The Future of Working 6: Culture as the 'X' factor

This article is based on an academic research study on Working-From-Home phenomena. The mixed-method research (Quantitative and Qualitative) attempted to understand how people experience working-from-Home globally, across age groups, industries, and other demographics. If you would like me to present the study and the key findings in your organization, your network, at your podcast, webcast, or any private or public forum, I am happy to do the same, free of cost.

Our research on Working-from-home (WFH) covered about 580 respondents from across the world, across industries, stages of organizations (start-ups to mature companies), and age groups. Findings show reconciliation to WFH on all except the psychological dimensions, i.e., dealing with isolation, work-life balance, and other issues. Given such concerns, many may like to get back to their workplace. In 2015, Prof. Nicholas Bloom from Stanford led a study asking employees of a travel company to choose the option of WFH. While initially, fifty percent of the employees opted to WFH, half of them opted to return to the workplace after a few months. The main reason given by people wanting to get back to the office was that they missed the social connection.  

Such findings led me to explore the reasons why. On the surface, the need for social connection seemed logical. Well-established research confirms that humans are essentially ultrasocial beings. One study points out that depriving individuals of social opportunity, and putting them in isolation, is equivalent to, and as dangerous as someone smoking fifteen cigarettes a day! However, in the course of my focus groups, research, and conversations, I found that the social aspects are necessary but not a sufficient condition by themselves. For organizations, another critical, but not sufficiently explored dimension is the cultural dimension. One CEO who seems to have recognized this is Satya Nadella of Microsoft. In an interview with The New York Times in May, he cautioned that WFH could be harmful and may wipe out carefully built 'social capital.' in organizations. Culture, since it is not easily observable, and is considered a 'given', receives very little attention in the argument for, or against, WFH. Consequently, unless we address 'culture' consciously in the context of WFH, there is a risk that organizational culture, something that takes a long time to build, will decay. 

Every organization has very definite culture markers,i.e., some overt, some subtle. Management guru Edgar Schein (Author of Organization culture and leadership) points to a few relevant markers. These include:

a) Observed behaviors: How people greet each other, formalities, and informalities.

b) Climate and processes: Physical layout in group interactions, who sits where, how organizations manage team dynamics, conflict, trust, empowerment, etc

c) Rituals and celebrations: how the group celebrates and reinforces appropriate behaviors

d) Espoused values: Those that articulated and followed, role-modeled and reinforced

e) Purpose: How the organization views itself in terms of its who they are and their Purpose in society

f) Habits of thinking, mental models, rhythms-often called social architecture.

g) Metaphors, symbols, signals, artifacts reflected in buildings, office space, engendering oneness, and pride.

When we shifted to WFH, of course, not by choice, we had to let go of many familiar signs of cultural and social intercourse that we had got used to and comfortable with over the years. Culture manifests itself in thousands of small ways. All of a sudden, we were transported to a new place (Home), and this loss of cues, connections, and comfort was akin to a culture shock. Some of the stress and anxiety felt by employees could be due to this factor.

In understanding the effectiveness of WFH, the cultural aspect, which gives the organization its identity, cannot be ignored. Organizations need to find ways to design, curate, and drive a culture that can now be seen, observed, and practiced in a different context -virtually. 

Culture is a critical lever to create a sense of belonging and mattering to employees. If WFH is a long term reset, Organizations need to reset their cultures as well. Failure to do so will tear the connection between the organization and the employee. The use of culture as leverage will be lost. 

Consciously designing an organization and WFH culture could be a competitive advantage. Some organizations are taking advantage of the situation to use this period to deliberately refresh their cultures. COVID has broken many organizational orthodoxies, rigidities, and cobwebs. Now is the time to redesign, reinvent, and rejuvenate culture. Many new tools are available to drive this shift- progressive organizations are using tools like storytelling, nudging, and communities of practice to collectively define a new culture appropriate for the context of WFH. Several new software has hit the marketplace that allows for new ways of articulating and curating an organizations' culture.  

One of Future-of-Work's key measures is not going to be just moving to WFH or embracing new technology. It's going to be the shift in the culture. You cannot automate the old culture to succeed in this new era; you have to embrace a new one. Ignore this at your peril.