Leadership teams are setting the hybrid direction from vision to policy. They are fundamental to our hybrid vision but are they also its biggest risk?

The disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic has dispelled long-held myths about productivity and collaboration being synonymous with the physical office and shone a light on how quickly we can adapt when needed. With 9 out of 10  employees now expecting a greater degree of flexibility in their working lives, we have a mandate to rethink the role of the office and explore hybrid models of working.

Leaders are now faced with the challenge to redesign and implement their operating model to deliver business objectives at the same time as meeting employees expectations for when, where and how they work – a huge responsibility. In this article, we explore the areas of focus that leaders will need to consider, as well as the risks that they potentially introduce, when shaping the hybrid future of their organisations.

1.      Leaders must consider the different demographics in the workforce 

EY’s March 2021 Work Reimagined Employee Survey captures views on hybrid working experiences from a range of demographics, considering personal and work-related factors for c.16k employees across 16 countries and a wide range of sectors. While our results indicate strong support for hybrid working across the board, there are also clear demographic differences that leaders will need to manage.

For example, there is a significant generational difference in terms of employee preferences for flexibility. Older generations are less keen to flex when and where they work – almost all (97%) of Gen Z agree that flexibility in when they work is important, compared with 76% of baby boomers. Broader research shows that Millennials value the social capital opportunity that an office brings, and are more likely to be ‘individual contributors’. Gen-X and older, especially with 10+ years’ tenure, are more likely to have established networks already and to see the office as a quiet space.

Leadership teams need to be conscious of these general insights, as well as the ways in which their own personal circumstances affect their instinctive judgements. Millennials represent the largest generation in the workforce, but the majority of leaders are Generation X. Leaders are less likely than the rest of their workforces to live in shared accommodation or to have hands-on caring responsibilities. In other words, leaders need to be aware that while they are the guardians of their organisation’s culture and strategy, their experiences are those of a minority group, and can not be extrapolated to all colleagues. Factors such as age, tenure, commute time and caring responsibilities all directly influence an individual’s preferences regarding hybrid work. Therefore, balancing diverse perspectives in the hybrid model that will work best for the organisation will be a true test of leadership decision-making.

So how do we ensure that those leaders responsible for hybrid design decision-making are doing so without bias?

2.      The risks of leadership-led design

We all think we’re great at knowing our biases, but we’re not. Biases are mental shortcuts that allow our brains to conserve energy from the thousands of daily conscious and unconscious decisions we make.

It’s important to be explicit about the risks of designing hybrid models, without tempering the leadership view. Unless controls are put in place, we won’t use this unique opportunity to be genuinely human-centred by listening to and designing work around all our stakeholders. Risks of moving to model design/implementation, without setting these principles and guard-rails, include:

·        Failing to consider the overt and covert benefits that different groups derive from an office. As a recent HBR article stated: “Not all individuals are equally skilled at operating within a hybrid environment. The ability to effectively navigate a hybrid environment is itself a skill and therefore a source of power. 3

·        We risk proximity bias, where people in power unconsciously favour those they can physically see.

·        Meetings and key client events are planned at times/in locations that most suit leaders, excluding others who can’t be spontaneous with their plans and attend.

·        Structural inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic – e.g. the TUC has found  that women were more likely to be furloughed during the pandemic, and are now at higher risk of redundancy than men – will not be redressed

3.      Common assumptions to avoid

It is also essential that leadership teams do not make assumptions about peoples’ productivity based on their personality. Some projects benefit from face-to-face collaboration and brainstorming, while others require more focused reflection. Whilst being more extroverted might mean you can collaborate more effectively face-to-face, it is conscientiousness that indicates productivity in general.

Recent research with a group of c5,000 supervisors and managers showed that the pandemic has changed workplace behaviours. We are now 36% more introverted and reflective, 20% less inspiration-driven and spontaneous, and 44% less extroverted and sociable2. Successful hybrid working demands clearer guard rails for assessing productivity using a variety of different metrics, for example developing a “charter” approach where leaders agree on this with employees.

 If policy-setters aren’t human-centred and inclusive in their design, there could be significant fallout in both engagement and productivity. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to experiment and consider the practice of work from all angles simultaneously: Tech, risk, regulation, workflow, role requirements, culture, inclusion, engagement, to input into the best design that you need.

4.      What principles should leaders follow?

 ·        Be data-led rather than assumption-led when designing hybrid working models

·        Experiment: share the plan with employees, try it, get feedback, and be open about adjusting as you learn

·        Communicate. Provide clear guidance in regular short, sharp bursts. Acknowledge people’s reactions to changes and respond to them openly

·        Be inclusive by providing structure and flexibility, especially when planning significant meetings and events

·        Incorporate diverse perspectives – leaders need to be accountable for representing their people, going “beyond the echo chamber” of their personal network

·        Use expert advice to fill design gaps – e.g. consult with disability networks to ensure staff with disabilities are accounted for in the hybrid model design

·        When considering how to measure performance, keep a strong focus on behaviours. ‘Sentiment’ due to proximity bias should be avoided

5.      Conclusion

The pandemic has presented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and challenge as your leadership team rethink how, where and when we work. Redesigning the work model, with humans at the centre of design decisions, will reap both short and long-term rewards. Through taking planned steps to mitigate inherent biases, at personal, organisational and societal levels, leaders can be a crucial asset in achieving the hybrid vision.

Co-authored by Jo Aidroos, EY UKI Leadership and Wellbeing Lead, and Frankie Close, EY People Advisory Services Talent Consultant. The views reflected in this article are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the global EY organisation or its member firms.

This article is part of a series we are publishing on Work Reimagined, and how hybrid models are helping us to reimagine the way we will work from now on. Others in this series include Communications and Engagement for a hybrid world[HA11] , and Gender inclusivity in transforming employment models[HA12] .