WHO CONTROLS THE WORK ENVIRONMENT?

"Manage more, supervise less."

- Bryce's Law



Good question. For years, controlling the work environment
was considered management's responsibility. After all, they were the
ones charged with the task of implementing certain business functions.
But the times have changed or have they really? Today, most young
people expect the corporate culture to adapt to their life style and
work habits, not the other way around. And there is some evidence to
this effect. For example, suit and ties have been replaced by some
rather avant-garde dress. Even "Casual Fridays" have been replaced by
grungy appearances on a daily basis. This has manifested itself to the
overall  office appearance and organization. Further, most younger office workers are now plugged into iPods
to avoid social interaction. One has to wonder if this new corporate
culture has truly been conducive to completing assignments on time and
within budget. If not, maybe a change is in order.



But the question remains, has management surrendered control over the
work environment? Well, to a degree, Yes. Some things have admittedly
changed over the last couple of decades, and management is less
sensitive to adhering to corporate policies and procedures.
Nonetheless, young employees must still conform to the corporate culture rather than their own.



Interestingly, a dichotomy has emerged in the work place; whereas
employees are given more freedom to look and act as they so desire,
micromanagement is on the rise. The two may or may not be related, but
the two phenomenons are too noticeable to be considered nothing more
than a coincidence. While employees want more participation in the
decision making process, managers are more resistant to giving it to
them. Is it possible that employee appearance and conduct doesn't
instill confidence in the manager? Not just maybe, but highly likely.
If employees look and act unprofessional, the less likely management
will trust their judgment.



Can a happy medium be found? Frankly, I think so, but it requires a
reexamination of the corporate culture by management. Companies may
balk at going back to suit and ties, but there are some fundamental
changes that can be enacted to affect discipline, organization, and
accountability; and this all begins with taking control of the work
environment.



As I have described in the past, there are both logical and physical
aspects to controlling the work environment. The physical attributes
represent those things affecting human senses and the logical affects
the human spirit. The physical work environment affects sight, sound,
touch, taste, and smell, which of course influences our perceptions.
This means management should be sensitive to lighting, temperature,
colors, personal appearance, equipment, etc. The logical side refers to
management style and reflects management's values; e.g., ethics,
conduct, dedication, professionalism, motivation, and social
interaction. As such, both the logical and physical attributes are
closely related.



The intuitive manager should spend more time on controlling the work
environment and less time on supervising the smallest details
(micromanagement). This means the manager needs to empower workers,
delegate responsibility, hold people accountable, and get the heck out
of the way. In other words, by treating people as professionals, it is
not at all unreasonable to expect them to act as such in return. By
doing so, the manager is promoting trust, and encouraging teamwork and
loyalty by giving the employees a sense of ownership in the work
products to be produced. Frankly, I believe employees prefer such an
arrangement.



The military has long understood the need for an organized work
environment. In addition to uniform appearance, you have three standing
rules of operation: either you work on something, store it away
properly, or throw it away. Clutter is avoided at all cost. True, there
is a lot of personal supervision during boot camp and a soldier knows
how to take an order, but when you are in the field, the officers do
not have time to hold your hand.



But the reality in the corporate world is that management is spending
more time on supervising, and less time worrying about the work
environment, hence the decline of discipline and organization. I tend
to describe this relationship using the game of football as an analogy.
The Head Coach is responsible for checking on field conditions and
preparing his players through practice (training) and devising a game
plan (strategy), not by going out on the field and instructing the
actions of every player. So, as you sit down to watch your favorite
bowl game in January, ask yourself how the play of the team parallels
your office. Just how much supervision is going on in the field and who
controls the work environment?



If you would like to discuss this further with me, please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail at timb001@phmainstreet.com