Creating a “new normal” for work: six assumptions we should question

This is the second in a two-part article on using disruption to rethink work. Part 1 discussed why disruption is often necessary to create significant change in work practices. Part 2 identifies assumptions about work that should be challenged as we start returning to a “new normal”.

The move to remote work created by the COVID pandemic is the largest global transformation in work practices in recent history. We have learned three interesting things from this shift: 

1. Companies had technology to support remote work but had not been using it. While the shift to remote work had challenges, companies successfully made the change in less than four weeks. This indicates that the technology needed for remote work was readily available, even if it was not fully utilized prior to the pandemic.
2. Productivity of employees was largely unchanged by the shift to remote work. It is striking how little productivity was affected despite the abrupt nature of the shift and the overall stress created by the pandemic. Productivity may even increase as people adapt to the norms of remote work and create better home office environments.
3.  Many employees prefer the option to work remotely. Employees have indicated they want to retain the ability to work remotely after the pandemic. This does not mean they never want to go to an office. But they do not want to go back to the “9 to 5” commuting days of the past.

The shift to remote work did create struggles for many employees including concerns around mental health. But it showed that companies could and arguably should have adopted remote work well before the pandemic forced it upon them. So why didn’t they do it? The answer is many leaders’ beliefs about the cost of remote work and its impact on productivity were based on false assumptions. COVID has forced leaders to rethink some of these core beliefs. 

Listed below are 6 fundamental assumptions about work that should be challenged as we move toward a “new normal” following COVID. These assumptions are based on beliefs that date back to the 20th century before the internet. They are no longer true with modern technology. The questionable nature of these assumptions has been exposed by disruptions created by the COVID pandemic. Companies’ willingness to further challenge these assumptions will shape whether this crisis leads to a truly “new normal” or we just go back to our old patterns and habits.

Questionable assumption #1. People have to be located together to work together. COVID has blown up the belief that people need to sit next to each other to work together. This does not mean in-person meetings are not valuable. But commuting every day to a shared office space is not as important as people once thought. Many companies have said they will not be returning to the old “everyone commutes to the office at the same time” work practices of the past. Employees are glad to see these changes in leadership mindset toward remote work. Recruiters are also pleased that talent can be recruited across geographies without worrying about candidates’ willingness to relocate or commute to an office. 

Questionable assumption #2. People have to work the same schedule to get the same work done. For decades companies required employees to adapt their lives to standardized work schedules set by the organization. Inflexible schedules create significant challenges for employees who must balance time commitments at work with obligations at home such as childcare.  Standardized work schedules were created in the industrial age to ensure the right number of workers were available in factories and stores at different times of day. Every employee on a shift worked the exact same schedule regardless of their personal needs or preferences. The tyrannical nature of these standardized schedules led to industrial jobs being called “prisons of measured time”. 

As a result of COVID, some companies have given employees greater control over determining when they work as a way to help balance childcare responsibilities created by the closure of schools and day cares. There are now technology solutions that allow employees to work collaboratively to balance the company’s needs with personal schedule preferences. This allows employees to work different times rather than all conforming to the exact same shift. The use of these tools requires companies to change their mindset about who sets the work schedule. It is about giving employees more ability to control their own time, and by extension have more control over their own lives.

Questionable assumption #3. People will not accept lower levels of pay. Money is an important part of work, but it is not the sole reason why people work. With the exception of highly transactional jobs, pay should also not be seen as a reward for things done in the past. It should be viewed as an investment based on the value employees will provide in the future. These two concepts are widely accepted among compensation professionals, yet we do not treat compensation as though these things were true. Employees work for many things in addition to compensation and the relative value of employees changes over time. Consequently there are inevitably many situations where it makes sense to lower pay levels for a time. But companies tend to treat compensation as something that stays flat or goes up, but almost never goes down. This makes compensation unlike other forms of financial investment. 

The financial impact of COVID has led to questioning the assumption that compensation levels cannot be lowered. Employees will naturally be wary of decreases in compensation, but research suggest that employees will accept lower pay levels as fair if they believe the decision is based on valid criteria and is consistently implemented and appropriately communicated. Changing mindsets so compensation can go up and down over time also has consequences on workforce downsizing. When a company lets someone go, they are implying the person’s contributions do not justify their cost. But it seems unlikely the person has no value at all. An alternative would be to adjust compensation down, so their contributions justify their pay. I suspect many employees would view this as a fair trade provided it was done in a truly honest manner.

Questionable assumption #4. People should be hired based on what they have done in the past. It is true that past performance is a good predictor of future performance provided that what we want people do to in the future is similar to what they were doing in the past. But increasingly companies are hiring people to perform tasks that did not exist in the past. In these situations, past experience is less relevant than future potential. This requires rethinking hiring methods. Instead of screening people based on what they have done, focus on assessing people’s ability and willingness to learn future skills. Doing this effectively requires using sophisticated hiring tools that go well beyond the traditional applications screening questionnaire and job candidate interview. COVID led to several examples of this approach where companies transitioned employees furloughed by decreased demand in the hospitality industry into significantly different roles in the healthcare and grocery industries.

Questionable assumption #5. Employees must choose between being healthy or making money. When the COVID pandemic started many companies changed sick leave policies so employees could stay at home to fully recover from the flu without losing pay. Prior sick leave policies did not give employees adequate time to recover from illness. Many employees worked while sick rather than lose pay. This practice is so common it even has a name: presenteeism.  Taking time away from work to attend to health issues is often punished by withholding pay or denying career opportunities. Despite research showing the impact employee wellbeing has on business performance. There is a big difference between missing work due to lack of health versus missing work due to lack of motivation. Yet many corporate policies and norms treat the two as though they were the same. COVID clearly illustrated why this assumption needs to be challenged and rethought.

Questionable assumption #6. Companies should be responsible for employee healthcare. I almost left this off because it is such a highly politicized topic. But it cannot be ignored if we want to create a better “new normal” of work. The United States is one of the only countries that assumes companies should be responsible for providing employees with access to affordable healthcare coverage. This societal assumption places adverse constraints on both employees and employers. It is not something employers want to be responsible for nor is it a core competency of most companies. It is a major barrier to hiring since healthcare costs are largely unrelated to salary levels. It adversely impacts people who choose to pursue freelance or contract career paths. And it limits labor mobility because employees cannot afford the risk of losing healthcare benefits. This makes access to healthcare a dominant factor in many people’s career decisions even though it is unrelated to actual job performance or career development. 

Making employers responsible for providing healthcare is like making employers responsible for providing housing. It decreases labor mobility and prevents effective transfer of talent within the economy. It hinders the ability of companies to hire employees and the ability of employees to change employers. It makes unemployment far more devastating as families loses both their income and their healthcare at the same time. People can reduce much of their spending if needed. But healthcare is a cost that people have little ability to control. This is why companies that furloughed employees due to COVID continued covering their healthcare as a way to bring them back after the pandemic recedes. If the United States wants a highly adaptable labor market, then it needs to challenge this assumption that companies should be responsible for providing access to healthcare coverage. Of course, this raises questions about who should be responsible for ensuring people have access to healthcare. But that is a discussion that is more about politics and social beliefs than work.

Using technology to navigate and create a new normal of work. Challenging these core assumptions requires focusing on what work should be given the realities and capabilities of today. Questioning existing work beliefs that are rooted in the business markets and technologies of the past. Three recent innovations in HR technology will be particularly critical for making this transition.

• Specialized HR applications. As a result of cloud technology platforms, organization have ready access to a diverse and constantly growing array of highly specialized HR applications. These apps enable companies to rethink all aspects of work from how employees are hired to how they are trained and paid. HR professionals must embrace these apps as critical tools for reconceptualizing how work is performed. 
• Human Experience Management (HXM) Systems. Effectively transforming work requires balancing company goals and requirements with employee expectations and motives. HXM systems enable companies to balance business objectives and employee experience. This is critical to creating a new normal where employees view work in terms of purpose and opportunity rather than requirements and constraints. A work that in many ways no longer feels like “work”.
• Intelligent Enterprise Platforms. Many of the barriers to transforming work will come from leaders concerned about how changes will impact business operations. Addressing these concerns requires using intelligent enterprise platforms that link HR technology and business operations systems so companies can see how changes in work influence productivity, profitability, and customer engagement. 

The current COVID pandemic is hopefully a once in a lifetime event. It is up to us to also make it a rare opportunity to change the way we think about work. To move from old ways of working that emphasized standardization, requirements, and routines to new ways of working that emphasizes flexibility, learning and potential. We have the technological capability and the business need to embrace these changes. The main barrier is our willingness to let go of familiar habits of the past in order to create a better future.