- Reaction score
- 19,829
- Points
- 1,280
Forget 9 to 5. These experts say the time has come for the results-only work environment
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,561
- Points
- 1,160
So, what they're saying is that everyone should adopt the Certified Management Consultant Comptence Framework?
I heartily agree
CMC Competency Framework
The CMC Competence Framework specifies the cluster of related abilities, commitments, knowledge, and skills that a management consultant should demonstrate in practice in order to successfully complete an assignment, independently and unsupervised; all of which are underpinned by a code of conduct and professional ethics – professional behaviours. It sets out a standard for those within the profession that is equally relevant for sole practitioners, niche players, and internal consultancies as well as for the major practices and firms.
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
Soooo... (disclaimer, I'm just going off the headline because comedy) we're going back to quotas and piecework, then? Some people are never going home.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,831
- Points
- 1,040
Mmmmm. Achievement tests. Quotas.
It sounds like these two ‘creators of the system’ are actually taking credit for what most of us would consider common sense, and a tangible practice that was in place far ahead of their proposal in the 2000’s.
Some employers will require someone to be present at a certain location, obviously. Retail, food service, etc.
But giving your employees a longer leash, while expecting them to produce the same results? Don’t most employers already do that once someone has demonstrated responsibility and competency? (Even if not officially.)
I am not trying to knock the original post which contains the article. Good post! As a result oriented kind of person, I was just surprised by some of what I was reading, was all
Some employers will require someone to be present at a certain location, obviously. Retail, food service, etc.
But giving your employees a longer leash, while expecting them to produce the same results? Don’t most employers already do that once someone has demonstrated responsibility and competency? (Even if not officially.)
I am not trying to knock the original post which contains the article. Good post! As a result oriented kind of person, I was just surprised by some of what I was reading, was all
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,160
- Points
- 1,040
Even in workplaces that is somewhat measurable it isn't.
For example as a Machinist we produce/repair items. These are assigned under work orders. With each job there is a estimated amount of time. Sometimes a 6 hour job can be done in 2, and other times the 2 hour job turns into a whole day ordeal because the job was poorly planned, parts weren't available, tooling wasn't in good shape, the previous guy just lazed about and left the workplace a mess, etc.
I happen to take a bit longer than most for a lot of jobs but that is also because I may have gotten the job done quicker then proceeded to sort out stuff which was wrong in the first place. A system that only rewards speed also damages capabilities long-term as there is no incentive to get long-term results only short term results (much like the 4 year election system...).
Other issues with this type of system is that what your boss demands of you can increase dramatically. For example if someone pounds out their job in 6 hours instead of 8 the boss sees that as those jobs now take 6 hours they can add 2 hours of work on to you. Even though it exhausts you to get it done in 6, now you have all your regular tasks plus the extra ones to do until it all adds up to 8 hours again. Only real difference is you are now burning yourself out for less.
Micromanaging is more of a thing now then it ever has been thanks to technology, cameras to watch you, ability to track time your logged on a system, etc. Going back to piecemeal work I think mainly benefits the employer long-term not the employees.
For example as a Machinist we produce/repair items. These are assigned under work orders. With each job there is a estimated amount of time. Sometimes a 6 hour job can be done in 2, and other times the 2 hour job turns into a whole day ordeal because the job was poorly planned, parts weren't available, tooling wasn't in good shape, the previous guy just lazed about and left the workplace a mess, etc.
I happen to take a bit longer than most for a lot of jobs but that is also because I may have gotten the job done quicker then proceeded to sort out stuff which was wrong in the first place. A system that only rewards speed also damages capabilities long-term as there is no incentive to get long-term results only short term results (much like the 4 year election system...).
Other issues with this type of system is that what your boss demands of you can increase dramatically. For example if someone pounds out their job in 6 hours instead of 8 the boss sees that as those jobs now take 6 hours they can add 2 hours of work on to you. Even though it exhausts you to get it done in 6, now you have all your regular tasks plus the extra ones to do until it all adds up to 8 hours again. Only real difference is you are now burning yourself out for less.
Micromanaging is more of a thing now then it ever has been thanks to technology, cameras to watch you, ability to track time your logged on a system, etc. Going back to piecemeal work I think mainly benefits the employer long-term not the employees.
- Reaction score
- 6,501
- Points
- 1,040
This seems like a pretty good way to keep driving down the number of employees while increasing the workload. If I have 10 things to do but time to do 2 or 3 of them, at least with a schedule I won't kill myself.
Having said that work from home has demonstrated is doesn't need to necessarily be 8 consecutive work hours in a day, or always on the same schedule, so that's been pretty good.
Having said that work from home has demonstrated is doesn't need to necessarily be 8 consecutive work hours in a day, or always on the same schedule, so that's been pretty good.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,561
- Points
- 1,160
As a consultant I'm keenly aware that we have the luxury of helping our clients sort out projects that, although seemingly very large and complex from our point of view, are only a small fraction of their overall workloads.
Working in this 'results only' fashion would therefore require some fairly sophisticated and enlightened oversight/ organizational leadership at the more senior levels.
quadrapiper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 516
- Points
- 840
Seems like it might have possibilities for misapplication in jobs with hard(er) to quantify aspects: I'm thinking of my normal occupation as a theatre tech, where for "house" crews there's shows (nicely quantifiable) and between-show maintenance/tinkering/problem-solving/solidification of temp solutions/creation of presets, templates, etc. most of which are less amenable to box-checking than "touring act loaded in, rehearsed, gig happened, act loaded out." Same thing for facilities maintenance and other roles where rounds, minor fixes, and the like catch things before they become problems, having some depth and flexibility is of value, and having the occasional day with no jobs on the list is a good sign.
I see a strong possibility of "results only" being read as "what have these bodies done for us lately" and used to justify cuts in certain workplaces by the less enlightened sort of management.
I'm sure there's a better way to describe that nature of work, though!
Similar threads
