where they stand. It is important in building trust with teams that the work environment and culture include clear rules and procedures for the way things work. But also: rules and procedures need to consider the human beings involved, and be fair in recognizing that. “Firm” means that people know what to expect. “Fair” means that they can also expect consideration and empathy.
Be human. While it’s important that leaders be in control of themselves and the situation, they shouldn’t be automatons. You shouldn’t be overly emotional or over-familiar with people, but you are still a human being who can have bad days and frustrations. It’s okay for people to see that; it helps with building trust and camaraderie. Just make those times the exceptions rather than the rule, as you need people to follow your directions when times are tough.
Don’t assume – ask. Just because no one is coming to talk to you, don’t assume they don’t want to, or don’t have any questions or concerns. A good leader makes varied opportunities for people to engage. Management-by-walking-around is much maligned, but it is an important step in being accessible. Open-doors are also good, and snacks never go wrong. Make time to be available to people for open-ended questions and discussion. When attending a team meeting, always bring a message with you as an icebreaker, in case there are no questions to start with, and accept and answer every question or comment openly, directly and fairly.
Look for opportunity within challenge.
“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but recognize the opportunity.” JF Kennedy.
While the above quote is wrong, the idea is good – look for the opportunity in any challenge. When working through all changes, it is important to look at all sides, good and bad. Being prepared for change from any quarter can help minimize disruption and maximize chances for success.
Years ago, I received news about success on a significant grant for our centre. When I told the lead investigator, the reply was like a splash of cold water: “Now we have to do it.” While I initially resented the cynicism, I’ve come to appreciate that that flip-side was very real: this new funding came with considerable changes and challenges, which were not to be taken lightly. (Ultimately, I did also learn that a moment or two to celebrate a success can go a long way to improving team spirit, and still feel that putting the cynicism on hold for a day would not have gone amiss. See below: celebrating success.)
This doesn’t mean being overly sunny or optimistic, ignoring the challenge while looking for the opportunity. To me, this means being pragmatic and realistic, keeping an eye on the challenge while also looking for the opportunity.
Celebrate successes and positive changes. Reasons to celebrate are easy to find. They need to be meaningful and real, but once found they should be celebrated. Work is work, and it is easy for people to get bogged down and stuck on things that aren’t working well, and they forget sometimes about progress and successes. Leaders should be sure to acknowledge and celebrate success. Did a trainee successfully defend their thesis? Congratulations! Did a project get a new grant? Well done! Did the team reach a milestone of a kind? Yay – have cake! Is someone moving on to a new job? Way to go! This last one can be hard sometimes, as a person leaving the team can sometimes be seen a just a challenge – all the work to be reassigned, team mates left behind – but it’s important to acknowledge and celebrate the success of that person who’s leaving. Regardless of the circumstances of their change, they contributed to your team and they deserve respect, appreciation and support. And the remaining members need to see that you will treat everyone respectfully.
Overall, the keys are to be consistent, trustworthy, and empathetic. Being a “helicopter” leader – swooping in, making big pronouncements, using hollow promises – is ineffective. Being a leader means being present through good times and bad, rolling up your sleeves and pitching in, being reliable in word and deed, and balancing challenge and opportunity.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it. If you have a comment to add, please include it below. And if you have a request or suggestion for a future topic, please use the contact page or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks for reading!
Like most writings on the topics of waiting and delay and procrastination, this one has taken several years to get to. Age and time don’t always make things better, but they do perhaps make things possible. So here we are.
I first came upon this topic in 2012. At the time, I was wrestling with how explain to someone that delay in decision-making, while an essential part of good leadership, can also be perceived as indecision, procrastination, or disinterest, and – worse – lead to a passive decision to do nothing (essentially, putting off a decision till later is deciding not to act now). But what is the right amount of time to consider and mull? Act too soon, and you can make a serious error. Wait too long, and you can miss an opportunity or make a situation worse through inaction.
To me decision-making is akin to taking a photograph of a sunrise or sunset. Nowadays, you can take several dozen digital photos, then look at them later on your computer and pick just the right one. But what if you could only take one? How would you determine exactly the right moment to click the shutter? Too soon, and the light is still too bright, the colours not that interesting. Too late and the light is dim, the colours dull. There are many analogies – hunting, birding, surfing, cooking, writing, speaking: how do you know exactly the right moment to take the shot, or jump, or speak? How long do you wait?
Harvard Business Review has this uncanny ability to drop an answer or a hint at just the right time. More prescient than a fortune cookie, the Management Tip of the Day often brings good information just in time for whatever’s going on. And 13 July 2012 was a great example. This article seemed about right for my current problem.
It led me, as I’m sure was intended, to purchase the book. However, I’m sure it was also intended that I read it sooner than 4 years later. Regardless, I did get to read it and I’m glad that I finally did.
Wait: The Art and Science of Delay, by Frank Partnoy looks at active procrastination as a part of decision making. The style of the book is similar to Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, both in the language and the presentation – providing scenarios and stories to exemplify definitions (regardless, Partnoy could not make the concept of “discount rates” any less dense, so this part was a bit of slog but an important component of the science of delay).
Procrastination has two forms. The first is what I’ll call Passive Procrastination. This is the kind we most often think of as procrastination: unconsciously letting delay happen, or being easily distracted from something large, difficult or important, primarily to avoid doing it. In this form, we allow our bias towards the present (what’s easiest right now?) to override what we might need to consider for the future. This is where the whole “discount rate” thing becomes important, and he does a much better job in the book explaining it than I ever could, so I refer you to that for more details. The other form of procrastination is Active – consciously managing the delay up to the point of decision making or taking action, in order to best manage risk and use resources effectively.
The yang to procrastination’s yin is something called pre-properation. If procrastination is waiting when you should act, pre-properation is acting when we should wait. This is rooted in impatience – the need to have or see any result (not necessarily the right or best one).
It was this tension between procrastination and impatience that I was most interested in learning more about. I always thought there was an art to determining when to act – a balance between quick decision making and careful decision making, waiting until just the right moment so that risks are low, opportunities are high, and resources are optimal. Decide too quickly and you might be acting rashly, moving forward with insufficient information or wasting resources. Wait too long and you’re essentially deciding not to act (a concept I have a hard time convincing others of – by “not deciding right now”, you are deciding to do nothing).
The book doesn’t answer the question of how-long-is-too-long. But it does reinforce some good habits of leaders in decision making:
I’ve been told that I’m a quick decision maker (fortunately for me, often enough, I’m also a good decision maker). People have asked me, ”How do you do that? Make decisions like that so quickly?” I do try to incorporate the three items above, but I think I also have the benefit of experience – I’ve been doing this a long time, not just working but making decisions at work. There is also a certain element of bravery associated with good decision making, as you have to be willing to stand by your decisions, or at least explain them. One of the key ways I support and empower those that I work is just that: regardless of the outcome of your decisions, if you can explain to me how and why you made them, and that makes sense, I will always back you up and support you.
This book provided much food for thought, and it was helpful to read that decision making is both art and science, and that there is no magic formula, only a balance. Also, that procrastination is not necessarily bad: as long as it has a purpose (and you get other things done in the meantime), it is not “doing nothing” but rather a conscious delay towards making a good decision.
Who is Robyn?
My career as a research project manager is rewarding, dynamic, challenging, and fun. I'm looking forward to sharing my knowledge and experience in communication, organization, and common sense approaches in research management and leadership, and to enabling others to learn and grow in this exciting career.