Hartford Business Journal

20 Hartford Business Journal • January 19, 2015 www.HartfordBusiness.com OpiniOn & Commentary HartfordBusiness.Com Poll Should the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority be independent from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection? ● Yes ● No To vote, go online to HartfordBusiness.com. Last week's poll results: Should CT reinstate tolls to pay for transportation projects? 43.7% Yes 56.3% No editorial PURA needs regulatory independence R egulatory independence is a hallmark of any great system of checks and balances. But Gov. Dannel P. Malloy doesn't necessarily think that applies to the state's top utility regulator, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. PURA's three commissioners issued a stinging 19-page memo last week calling for Malloy to grant them independence from the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. Under Malloy's direction, DEEP and PURA were created and folded into a single agency in 2011 to establish one energy department for the state. The move was controversial because it created an inherent conflict of interest by allowing the state agency responsible for develop- ing energy policy to control the organization responsible for regulating that policy. DEEP, for example, controls PURA's budget and is a party to nearly all cases PURA is responsible for adjudicating. PURA commissioners are correct in asserting that this creates a conflict of inter- est, and the business community should support greater independence between the two organizations. The arrangement leaves PURA vulnerable to political influences, whether they exist or not. And businesses don't want to operate in a system where poli- ticians play judge, jury, and executioner. For his part, Malloy was steadfast in his own defense, arguing that PURA commissioners were only interested in empire-building. During a press conference last Mon- day he told reporters that if the state was going to consolidate some of its bureau- cratic largesse — something taxpayers and the business community have lobbied for — such combinations of agencies and overseers was necessary. The other option, Malloy said, would be to allow organizations like PURA to hire whoever they want, whenever they want, adding to the cost of state government, and preserving the state's long history of inde- pendent fiefdoms. Malloy deserves credit for his efforts to consolidate agencies to cut down the cost of state government, but that really isn't the argument here. If Malloy wants to play the money card, we aren't buying it. This isn't about more or less money for PURA. The commissioners don't need financial independence; they need decision-making independence. The Connecticut Siting Council — a similar regulatory organization with more autonomy than PURA — has managed to stay independent without running up defi- cits. PURA could become independent of DEEP without costing the state extra money. Forcing energy regulators to go to the state's main energy policymaker every time they need to make a personnel or budgetary decision is not good governance. DEEP Commissioner Rob Klee and the three PURA commissioners might get along swimmingly now, and all of Klee's decisions on how PURA runs may be completely independent of his political views. Still, Klee won't always be DEEP's commissioner, and there will be new PURA commissioners before long. That is why Malloy should set up a proper system of checks and balances now, before the PURA-DEEP relationship sours and accusations of political gamesmanship plague the integrity of the state's regulatory oversight of the utilities industry. n otHer voiCes Work-life balance is dead By Ron Friedman O nce upon a time, work took place out- side of the home during designated hours. Today, that world is a fairy tale. If you checked your work email this Christ- mas, you're likely aware that at most compa- nies there is an unspoken expectation that employees tend to emails at all hours. It would be easy to blame heartless man- agers or short-sighted CEOs for the collaps- ing boundaries between work and life. But the causes of this cultural shift are far more complex. As Ameri- cans, we pride our- selves on hard work and self-sacrifice. As human beings, we thrive on feeling needed. Neurologi- cally, certain ele- ments of work can be addictive. Studies have found that satis- fying curiosity about a novel event — say, a new and unread email sitting in your inbox — releases dopamine in the brain, which condi- tions us to check again and again. Despite the monumental shift in the accessibility of work, organizations continue to offer employees the same advice they did before the invention of the BlackBerry: seek work-life balance. The idea holds inherent appeal. Too bad it's a myth. For many of us, compartmentalizing our work and personal life is simply not possible, and not just because of the ubiquity of email. In a growing number of companies, work now involves collaborating with colleagues in dif- ferent time zones, making the start and end of the workday a moving target. And even within organizations with more traditional hours, let's face it — standout employees are always working, even when they're not attending conference calls or corresponding over email. They're continu- ously plotting ahead and thinking up new ideas while showering, driving their kids to gymnastics, or drifting off to sleep. Until we come to terms with the fact that separating work from home is a fan- tasy, we can't begin to have an intelligent conversation about what it means to create thriving organizations. We can bemoan the blending of our professional and personal lives, or alternatively, we can look for inno- vative solutions. For the past decade I have been study- ing the science of human motivation, paying particular attention to how people can work more effectively. Over the course of review- ing thousands of academic articles for my book, I have repeatedly encountered a strik- ing gap between the latest science and the realities of the modern workplace. Take, for example, the degree of con- trol employees at your company possess over when and where they work. We tend to assume that granting workers too much leeway will lead to reduced effort; that employees will take advantage unless they are closely supervised. Yet studies have repeatedly found that the opposite is true. Providing employees with more control over their schedule — to the extent that flexibility is possible — motivates them to work harder, produce higher-quality work, and develop greater loyalty for their company. Why is this the case? For one thing, placing employees in con- trol of their schedules encourages them to work during hours when they are most effec- tive, instead of requiring them to sit coma- tose in front of a computer because it's not yet 5 p.m. Most adults function best in the first few hours after waking. Others are sharper in the afternoon. Flexible work schedules allow employees in both camps to leverage their best hours instead of conforming to an artificial eight- hour shift — one that was originally designed to maximize the productivity of a factory, not human beings. Studies also show that employees with flexible schedules work more intensely. It's because as humans, we are motivated by a norm of reciprocity. When a manager grants us the freedom of a flexible schedule, we seek to "repay" that benefit by investing greater effort. Productivity aside, flexible working offers another crucial benefit — it allows employ- ees to resolve critical personal matters when needed, so that they can bring sharper focus and clarity to their work. No wonder work- place flexibility has been linked with a host of positive well-being outcomes, including high- er job satisfaction, lower stress, and reduced work-family conflict. We live in a world in which it is acceptable for work to interrupt personal time. And yet we're not as comfortable when personal time interrupts work. Why? When organizations provide employees with a clear set of goals and entrust them to manage their time responsibly, making it acceptable for a worker to take an hour dur- ing the day to attend a yoga class, visit an elderly parent or welcome his or her child off the afternoon school bus, they generate com- mitment that ends up saving them money in the long term. Just ask Patagonia, a successful out- door clothing manufacturer. Employees at the company's California headquarters are empowered to set their own hours, given access to an on-site daycare and invited to take regular breaks during the day for exer- cise. Company restrooms even include pri- vate showers, transforming the prospect of an afternoon jog from an aspiration fantasy into a practical option. The result? Over the past five years, Pata- gonia's profits have tripled, while employee turnover has dropped to a fraction of the industry average. As for employee satisfac- tion? In the words of Billy Smith, a 26-year-old Patagonia product tester, "Landing this job was probably the best thing that ever hap- pened to me. I feel like I represent the brand as much as it represents me." Instead of endorsing the work-life balance myth, organizations are far better off empow- ering employees to integrate work and life, in ways that position them to succeed at both. Ultimately, it is companies that are quickest to realize that it is in their finan- cial interests to care for the entire employ- ee — not just the sliver of them that sits in the office for 40 hours a week — that stand to gain the greatest benefits in the form of stronger loyalty, higher engagement, and top performance. n Ron Friedman is a social psychologist and author of "The Best Place to Work: The Art and Science of Creating an Extraordi- nary Workplace". This column originally appeared on CNNMoney. Ron Friedman ▶ ▶ The arrangement leaves PURA vulnerable to political influences, whether they exist or not. And businesses don't want to operate in a system where politicians play judge, jury, and executioner.

• Cover