Future Of Work Idiocy

First I need to give you a definition for “social desirability bias,” which is essentially: “the tendency of research subjects to choose responses they believe are more socially desirable or acceptable rather than choosing responses that are reflective of their true thoughts or feelings.”

Sweet.

Now I need to move you to an article on HBR written by the chief of research for the Gartner HR practice on nine trends for work in 2021 and beyond.

Obviously a lot of trend articles are generic, and ultimately say the same things, make toothless predictions, or get generic enough that someone can point to them in five years and say “Hey, that was vaguely kinda accurate.” This is not Bill Gates calling his COVID shot in 2015; this is mostly a slopfest.

This article has a lot of very woke-level stuff about mental health and branding around social justice issues, and I think a lot of us would want to believe that companies will head in this direction. I think the more logical parts of our brain realize that companies are probably not going to head in these directions, even as society shifts, because it’s very easy to justify the role of a company as “making money,” “keeping the lights on,” or “creating jobs,” whether or not those jobs are any good and can help people pay bills be damned.

Let’s investigate this a little bit.

“Life experience”

We had employee engagement; those stats barely moved. Then we had employee experience; ditto. Somewhere in there we had “employee life cycle.” Now I guess we’re just smashing words together, because there’s apparently something called “life experience” now. To wit:

According to Gartner’s 2020 ReimagineHR Employee Survey, employers that support employees with their life experience see a 23% increase in the number of employees reporting better mental health and a 17% increase in the number of employees reporting better physical health. There is also a real benefit to employers, who see a 21% increase in the number of high performers compared to organizations that don’t provide the same degree of support to their employees.

Now, there are some great bosses in the world who do care about these things. Executives? A few; not many. Here is what you’d get back on most of that stuff:

Mental health: “Tell them to get a therapist. We offer benefits, don’t we? When they’re here I need them hitting numbers.”

Financial health: “I pay them a salary above zero, don’t I? I’d rather have that money back in the biz or in my bonus. They can make ends meet. If they need to drive Uber, they can at night. I hear teachers do it.”

Sleep: “How is this my concern? I don’t live with them. Get an apnea machine, or a wife that likes sex more!”

Exec guys — still mostly men — do not view “life experience” as their purview. In their mind, they offer benefits and a salary, and they have convinced themselves via yes men that said benefits and salary are competitive, and that’s it. That’s where the train stops moving. “Life experience?” No. Their focus is deals and growth. Period, full stop.

Social justice

Here lies the pull quote:

Gartner research shows that 74% of employees expect their employer to become more actively involved in the cultural debates of the day. I believe CEOs will have to respond in order to retain and attract the best talent.

However, making statements about the issues of the day is no longer enough: Employees expect more. And CEOs who have spent real resources on these issues have been rewarded with more highly engaged employees. A Gartner survey found that the number of employees who were considered highly engaged increased from 40% to 60% when their organization acted on today’s social issues.

You can re-frame this research pretty easily: if you live in an urban area and your rent is $1500/month, would you rather your CEO posts woke shit on Instagram, or would you rather your CEO keeps driving the company forward so that you can be paid and make that rent payment?

Similarly, would you be “highly engaged” more by the potential for a raise than your CEO going all Wokey McWokerson on you?

Right. See, this is just framed wrong. Most people want a good boss, a supportive team, opportunities for growth, and a fair salary that can keep growing with time — that’s honestly (some of those factors) why people gravitate to government work, where salary increases are baked in on many positions. If my CEO is tweeting at Deray McKesson like crazy but the company is burning down around me, I mean … it’s not that valuable to me.

Mental health

Written about this literally dozens of times, but mental health is often stated as a priority and then back-slid, for hundreds of different reasons: money priorities, the above attitude of “I offer them benefits, don’t I?” and much more. The core problem of the mental health-and-work intersection is that burnout to an average person is a normative approach to work to a decision-maker. Those guys will run through a wall 72 hours/week for their own perception of relevance and bank account status. Most human beings won’t do that.

It’s OK for analysts to write long, flowing pieces about how this stuff is a “crisis.” For something to be a crisis, the people in charge need to inherently care. Hence, work burnout is not a crisis. Neither is work stress. Most execs look at people burning out and think “Snowflake” or “Go work someplace that isn’t as competitive.”

Social desirability bias

What’s happening here is that a respected research firm is coming to executives and saying “What’s the deal?” For the executive, the deal is the same as it ever was: make money, print money if possible, placate (and fellate) investors, show growth, get a nice bonus, take some trips, buy a bigger house or a second property, and call it a year. The Christmas card will probably look pretty nice. That’s the deal, it’s always been the deal, and it’s not shifting as the deal anytime soon.

But when someone comes knocking on “future trends,” and 2020 was awash in riots and ER doctors committing suicide and flawed leadership left and right, it’s better to say stuff like “a focus on mental health” and “a focus on social justice.” In reality, the percentage of meetings that senior leaders take on mental health issues is probably .000003; the percentage they take on new revenue plays is 57 or higher. And you can’t fault them; they see the latter as their job and the former as some millennial nuisance.

This stuff is social desirability bias to the core. After Floyd and the black squares movement, how many corporate boards lost white people for others? Right. It literally took people scaling the walls of the U.S. Capitol and killing a cop for a few CEOs to say “Hey, we might stop donating money to you.” It took literal glass being shattered and bodies on the floor for them to take back a $5,000 donation. You think they care about Linda’s mental health over in customer support? They don’t.

I respect Gartner, but you need to eye this up a little bit.