Burning Platforms: Urgency, Change & Outcomes
What are the lessons to be gleaned from the sudden shift to work from home? My biggest takeaway, by far, has been the level of flexibility humans can exhibit when they have to. The work from home arrangement into which so many have been thrown during the pandemic, required flexibility from both organizations and their employees at all levels. The shift to home-based work by massive numbers of employees was a head spinning change accomplished in a snap. And, by all reports to date, it is largely a story of success.
The speed with which the workers and organizations adapted to a new normal has been nothing short of astounding. Not that long ago virtually all workers were paid to perform their jobs on site. Additionally, until relatively recently, many not only had to show up, they were also required to punch a timeclock when arriving and departing to prove that they were at their jobs at the agreed upon times. Of course, these employees weren’t proving that they were working, just that they were at the worksite. But still, punching the clock was what was required if an employee wanted to get a paycheck.
The history of post-industrial revolution work has had employees continually pressing for less rigidity around their work arrangements. Over time they have had some success in diversifying the established norms related to how work gets done. Many workplaces have evolved from being territories in which work had to be conducted while attired in accordance with a narrow, fairly formal dress code to locations in which employee clothing choices are made by employees under a wide umbrella now encompassing “workplace casual.” Work hours have diversified as well; although they range considerably in degree of flexibility, many organizations now offer an array of scheduling options for their employees. As successive generations with new expectations have entered the workforce, employers have begun to see working arrangements that match the desires of employees as a competitive advantage in the competition for talent. The result is that employees are now driving employment arrangements more than ever before.
Until recently, however, working from home remained an elusive goal for many workers. Prior to the pandemic, it was the rare organization that offered a WFH option to all employees; some others granted it categorically or on a case-by-case basis. But significant numbers of enterprises didn’t offer any option to work remotely, despite the many employees who expressed their desire to do so. Ironically, thanks to technological advances that gave workers the ability---and, some say, expectation---to be “on” 24/7, many employees were actually already working from home: they were just doing so in addition to their regular on-site time on the job. The unwillingness of employers to formally acknowledge the idea that employees could legitimately earn their paychecks while working from home flew in the face of the reality workers experienced on a daily basis; frustrated would-be remote workers were left looking for a rationale for their plight. Employers did not fare well in those examinations: many workers were left feeling that their employers were demonstrating either a lack of regard or, worse, disrespect for their needs. Others suspected that employers were motivated by from some unnamed---and unshared--- bias in making the call to require them to work on-site.
Decades ago, world-renown management consultant and author, Peter Drucker, wisely pointed out that organizations have been rather unsuccessful in their attempts to evaluate white collar productivity. One result of that failure has been the creation of a substitute benchmark, using hours at the job site (which is easily measured) as a stand-in for productivity, the measurement of which has been elusive. What will it take to get employers disengaged from the last shreds of the ineffective but easily measured “face time” model? What have employers observed that has led them to believe that requiring employees to do their jobs in a specified office space ensures that they will be productive?
Why does it seem that employees keep pursuing more flexibility while employers appear to resist? If the recent about-face on WFH shows us anything, it is that the arrangement seems to work in a remarkable percent of cases. Why wasn’t that apparent to a greater number of employers pre-pandemic?
I believe that the answer to this question can be found in the mental models underlying the punch-card arrangements of earlier times. That same mental model is an underpinning of the old “one size fits all” policy regarding fixed work hours and prescribed workplace attire. Vestiges of that same mindset stood in the way of shifting the location of work from office parks and city buildings to kitchen tables and home offices. That issue is trust. Organizations want to get what they are paying for---a not unreasonable stance. Unfortunately, they simply haven’t been able to figure out how best to do that. As a result, an array of surrogate measures have become sacred cows. Over time, they have fallen, one by one. There has been a recognition that, for example, dressing in a narrowly proscribed way didn’t have the intended effect of better work outcomes. One of the last idols to fall is face time, AKA working on-site.
Historically employees have articulated their desires for change in how work gets done and employers have responded with caution---often seen as resistance--- to worker-initiated change. Organizations have generally proceeded slowly, careful about protecting the return on their investment in their workers. Ever alert to a possible erosion in productively, but without clear ways to measure it, employers have taken a conservative, gradual approach to changing workplace norms around how work gets done.
We are at an interesting inflection point in this on-going tug of war between employers and workers. Unlike earlier worker-initiated movements to adapt work arrangements, which employers could resist using the argument that they were untested hypothetical models, the proof of outcome is now preceding the demand for change. Thanks to the deus ex machina interference of the pandemic, workers’ desire for a shift to WFH is no longer a demand for experimentation. It is now a push to formalize an experiment that has proven outcomes. It is going to be difficult for most employers to make a rational case for ignoring this evidence.
I believe that an evaluator of how well society handled the non-medical aspects of the pandemic will be an assessment of what we learned from living through this extraordinary period together and how we leverage those understandings post-crisis. In terms of key workplace learnings, we must assess, articulate and communicate our new understanding of WFH.
Without question, there remain roles where co-location is critical to the performance of a particular job. Some work, such as that of dental hygienists or chiropractors, clearly still require physical proximity, in this case to patients. But it is important to look carefully at the assumptions we have made in the past regarding on-site physical presence as a requisite for the successful performance of work functions (telehealth as a delivery mode for health care comes to mind.) And the data is still out, for example, on whether, with proper professional preparation, instruction of certain populations or subject matter can be equally well (or better) accomplished via remote teaching.
Today’s workforce has brought to the foreground a proven capability for resilience of both workers and employees with regard to moving work to an out-of-office location. Employers who have been resisting employee pressure to offer a work from home option must take a deep breath and a fresh look at the evidence now before them. The value proposition of WFH is compelling on many fronts and denying the reasonableness of this direction will be difficult to defend. Failure to respond appropriately will send a telling message about who can trust whom in the new normal landscape of organizations and workers.