The world of work - Today

The world of work -today

The workplace has gone through many changes, some subtle, some much more obvious in our recent history.

The industrial revolution put paid to family or village countryside groups peacefully tending their flocks or harvesting cereals. It opened the floodgates to noisy factories and mills employing hundreds if not thousands of men, women and children working together tending and maintaining machines.

The first and second world wars brought more women into the workplace both on the shop floor replacing the men who had gone to fight, and in administration roles with vast open offices bestrewn with typewriters, mimeographs, and duplicators.

Now, in the post-industrial era and more recently post pandemic, where are we? While difficult to predict precisely what the workplace might look like, we are already getting some clear messages about what does work and what does not. A “Times” Raconteur report in 2020 studied the consequences of working from an office and working from home, the consequences for organisational culture and the implications for individuals.

Over the last 50 years or so, the British economy has morphed from manufacturing to service industries, fewer people at the sharp end of production, more “brain workers” based in offices rather than mills or factories. And as a result of the pandemic, with the advent of? virtual meetings platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Skype etc., more working from home.

A recent survey showed that the majority of graduates leaving university would not join an organisation that was not offering a significant amount? of time allocated to working from home. At the same time, we hear that more employers are trying to encourage staff to return to the office, and there is some survey evidence to suggest that more are indeed, doing so.

Most of the talk and articles on the pros and cons of working from home have tended to focus on the employee’s perspective, but what does it mean from the organisation’s or employer’s point of view?

An Employee's perspective - Advantages

·???????? The most commonly quoted advantage is the cost and time saving of not having to commute, sometimes providing more time for childcare (also a cost saving).

·???????? Some claim an improved work/life balance, part of which comes from reduced commuting time but having more independence to plan routines, etc.

·???????? Increased job satisfaction is also cited as an advantage, arising from greater independence and flexibility, fewer interruptions from colleagues and reduction in fatigue, improved wellbeing.

·???????? The question of increased productivity is more contentious. There was some evidence in the early days of the pandemic that productivity increased. On further investigation, it seemed that those who escaped from micromanagement (it looks from Verax data , based on our leadership diagnostics, that this applies to almost 40% of managers – probably as a result of poor training and coaching from their bosses) were more productive but it is questionable as far as others are concerned, as we shall see. While not confusing input with output, The Remote Worker Survey in 2020 reported that while 60% of office workers claimed to work for 8 hours a day or more, only 39% of remote workers did so. That does not necessarily mean that one group is more or less productive than the other. Productivity is the value of what is produced -an output.

·???????? However, “The Times” in October 2024, reported that the UK’s productivity growth rate is now lower than it was in 1850, and that only 3% of UK companies were now categorised as High Growth Companies.

While improved satisfaction may be true for some, it won’t apply to all. To really make this work, the remote worker not only needs to be a self-starter (only about 25% of the population fall into this category) but they also need to be well organised, to plan their work schedules, manage potential interruptions from family, domestic arrangements, etc. It also means understanding clearly what aspects of the role or job can be done with little input from others and what needs discussion and interdependency.

?

An Employee's perspective - Disadvantages

·???????? Human beings are social creatures. By and large we like being with other people . Working from home? can make some feel lonely and less valued and consequently stressed, and demotivated. This can ultimately affect health and harm the individual’s productivity. The biggest anxieties felt by remote workers were :????????????????????? ?- Feeling isolated37%????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?Technology does not help, 38%;?? Don’t feel connected to the company, 27%; ????????????????????????????????????? ?Changing the company culture, 24%; ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??(Abstract Survey Sept 2020 n=1079)

·???????? While there are distractions when working in an office, it is as easy to get distracted working at home. But workplace distractions may also offer opportunities to learn something new.

·???????? Trust between colleagues and between employee and employer suffers in remote working (Carolyn Dawson, Informa Tech)

·???????? Lack of collaboration and communication with others. This can be a disadvantage to the employer too. As work becomes more complex, there are few roles that can be done in isolation. Most individuals rely on others to enable them to perform well , and others rely on them in return. Yes, there are technological tools to help ameliorate the situation , but sometimes the technology gets in the way, and it is not the same, nor as efficient, as being able to walk across the office floor and talk to someone face to face. Working alongside or nearby makes that relationship and communication easier, thus increasing productivity.

·???????? The same survey of graduates referred to earlier, also reported that the majority felt that there is benefit in being in the company of others so that they could share experience, know-how, learning, as well as feeling part of something worthwhile.

·???????? Unplugging after work is one of the biggest struggles for remote workers and they miss the time gap offered by commuting that enables them to switch off work and switch on to home – and the reverse when commuting in? in the morning.

Dr Chidiebere Ogbonnaya of Sussex University surveyed 3200 UK workers using the Big Five personality test. He found that there were no relationships? between personality types and their ability to cope with remote working, except introverts were slightly more satisfied with working from home than extroverts. Those scoring high in Neuroticism suffered worse mental health working remotely and had difficulty coping.? I suspect that this was they missed the supportive, but informal support network, provided by their work colleagues.

However, this point is important. The neuroticism scale? does not specifically identify the root or symptoms of the neuroticism. The Verax Derailer scale in the Personal Effectiveness and Productivity (PEP) Diagnostic, reports the precise manifestation(s) of “neuroticism”. These can then be worked on to minimise or eliminate. This also emphasises the? need for resilience. Often this is dealt with in na?ve ways. Deal with the major Derailer first and then provide strategies and tools? to help individuals to be resilient.

An Employer's perspective

The job of managing becomes a lot more difficult with remote workers, as many of the effective management practices i.e. those that positively impact on results, are things that happen spontaneously, during the more informal interactions that take place when people work together.

According to “The Times” (7.12.20), 84% of UK business leaders say that the physical workplace contributes to instilling vision.

Opportunities to coach are often triggered by informal discussions or spotting an opportunity. In reality, the average coaching encounter typically lasts about 30 seconds or so. They are not formal sit downs for an hour to discuss a major issue. They are part of an ongoing conversation that leads to an employee’s learning and development , adjusting to new ways of working or fitting in with the culture. It is not impossible to do some of that in virtual meetings, but the opportunities are fewer, and it does not happen so naturally or spontaneously. ?The same goes for catching staff doing something right, giving them praise for doing so, - highly motivational.

If staff are not around, these informal opportunities become less frequent. This not only disadvantages the individual, but the organisation loses out through having less able employees. It could also diminish the resource pool when it comes to looking for suitable promotable personnel.

Managers and employees may not be aware of the power of this informality. We frequently ask groups of managers how many were coached by their immediate boss during the previous two weeks. Few will put their hand up. Then we ask them how many coached their staff during the same two weeks. Nearly all claim that they did. This happens at all levels within the organisation. This goes to show that so much management happens at this subliminal level. Not being present makes it difficult.

Leaders and managers are less visible ?to remote workers. This can lead to a diminution of messages, especially the reinforcement of organisational strategy , the role that individuals play in achieving the strategic goals, reinforcement of organisational direction of travel, values, etc. It can also lead to the lack of visibility of individuals from those in leadership roles and that could have a negative effect on? career progression.

While it may feel comforting to have a workforce that claims to be satisfied due to having the flexibility? to work from home, satisfaction and productivity or business performance do not go hand in hand. We have seen many examples of organisations with high staff satisfaction scores but poor productivity or business performance as well as vice-versa.

The issue of productivity and staff working from home, is still hotly debated. However, organisations need to be organised to maximise productivity. While some money may be saved? on office space, it does not guarantee productivity. Organisational structure, systems and processes and procedures have a big part to play here. Most were designed with the assumption that staff would be present to make them work. Some may have been modified to accommodate remote working , but not everywhere. But none will work well unless the individual’s job is restructured so that the person/system/procedure interface works effectively. While in some cases this may be achieved when working from home, in many cases it may not be possible. So, dependent on the role, some jobs may lend themselves better to WFH while others will not. The danger is that if this is not properly managed and organised, one could end up with a low productivity organisation and low productivity individuals. This is to no one’s advantage.

Some organisations have taken to attaching devices to staff computers to monitor the amount of time staff spend at their machines. This has shades of mill owners standing over their workers demanding they keep working. It also has strong shades of micromanaging about it. This is likely to result in resentment. Apart from demonstrating a lack of trust in their staff –(highly demotivating, as who wants to feel they are not trusted?), it is likely to be counter-productive. One employee told us that they leave a weight on the space bar of their computer, and it makes the tracking device believe they are working.

Other issues are also affected by WFH. Teamwork is essential in some situations. Teams work better when members are physically present (Yes there were remote, even global teams before the pandemic, but they were never easy to manage). The interactions between team members are not disrupted by technical issues, and as human beings we react better to the non-verbal communications in the physical presence of others. Teams are difficult enough to manage because of the dynamics between team members, between teams and other groups inside or outside the organisation, as well as the team processes e.g. team role or purpose, goals achievement, decision making, leadership, communications etc. ?Not having team members present makes it even more difficult.

What happens to organisational culture? Usually defined as “The way we do things around here”, culture must weaken if there are a lot of remote workers all doing their own thing. There is no longer an “around here”. There may be a lot of “around here”s with the result that? a weak culture leads to lack of focus, sub-groups or cliques forming (with? their own sub-cultures) that don’t work together. Eventually the organisation could fragment.

The Future?

While some form of WFH is undoubtedly a permanent feature of work in the foreseeable future there is a need to be more selective and work out who can get the most benefit and how. Clearly if one has to focus on say preparing a report or presentation, WFH may be preferable than having to do so in an open office. However, ensuring? that WFH is done so that personal and organisational productivity does not suffer is likely to be the greatest challenge, as it is likely to differ from role to role.

WFH will work better in some organisations than in others and better for some roles than others. This is not a simple binary decision – to allow WFH or not.

Work patterns and job design (not job descriptions) are one of the processes every organisation uses to achieve its objectives. These need to be aligned with the strategy and each other to achieve the organisational outcomes required by the strategy. If this can be achieved while accommodating WFH then all will be well. However, if WFH disrupts this alignment, it will militate against productivity and as such needs very careful consideration.

One ?prediction is ?that in future there will be a premium on interpersonal/communications skills and there will need to be a greater need for open-mindedness as collaboration and ongoing communications become the lubrication that will enable organisations to flourish in the ”new normal” (Magda Ibrahim IES).

There is also a suggestion that strategically, the organisations that are likely to be the most successful would be those that are the most customer centric. This puts a premium on relationship skills, an appropriate culture, processes and a level of productivity that can satisfy or better still, thrill customers.

These different undercurrents, challenges and pressures from different directions require a clear understanding of what is happening in organisations right now. Then, the trade-offs between different factors can lead to an adjustment in work patterns that are appropriate to meet the needs of different situations over time. It is still important to maintain the agility and adaptability necessary to be appropriate to changing circumstances. That will distinguish the successful organisations from others.

If you are wondering whether your organisational culture is still appropriate to achieve your business strategy, whether the processes, leadership, etc., are all aligned with your business strategy, or you would like to know what stops your key staff from being more productive, then do get in touch.

?

For more information, contact Keith Bedingham, [email protected] or call 01252 590 280.