TVRLS-WFHSQ:A New Tool to measure the suitability of working from Home

T V Rao Learning Systems Develops a New Tool to measure the suitability of working from Home

Work from Home Suitability Quotient (TVRLS-WFHSQ)

© T V Rao Learning Systems Pvt Ltd

Work from Home does not suit everyone. By making it a policy and making everyone work from home on some days or all the time firms may bring down their productivity and increase transaction costs.

When you pay Rs. 30,000 (thirty thousand rupees) to any employee, he/she costs three rupees a minute. An hour wasted is 180 rupees wasted. Working from home is more suited for certain individuals who save commuting time and related energy and give higher level of productivity. Those with do not have infrastructure and other facilities to work from home, are subject to interruptions and social pressures due to multiple roles they have  to perform at home may not be able to give their 100% working from home. Hence it is advisable for firms to identify those that are ideally suited for WFM home and develop a framework for WFH than rushing into policies.

If you have a workforce of 50 employees and all of them are asked to work from home, even if it does not suit 20% of them you will be lowering your productivity.  For example, if the CTC of each of the 50 employees is Rs. 12 lakhs. That means each one of them is on a rupees one lakh per month gross remuneration and each of them cost you Rs. 600 an hour. Approximately. a productive time loss of one hour a day means at least 20 to 25 hours a month per employee or equal to Rs. 12,000 a month per employee. For 10 of them (20% of the 50 employees) it costs 12 months x Rs. 12,000 x 10 = Rupees 14,4000 (14.4 lakhs) and opportunity cost is Rs. 1.4 crores. That will be the saving your company can have by differentiating those who are suitable from those who are not suitable and take preventive or corrective action.

How to deal with those not suited to work from Home?

Firms must first identify the reasons. The diagnostic tool by TVRLS, Work from Home suitability quotient is based on the assumptions that employees can give maximum productivity f they have the following to work from home:

1.      Infrastructure facilities measured by Infrastructure quotient (InfraQ)

2.      Interruptions and Interference quotient (InterQ)

3.      Personality and attitudes Quotient (PAQ)

4.      Productivity and Time saved quotient (PTQ)

 

The four quotients add to give a percentage score or an overall WFHSQ. The corrective actions of company based on this tool include:

·         Providing infrastructure and other facilities

·         Training to manage WFH (attitude and time management training)

·         Family counselling

·         Establishing monitoring and other support in consultation with employee

·         Decision to encourage WFH all days or some days for each employee

·         Decision to discourage not allow some individuals to work from home

·         Job redesign and work allocation and reallocation to facilitate those with high suitability to WFH

·         Etc.

 

The tool takes 10 minutes and will be available soon for use. Firms will be able to identify with the help of this tool those who are suitable to work from home and save a lot of unproductive time. They will also get the best from employees by using the tool and designing appropriate interventions.

Enhance your Employee Productivity by using this Diagnostic Tool

Firms may desire to enhance their employee productivity by diagnosing individuals who are suited to work from home and also suggesting mechanisms to save time and use talent appropriately

TVRLS believes that happy people give higher levels of value add. Participative diagnosis helps enhance happiness, satisfaction, and engagement. Using this easy to use tool:

 Plan interventions to maximize productivity through WFH

 Formulate polices or frameworks to work from Home

·       Examine the impact of these frameworks and policies and recommend to firms. 

     Coach employees to maximize the impact of WFH

  

For details write to: tvrlsblr@gmail.com

Are you the Sower or the Seed: A Question for Leaders

Are you the Seed or Sower: Reflections for Leaders & Coaches?

T. V. Rao

(tvrao@tvrao.com)

A sower went to sow the seed. Some fell on the rocks and did not germinate or as soon as they germinate the sun burnt them. Some fell among the fence and soon after they grew a little the fence suppressed from growing. Some fell on the fertile land and they germinated grew and gave fruits and shelter to many others.

 This parable has many lessons. Every leader is a seed. Without growth and germination, you cannot give shelter and lead others. In my interactions and even in coaching sessions I am confronted with many types of people:

Type 1: I am like a seed on the rocks. Most people around me are rigid with strong views and I am unable to do anything. I am simply breaking my head and finally I am giving up.

Type 2: I am surrounded by strong fence. Only their opinions are heard, and I have no say. I am not given an opportunity to show my talent and lead. I can even be better leader then them if only given an opportunity.

Type 3: I am happy to be in an organization where I can do a lot of things. It is very fertile and prepared organization to bring change and make an impact.

 My response to Type 1: Remember you are not merely a seed; you are thinking seed, walking seed, and talking seed. Think of alternative ways to break the rock. The rock may not be as solid and rigid as you think and it may be fragile rock or a rock of ice that needs a little heat and it will melt and change the surroundings to the advantage of all. If you still find the rock to be rock despite your talking, then walk away from the rock and search for a more fertile soil. If you are finding yourself on the rocky terrain all the time, introspect if you have a knack of going on to the rocks so that you can defend your non-germination or use it as an excuse for your laziness or incompetence. Examine the nature of yourself and since you are a thinking seed you can transform yourself to be a seed that germinates even in rocky terrain. How many plants have we not seen among the rocks and even on the rocks? Be one of them!

 My response to Type 2: Perhaps the fence you see around you are imaginary. Check your own thoughts and try experimenting by removing the fence. Fortunately for you, like you yourself, the fence around you is filled with thinking, walking, and talking plants. You can enter a dialogue with them and convince, negotiate and if necessary, even threaten of walking away to their disadvantage. They are perhaps living there by making others believe they are there to protect you. Perhaps they are being nurtured to protect you and they do not even realize that in their eagerness to protect you, they are not allowing you to grow. Think, reflect, dialogue and experiment to convert the fence into your support. If they continue to still cripple you, walk away. Do not go in search of more fences and plants to protect you. Go to free and fertile land as you are a thinking, talking, and walking seed with tremendous potential and possibilities.

 My response to Type 3: Good, you are lucky. You have made it. How about making it more. Causing more happiness to others and multiplying your type of seed that can germinate anywhere and help others. Build yourself to be self-multiplying seed. You can do it because you are not an ordinary seed. You are a seed that can think, walk, and talk. Teach others your experiences. Perhaps your story will tell others how you converted a rocky terrain into a fertile land. Or how you managed the fence around you and over grew to the current leadership level. Convert yourself to be a sower of seed. You can be an institution builder. and multiplier of talent.

 For Leaders, CEOs, CXOs, People Managers HR Professionals: You are both the sower and the seed. As a seed, reflect and attempt to be like Type 3 above. As a seed you should be excellent. As a sower you have even more responsibility to choose right seed, separate them from bad ones and ensure that they are planted in the fertile soil. It is your responsibility to prepare the ground or chose the ground that is fertile. Sometimes you are not even aware of the ground where you planted your seed. You may have mistaken the rocky terrain to be fertile soil or may not have even noticed the fences around the place you planted the seed. Once you planted your job is not over. In fact, it begins after you plant. You must be in touch and see how the seed is germinating and growing. You need to handhold until such time they become mature enough to grow by themselves and withstand weather and other fluctuations.

It is easy to be a seed (constant learner) and it is more difficult and responsible to be good sower, because, as a sower you should your self be a good seed and as sower  you should have nurturing ability, judgement,  empathy, compassion, and ability to convert the rocky soil into fertile place and remove the fences or work with the seed to remove the imaginary rocks and fence around them that is not letting them grow.

As a leader you are a thinking, talking and a walking seed and sower. What can you not achieve if you realize the greatness of a leader, Teacher, CEO, CXO, HR Professional? Whoever you are you could be more- because Human is a Possibility. 

Functonomy ; A Less Recognised Disease in Organizations

Functonomy, Systonomy, Structonomy and Actionomy: Organizational Diseases Less Recognised

T. V. Rao

About 55 years ago I read about an interesting concept called "Functional Autonomy"introduced by the famous Psychologist Gordon All port. The concept said that actions started to fulfil certain needs originally become autonomous over a period of time and get continued for their own sake even when the original need ceases to exist. As one of my professors of Psychology  Dr. E G Parameswaran explained those days, a person with a failed love resorts to drinking or or smoking to manage his frustration; and after a few years even when he has a new partner and is happy, continues to drink or smoke. The behaviour of smoking and drinking has become functionally autonomous and has become a goal in itself. It is powerful concept of Allport.

Structonomy: I find this operating in many organisations. Structures that are started to fulfil originally a need (for expansion, problem solving, growth, quality assurance, supply chain , speed, customer delight etc.) are continued for unlimited time and are made self-perpetuating even when the original need ceases to exist. This goes some times to a pathological extent and becomes a burden on the organization. For example if you started a "Recruitment Division"in a company when you are recruiting large numbers of people the department continues to not only exist but expand even when recruitments are reduced drastically. Some of them are maintained o serve the recruitment consultants who then find new forms of work in that organisation.Recruitment is just an illustration, there could be many departments structurally become autonomous and continue to exist and even become a drag on the organisation as they have created enough work for themselves and others. Organizations find it difficult to wind up structures once they stated and structures make sure that they continue to exist by finding out new reasons for their existence adding a lot of fat to organizations. This is particularly prevalent in government and there is always a protective reasons of social purpose and employment.

Thisi true not  only with structure but also with Functions (Functonomy) where functions started to fulfil certain needs, goals become autonomous and continue for their own sake without fulfilling the original goals or needs. I have seen this happen with HRD or Human resource Development where the function converted itself into Human Resources Department and found many reasons to continue and even expand. Originally starts with one HRD Managers and gets eventually elevated to AGM, DGM, CGM, Director, Executive Director or President etc. without even fulfilling the original goals and coming up with new vision, mission and values etc. This is not to say what exists as a genuine growth of the function is unwarranted. Many grow in a planned way and fulfill the needs or create new needs and change themselves to strategic business partners etc. Needed or not needed is subject to review and examination. A training department started to build skills among unskilled workers eventually transforms itself into Training Institute or Leadership training Institute or Management development Center even when there is no need for skill development and some one else (including an outsourced agency) is developing skills. 

Please don't mistake me a cynical as I am not saying all such functions are not needed. I only mean those that have become autonomous and continue to exist even after the original purpose does not exist.  

Systonomy is a disease where a system or a set of systems started to fulfil originally certain purpose or goals continue to exist even after  the original purpose for which the system is needed ceases to exist. For example performance management systems started to bring objectivity in assessment and bell curve as a means to reward employees and promote internal competition will continue even after discovering that the bell curve ahs the reverse impact of demotivating people and than motivating them. 

Actionomy  (I prefered to sue Actionomy rather than Actonomy as certain companies have that name and I don't mean offence to them) is a disease where certain activities or actions a startered to fulfil originally certain goals (reflection ,review and development)  continue to exist when those ends are no more an issue or not needed. For example I have seen many organisations starting 360 Degree Feedback as a development tool and eventually incorporating it  and continuing it as a PMS tool rather than a voluntary reflection and development tool. 

Solution: The only way to eradicate this disease is a periodic review of the structures, systems, functions and activities to ensure that unwanted ones are discontinued. Management as a class and as a process could some time be a self perpetuating and self multiplying virus. If this virus spread unwanted systems, processes and activities the disease could become cancerous and g bring doom to the organisations. I would particularly cautious government departments for this as most government departments are subject to this virus. They were already infected with the virus of target setting in departments like police and taxation whre targets form a part of Performance appraisals and innocent public suffer due to the virus of target obsession. This happens even with Doctors in private hospitals, who else can be spared?