When Elon Musk announced that he only wanted “hardcore” employees at Twitter who would commit to “long hours at high intensity,” he reinforced the Us vs. Them mindset around the conflicting needs of employers and employees Lately, I’ve been seeing too much of this attitude, particularly regarding the debate over remote/hybrid/in-person work.
What Do Employees Want?
When the pandemic began, many businesses didn’t think remote work or flexible schedules would be possible and adjusted only grudgingly. But over time we learned that unless people are physically working with products or serving customers, they can perform just as well from anywhere, as long as they have the appropriate tools and equipment. Clearly, businesses embracing hybrid and remote work can survive and even thrive. And so can employees who, by no longer having to commute, gain extra time and flexibility to be with their kids, partners, parents, and pets; live healthier lifestyles; and take up soul-sustaining hobbies.
On the other hand, while some workers balk at reporting to work, others are sneaking back to the office because they find that environment more conducive to focusing and collaborating than working from home. Employees have realized that they can work differently and still be extremely effective, so they expect to be able to keep whatever ways of working work for them.
Where Do Organizational Leaders Stand?
I’m hopeful that good organizations recognize that all people are different—and there’s value in accommodating those differences to retain good employees. But some leaders are now requiring employees to return to the office full-time or lose their jobs. Such demands seem silly since so much work has been done at a distance for nearly three years, and not surprisingly, many employees are resisting. Meanwhile, other organizations have embraced remote work, with some permanently shedding real estate.
Leaders have much greater freedom of choice than their employees do, and yet they’re often surprised—or even offended—when employees don’t make the same choices they make for themselves. If a leader’s thinking is at all autocratic or old-fashioned, they may demand compliance rather than recognizing that even in today’s erratic labor market, good talent always has options.
Trying to balance and negotiate employees’ many different opinions and needs can be time-consuming and feel like extra work, but it’s worth it. If employees decide not to comply with new mandates, or try to comply but feel so uncomfortable that their performance sags, it eventually costs time and money to replace them. Rather than incurring the significant expenses of turnover, additional recruitment and hiring, plus learning-curve costs, wouldn’t it be better to preserve important talent? Sure, you can fire people if they won’t comply with your directives, but if your directives aren’t working, then you need to find alternative ways to convey your intentions.
Six Techniques for Getting Workers on Board
Involve employees in determining new work rules and you’ll get greater buy-in, even if the decisions don’t always go their way. Rather than making declarations about what must happen, be explicit about the fact that you want input. Gather information about needs and preferences through surveys or focus groups, then try experimental schedules and meeting structures so people can learn what works for them and provide helpful feedback rather than just voicing resistance. If possible, allow the option for some people not to participate in the provisional changes until they see how things pan out for others.
Accommodating individual needs and preferences can improve your work together, both in the office and remotely. If you have a good work culture to start with and you keep finetuning it, you can also get the benefit of regular social time together. For example, the pandemic permitted many workgroups to hone techniques to host “casual” encounters on video by using “office hours” or “collaboration hours.”
Explore formats for hybrid meetings and flexible scheduling, including allowances for remote team building and collaboration time as well as letting people skip rush-hour travel. Collect data about participation and satisfaction over several weeks, so that most problems have a chance to the surface. This way, when you finalize schedules, you’ll be able to avoid the most disruptive or uncomfortable ones. You may even wish to announce plans to revisit the changes in three or six months.
Instead of making blanket, company-wide policies, think of employees as working in different “neighborhoods” by either geography or function and encourage each neighborhood to set practices relevant to their people and goals. By organizing around groups of people who depend on each other, you may be able to satisfy more needs rather than having one rigid universal standard that actually inconveniences or hurts a greater number of people.
If you believe that your organization truly requires more in-person time, reflect on the purpose and desirability of the physical workplace for other employees besides yourself. Consult with colleagues and advisors to make sure you’re not just satisfying your own needs and preferences but are also moving in the direction that more people want. To maintain fairness, ensure that you have ways of assessing deliverables and participation that rely on achievement and quality of output and are not based on how often or how long anyone is in the office.
Lastly, make sure all managers have the skills and willingness to identify their team members’ personal goals as well as their departmental goals. Otherwise, you won’t have the shared goals that motivate people to comply with some of the strictures and structures that they might not prefer. Managerial effectiveness will help everyone explore the possibilities and find the compromises that work best for them, and successful experiments in various groups can then lend themselves to rolling out for larger groups.
Onward and upward—
LK