How Rowe could supercharge your organisation’s productivity

Surveillance has become common in the modern workplace. Supervision has always been a core function of managers. And employees have long bemoaned nosy, meddlesome micromanagers. But employee surveillance has become more intrusive than ever before. In the rush to implement remote working during the pandemic, many firms deployed software to monitor their employees’ screen activity, mouse movements and keystrokes, all in the name of maintaining productivity.

Seven in 10 business leaders approve of using employee-surveillance tech, according to a report by Toggl, a time-tracking platform What’s more, 75% believe they should have access to staff activity data at any time and 67% want this access to extend to their employees’ personal data, such as location. 

This appetite for oversight borders on the Orwellian and reflects a deep anxiety at the heart of modern management: if we can’t see people working, how can we be sure that they are working?

Surveillance may offer the illusion of certainty, but it often erodes the very performance it aims to protect. When employees feel watched, they become cautious and performative. More than a third say it damages their mental health. Business leaders recognise this, too. According to the Toggl report, 75% acknowledge that intrusive employee monitoring harms morale and damages their retention rate. 

Some HR leaders therefore are advocating for greater flexibility for employees. Instead of obsessing over when or where people work, they’re focusing on what gets done.

Results-led experiment to enterprise strategy 

Best Buy, the American tech and appliance retailer, pioneered a results-only work environment (Rowe) at its headquarters in the mid-2000s, when two of its employees, Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, suggested that performance should be measured by value delivered rather than time spent on a task. Let employees choose when and where they work, they argued, then hold them accountable for results. The impact of the initiative was felt immediately. Productivity rose by 35% in pilot teams and voluntary turnover dropped by 90%. 

Some companies have since made Rowe the status quo. Employees at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), for example, can choose when and where they work so long as they deliver on agreed outcomes. This policy has been key to CMHC’s talent retention and employee value proposition. 

But many organisations have settled for surface-level flexibility rather than offering their staff true workplace autonomy. In most hybrid-working policies, flexibility is prescribed in a framework of strict rules, with mandated office days, fixed schedules and constant check-ins. Results-only models, however, reframe the contract between employer and employee, focusing on what the business needs to receive from its workers rather than how the work happens. 

When Rowe fits, clarity is key 

Rowe is not be suitable for every team or every role. Jobs with high compliance obligations or fixed customer-facing hours, for instance, may not allow for full workplace flexibility. But, for some roles, such as those in design, software, content or project management, performance is better measured by assessing delivery and impact than hours logged.

Still, removing structure isn’t what makes Rowe effective. The approach works best when expectations are clear and understood by employees, managers and HR teams. Without shared definitions of success, autonomy can quickly slide into confusion.

Laura Stack is an author, podcaster and productivity expert. She says leaders must “set goals and priorities for staff so they know exactly what they should be working on, determine what results they’re expected to achieve, decide how the results will be measured and tie performance rewards to those results.”

For HR leaders, implementing results-only working begins early in the employee journey. Toggl, a fully remote company with a strong culture of autonomy, introduces prospective employees to its results-oriented approach during the hiring process. According to its head of people, Dajana Berisavljević Đakonović, candidates participate in asynchronous test weeks, where the firm evaluates their work and ability to communicate and collaborate in an unstructured environment. “There’s no interview question that can reveal this,” she explains. “You have to see it in action, in real time.”

CMHC, meanwhile, prioritises autonomy and performance, but also works to build team cohesion by emphasising the importance of “being intentional about how we are building community, belonging and human connections”, according to its internal guidance. 

No matter their approach to Rowe, HR leaders would do well to formalise communication on the policy. Doing so will help employees to succeed in a culture where self-direction and communication are key.

Managing in the absence of visibility 

In a results-only environment, where there is no need for clock-watching, the rhythm of management changes. Regular check-ins remain important, but their focus is on enabling higher performance rather than status updates. In a Rowe model, coaching becomes the priority over supervision. Access to the right tools, mentoring pathways and shared-knowledge systems becomes critical for both employees and the managers guiding them. 

Still, even well-aligned managers may need reinforcement. If visible progress is lacking, the managerial urge to check in more often can return. The role of HR is to hold the line – to maintain clarity on objectives, protect feedback loops and prevent performance from sliding.

Rowe isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s a credible response to a working culture stretched thin by surveillance. Plenty of research suggests that workers will deliver results if provided with clear expectations, access to sufficient resources and a little bit of space. For HR leaders and managers under pressure to increase employee performance, the case for a results-first approach is becoming difficult to ignore. 

Surveillance has become common in the modern workplace. Supervision has always been a core function of managers. And employees have long bemoaned nosy, meddlesome micromanagers. But employee surveillance has become more intrusive than ever before. In the rush to implement remote working during the pandemic, many firms deployed software to monitor their employees’ screen activity, mouse movements and keystrokes, all in the name of maintaining productivity.

Seven in 10 business leaders approve of using employee-surveillance tech, according to a report by Toggl, a time-tracking platform What’s more, 75% believe they should have access to staff activity data at any time and 67% want this access to extend to their employees’ personal data, such as location. 

This appetite for oversight borders on the Orwellian and reflects a deep anxiety at the heart of modern management: if we can’t see people working, how can we be sure that they are working?