ReportWire

Tag: flexible work arrangements

  • The Microshifting Trend Can Engage Your Employees and Boost Productivity—If You Set the Right Boundaries

    [ad_1]

    Many studies already say that one of the most powerful incentives you can offer your staff in today’s stressful, competitive workplaces is meaningful perks — with flexible working hours or hybrid and remote work models high on the list. Gen-Z, in particular, is enamoured with workplace philosophies that let them achieve better work-life balance. So it’s odd that one new flexible working trend, “microshifting,” has gotten mixed reviews, with experts suggesting it can result in an undefined and thus perhaps more stressful workday, or embolden managers to contact staff outside of traditional office hours. A new report, however, highlights some benefits of this trend, and advises managers on how to make it work for everyone.

    Microshifting is one of those buzzy new business jargon terms, and it sounds a lot like a new label for a long-established worker methodology: work hardest when it’s best for you and your energy levels, rather than slogging away slowly but steadily for eight hours. News site Indy100, reporting on the phenomenon, simplifies this to managers encouraging “workers to tackle tasks in short bursts, whenever and wherever possible” instead of waiting for the perfect time. With modern work schedules punctuated by frequent Zoom calls, staff meetings, group Slack debates and so on, time spent in the 21st-century office passes in interrupted lumps — so microshifting seems like a great fit for maximizing productivity when you’re trying to tackle meaningful tasks.

    Peter Duris, CEO and co-founder of small AI-centric career assistant service Kickresume spoke to Indy100 on the topic, defending the idea of microshifting as a “great way for employees to balance their personal responsibilities alongside work.” 

    For workers trying to persuade their managers about the benefits of this working style, Duris suggests the best way to gain approval is to “Let your manager and team know when you’ll be available so everyone can plan around your schedule. Using a shared calendar to log your working hours and breaks can help keep things running smoothly.” This may tackle impressions that you’re slacking off or are simply unavailable when a colleague “needs you,” when in fact what you’ve done is compress several hours of normally interrupted work into one continuous burst. To maximize your own microshift efficiency, Duris also recommends working out when you feel most energetic, and then “complete your high-priority tasks during your most productive hours.”

    From a managerial point of view, if your workers seek to microshift and tackle job tasks outside normal working hours or on a radically different schedule, it’s still important to “schedule core working hours for the whole team,” according to Duris because you can then arrange to have meetings and collaborative working sessions in this window. Check-ins on a regular basis are also important because some people end up overworking, possibly raising the risk of burnout — an irony for a working model that is said to be better for work-life balance. 

    Microshifting also doesn’t need to be a remote working habit, or rely on out-of-office hours. It can also happen in the office during regular work periods. It’s just a question of allowing your staff to choose how and when they’re available for team-centric activities, and which hours are most compatible with intense work bursts for their individual needs.

    So, what’s the big takeaway from this for your company?

    The idea of microshifting is a dramatic contrast to the way numerous companies are now pushing for workers to return to the office, allegedly for (possibly misguided) improvements to teamwork and productivity. Microshifting implies a high level of trust from management to workers, enabling higher staff autonomy, which make people feel valued at their jobs and keen to engage and deliver more when tackling work tasks. Critics of RTO rules may point out that it implies low levels of managerial trust in the workforce.

    But microshifting also runs counter to trends like “task masking,” something said to be a typical Gen-Z trick: essentially it means staff are working very hard to look like they’re working very hard, when in actuality they have little work to do at certain moments. Task masking is part of the evolving conversation about traditional workplace culture expectations—and it’s driven by anxiety that if a worker doesn’t appear to be slaving away, they may be targeted by management for downsizing or performance improvement processes. Again, this centers around trust: if your managers trust you to microshift, they won’t be critical when they see you in a low-work moment.

    If your workers are keen to try out alternative working habits, it’s worth bearing much of this in mind, and having meaningful discussions about boundaries, trust levels and productivity expectations.

    [ad_2]

    Kit Eaton

    Source link

  • Why Microshifting, the Hot New Flexible Work Trend, Is a Problem 

    [ad_1]

    Data shows that workers and bosses are already at war over where to work with management demanding more days in the office and employees trying to buck these mandates. But according to a recent report a new front has opened in the battle over workplace flexibility. It centers not on where employees work, but when. 

    When video conferencing company Owl Labs surveyed 2,000 U.S. workers for its 2025 State of Hybrid Work report, almost half reported they did not have enough flexibility in regards to when they worked. What kind of flexibility were they hoping to get?

    Something that Owl Labs calls “microshifting.” You may know it simply as breaking up your day as you see fit, taking an hour or so to run an errands or recharge when you need and returning to your work whenever suits you best. 

    Whether you use the latest business jargon for microshifting or not, it’s clear it’s popular with employees. 65 percent said they’d like to work this way and 37 percent said they would turn down a job that did not provide flexible scheduling. But experts suggest workers should be careful what they wish for. 

    A new term for an old phenomenon 

    Microshifting might be the new buzzword, but the idea of working whenever suits you best isn’t new. It’s been on the rise since the pandemic exploded old expectations about how our workdays are organized. 

    Back in 2022 Microsoft researchers looking at data on the use of the company’s products documented the rise of what they called the ‘triple peak day.’ Workers, the numbers showed, were most active on their computers before lunch and after lunch. That’s as you’d expect from a traditional office workday. But there was a new third spike in the usage data too. Many of us were logging in during the quiet hours right before bed. 

    The Microsoft researchers called this mass return to our laptops around nine or ten at night, the “triple peak day.” Owl Labs analysts would probably look at the same numbers and see it as evidence of “microshifting” in action. 

    The problem with an undefined workday 

    Just as previous research suggests that microshifting isn’t a new phenomenon. It also offers several reasons why workers might want to think carefully before they demand it as a formal policy from their organizations. 

    The appeal of microshifting is obvious. We’ve all had a dentist appointment or kid’s soccer game we need to be at during traditional work hours. The ability to step out for these obligations and make them up another time makes the juggle massively easier. But making the workday amorphous and open-ended also comes with costs. 

    A variety of pandemic-era data shows that when workers are offered more flexibility in where and when they work, their workdays tend to balloon. Yes, they have more control over their time. But they also tend to end up working more hours. Different studies came up with slightly different figures, but flexibility seems to have stretched the work day by an hour or two. 

    In real life, asking your boss for the flexibility to run out for some errands often translates to giving them permission to urgently email you at 8:30 at night and expect a prompt reply.  

    Does microshifting actually reduce stress? 

    Not only can asking for ‘microshifting’ embolden management to expect more after hours responsiveness. Other research suggests it might not be as good for workers’ peace of mind as they expect. When Google asked workers to report whether they prefer to keep their work and home lives rigidly separate (they labeled these folks “segmentors”) or blend the two (“integrators”), the search giant discovered one approach was associated with higher life satisfaction. 

    “We found that, regardless of preference, Segmentors were significantly happier with their well-being than Integrators. Additionally, Segmentors were more than twice as likely to be able to detach from work (when they wanted to),” Google reported. 

    Interweaving work and life sounds appealing. But it can also lead to a blurring of boundaries that can lead not only to longer hours, but higher stress and less relaxation. 

    Be careful what you ask for 

    All of this isn’t to say that workers have no idea what’s good for them and they should welcome being basically chained to their desks from 9 to 5. Adults have complicated, busy lives and have every right to demand the flexibility to handle personal issues during work hours when they arise. That’s a matter of simple practicality and respect. 

    But by turning an everyday level of understanding into a formal policy with a buzzy label, microshifting runs the risk of going a step further. It doesn’t just stretch the boundaries of the workday to accommodate real life. It threatens to dissolve them. 

    That might sound good at first. But evidence suggests that saying the workday is whenever seems convenient can have unforeseen consequences for workers. If you can declare it’s easier for you to get something done at 11 p.m., why can’t your boss? Or, for that matter, your constantly-on-the-clock brain? 

    It’s one thing to ask to step away for an hour here and there. It’s another to allow work to leak into every moment of your life. Before you advocate for microshifting, make sure that’s not what you’ll end up with. 

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Stillman

    Source link

  • Prepare For This Seismic Shift in Employee Expectations — Or Say Goodbye to Your Top Talent. | Entrepreneur

    Prepare For This Seismic Shift in Employee Expectations — Or Say Goodbye to Your Top Talent. | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Let’s be brutally honest: Would you stick with your company if it failed to prioritize your wellbeing? You’re not alone if the answer is a resounding “no.” Workers are sending a clear message to the corporate world — wellbeing is non-negotiable. Forget the antiquated notion that a hefty paycheck is the ultimate carrot on the stick. The data is in, and it’s irrefutable: workers really care about their wellbeing and flexibility, and corporations better listen if they want to win the talent wars.

    Workers are working less voluntarily

    The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recently released a paper that delves into why the U.S. labor market has tightened post-pandemic. It focuses on two prongs of this phenomenon: The declining number of workers and the receding number of hours those workers are willing to commit to their jobs.

    In the realm of academic endeavors, one line from this paper feels like a bombshell: “Circumstantial and direct evidence indicates that the hours reduction among workers [from 2019 to 2022] is voluntary. In addition, although the reduction may have been caused by the pandemic situation, it is expected to persist.” This is not a fleeting, reactionary change. Rather, it’s an enduring shift in worker behavior and priorities, revealing a collective reassessment of what’s truly valuable in life.

    This shift is most pronounced among men, particularly those with college degrees and those in their main working years. It signals that the individuals who traditionally occupied power seats in the corporate world are stepping back, reassessing their options, and consciously opting for a reality that allows them to live fuller lives outside their cubicles. And here’s where it gets interesting: It’s those men who were already logging in more hours and earning more who have chosen to pull back the most. What does that tell us? These are not decisions of necessity but are based on the realization of an unspoken need for balance, wellness and, dare we say it, happiness.

    What was merely a hunch or a buzzword in corporate seminars is now backed by empirical evidence: Workers are not just saying they desire more from life than work — they are manifesting these desires through tangible actions. This act of self-determination is altering the landscape of labor availability, making this a two-edged sword. On one hand, we are moving toward a more balanced and humane concept of work; on the other, it brings about challenges of labor shortages that cannot be ignored.

    In the corporate arena, this leads to a potentially seismic shift. If you are a business leader failing to account for this fundamental transformation in worker attitudes, prepare for a rude awakening. Worker wellbeing is no longer a “nice-to-have,” it’s a “must-have” if you hope to attract and retain the top-tier talent needed to fuel innovation and growth in an increasingly competitive market.

    This paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis doesn’t merely add an interesting viewpoint to the dialogue about the future of work. It serves as a clarion call for the immediate reevaluation of long-held assumptions about what motivates people to commit their time and energy to an organization. The time to act is now because, as the Fed suggests, this is not a temporary phenomenon; it’s a deeply rooted, long-lasting transformation that is expected to endure. Ignore it at your own peril.

    Related: Workers Are Disengaged. Here’s How Employers Can Win Them Back.

    The numbers don’t lie

    Gympass’ annual State of Work-Life Wellness Report this October has gifted us some startling figures from a survey of over 5,000 global employees that reinforce the Fed’s findings. A whopping 87% said they would consider jumping ship from a company that disregards employee wellbeing, a notable increase from 77% just a year ago. Moreover, 93% equate wellbeing with salary in terms of importance, up 10 points from last year’s 83%. The clincher? An overwhelming 96% will consider only those companies that give prime importance to employee wellbeing for their next job hunt.

    When it comes to wellbeing and the workplace, there’s a myth that has long been shattered: One size fits all. In reality, our surroundings wield considerable influence on our emotional and psychological states.

    Employees operating in work environments that don’t resonate with their preferences for flexibility — such as remote-capable workers forced to do in-office work due to a top-down mandate against their will — are not just mildly inconvenienced: many are categorically struggling. According to Gympass, workers who find themselves in such discordant settings are twice as likely to describe their condition as “struggling” or “really struggling” than those fortunate enough to be in their ideal work environments. Let’s pause to consider the weight of that statement. It means that a vast swath of employees are grappling with a work setup that not only affects their daily satisfaction but potentially curtails their longer-term mental wellbeing.

    But the report doesn’t stop there; it draws a stark picture of how drastically our sense of wellbeing can be impacted. While 77% of employees working in their preferred flexible environments feel equipped to take care of their wellbeing, this percentage nosedives to a startling 65% for those who don’t have the luxury of such alignment. That 12% differential isn’t merely statistical noise; it’s the loud cry of an unsatisfied and disengaged workforce. And more than a third of employees wish they worked in a different work environment that aligns with their preference.

    Let’s call it what it is: this is a seismic shift in employee expectations. Flexible work arrangements are no longer just attractive benefits to be dangled in front of potential hires. They have transitioned into non-negotiable components of an employment package. Why is this so vital? Because of the nexus between flexibility and wellbeing underpinning workplace satisfaction, engagement, and productivity.

    And herein lies the vulnerability to cognitive biases that can hamstring effective decision-making. One major obstacle is the status quo bias, an innate preference for keeping things the way they are. Business leaders clinging to conventional work arrangements risk not just falling out of step with current trends but also substantially diminishing their appeal to top talent. Another cognitive trap is the empathy gap, wherein decision-makers underestimate the emotional needs and responses of others—particularly their employees. This bias could lead to underestimating just how essential flexibility is to staff wellbeing.

    Related: Back In The Office? Why Your Company’s One-Size-Fits-All Approach Is Destined to Fail.

    Strategies for a wellbeing-centric, flexible work ecosystem

    Many corporate leaders are acutely aware of the shifting sands but often stumble when it comes to implementing concrete measures. In my consultancy, Disaster Avoidance Experts, I’ve honed in on specific strategies that businesses can adopt to make a tangible difference. The confluence of wellbeing and work flexibility is more than a passing trend; it’s the new cornerstone of sustainable, profitable operations. Here are some action steps that I strongly advocate for when serving clients.

    First, it’s time to let go of your traditional “nine-to-five, in-the-office” mindset, a relic that is increasingly at odds with today’s dynamic workforce. For those still clinging to a rigid structure, this might feel like a leap into the abyss. However, the alternative is a debilitating anchoring bias — relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered (in this case, traditional work models) when making decisions. Shake off this outdated mooring and embrace hybrid and even fully remote work options. Use this as an opportunity to gather data on productivity, engagement and wellbeing, adjusting your course as needed.

    Second, pivot to a team-led model for flexibility, where collective decision-making takes precedence over a one-size-fits-all approach. Allow teams to collaboratively determine their work environment — be it remote, in-office or hybrid. This not only fosters a sense of ownership and engagement but also optimizes the unique strengths and requirements of each team. Teams can decide when face-to-face interactions are most beneficial for creative brainstorming or complex problem-solving and when remote work can maximize individual focus and productivity. This approach transcends mere optimization of individual roles; it creates an ecosystem where the team, as a cohesive unit, is empowered to make decisions that maximize its collective effectiveness.

    Third, invest substantively in employee wellbeing through targeted financial support. In an era where 93% of employees view their wellbeing as equally important to salary, your investment in wellness programming is more than just an employee perk — it’s a strategic imperative. Consider offering stipends for mental health support, from licensed therapy to mindfulness apps. Subsidize fitness memberships or offer in-house wellness programs ranging from nutrition seminars to stress management workshops. Financially support ongoing education, not just in terms of professional development but also in areas that contribute to general wellbeing, such as financial literacy courses or parenting classes. By dedicating actual dollars to these initiatives, you’re not only enhancing the quality of life for your employees but also setting a cultural tone that prioritizes wellbeing as much as quarterly earnings. After all, when employees feel their wellbeing is taken seriously, they’re more engaged, productive and less likely to seek opportunities elsewhere.

    Finally, for those concerned about the economic implications of reduced hours, as highlighted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, it’s important to recognize that wellbeing and productivity often exist in a symbiotic relationship. My advice? Focus on outcomes rather than hours. Assess performance through deliverables and milestones instead of the antiquated metric of “time spent at the desk.”

    These steps are not mere suggestions; consider them a call to action. Given the skyrocketing significance workers are placing on wellbeing and flexibility, executives and decision-makers can no longer afford to be passive bystanders. Your company’s relevance, appeal, and, ultimately its success are bound up in how adeptly you navigate this paradigm shift. It’s a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces, but the picture it forms is unmistakable: a more humane, flexible and productive future of work.

    Conclusion

    It’s not just about beanbags, free lunches or casual Fridays anymore. The Fed and Gympass data illustrate that wellbeing and flexibility are directly proportional to how engaged, happy and productive employees are. After all, who wants to give their best to a company that treats them as expendable? Your workforce is your most invaluable asset; treat them as such. It is simply illogical to expect top-tier performance from employees who feel neglected and undervalued.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • More remote workers are willing to move in order to find affordable housing | CNN Business

    More remote workers are willing to move in order to find affordable housing | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Housing is less affordable than it has been in about four decades. But buying or renting a home might be even less affordable now if it weren’t for the continuing impact of remote and hybrid workers that resulted from the pandemic, according to a recent study by Fannie Mae.

    The study, which was an analysis of Fannie Mae’s monthly National Housing Survey, with questions asked among more than 3,000 mortgage holders, owners, and renters between January and March this year, looked at how remote and hybrid work has changed over the past few years and its impact on housing.

    More people are willing to move to less expensive areas further away from offices in city centers than a few years ago, according to the report. Continuing remote and hybrid work, at levels remarkably unchanged from two years ago, is enabling people to move toward housing affordability, the study found.

    The report also revealed that “affordability” is the most important factor in finding a place to live, both for renters and homeowners.

    At the beginning of the year, 22% of remote and hybrid workers said they would be willing to relocate to a different region or increase their commute. Only 14% such workers were willing to do so in the third quarter of 2021, which is used as a comparison throughout the study and was when many workplaces attempted a “return to work” until the Omicron variant of Covid-19 pushed many employers’ plans back that winter.

    Workers who are able to break their ties to living in an area because of its proximity to work are able to spread out, reducing the competition for a historically low number of homes for sale that could push prices even higher.

    The research showed that among remote workers, all age and income groups have grown more willing to relocate or live farther away from their workplace since 2021. But younger workers — those between 18 and 34 — are significantly more willing than those older than them to live or commute a further distance from their work, with the share willing to do so jumping from 18% in 2021, to 30% in 2023.

    “We believe this greater willingness to live farther from the … workplace may be an indication that some workers are feeling more secure about their remote work situation … or their ability to find another job if their current employer were to change its policies,” wrote the researchers, in a summary.

    This is good news for remote workers during a time of crushingly low levels of home affordability.

    Remote and hybrid work may be here to stay. Or, it’s here long enough for people to buy or rent a new home because of it, the researchers found.

    Despite the demands by leaders of some prominent companies that workers need to head into the office or head out the door, the share of fully remote and hybrid workers has remained surprisingly constant in the post-pandemic era, according to the study.

    In the first part of the year, 35% of respondents worked fully remote or worked a hybrid mix of some time at a workplace and some time at home. That was only slightly down from 36% in 2021.

    While the share of workers going to a work site or office every day was unchanged at 49% in both 2021 and in 2023, the share of people working fully remote ticked up to 14% this year from 13% in 2021.

    Homeowners continue to be slightly more likely to work from home than renters. And those with more education and higher incomes are also more likely to have a work-from-home situation, which is consistent with 2021, the study found.

    Only 30% of lower-income people, earning 80% of the area median income, could work remotely or hybrid in 2021, and that dropped to 27% by this year. Meanwhile 42% of upper-income people, those making 120% of the area median income, were able to work from home in 2021 and that number did not change in 2023.

    Lower-income people — who are in most need of access to lower-cost housing, found further away from a city’s core — are also those least likely to work remotely, according to the survey.

    With housing affordability taking a hit over the past few years as rents rose, home prices stayed elevated and mortgage rates soared to a 22-year high, it is not surprising that “affordability” was the top factor for people when picking a new home, at 36%. This was a big jump from 2014, the last time the question was asked, when the top consideration was “neighborhood” at 49%.

    Homeowners and renters both showed growth in prioritizing “affordability,” but the increase was greatest among renters, shooting up from 21% in 2014 to 46% in 2023.

    “The change in preference for renters is truly remarkable, since not only did it more than double, but it represented a complete reversal of the relative importance of neighborhood cited by consumers as the top consideration in 2014,” wrote the researchers.

    In addition, despite the talk about moving for more space, “home size” as a factor for picking a next home was unchanged and still outweighed by “affordability.”

    “The striking shift toward affordability as the top consideration among overall survey respondents for their next move substantiates the need of households to find ways to manage around the significant rise in mortgage rates, home prices, and rents of the past few years,” the researchers wrote.

    And this is impacting where people look for a home and what they prioritize when they are searching.

    “Home affordability may also be a reason why we saw an increase in remote workers’ willingness to relocate or live farther away from their workplace, particularly given that, historically, a shorter commute to denser job markets was considered a premium amenity,” the researchers wrote.

    The suburbs are increasingly where people want to be, the report found, which is part of an ongoing trend since 2010. And that share has grown between 2021 and 2023.

    The researchers say the change to the housing market brought about by remote workers holds broader implications for the link between housing and the labor market.

    The growing share of remote-working renters and homeowners willing to live farther from their work location gives employers access to a wider labor market, which could be useful if a downturn in economic activity led to greater rates of job loss.

    “Having access to a larger labor market may also reduce the adverse effect on local home prices when a major employer or industry contracts,” the researchers wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Hybrid Work Has Given Family Caregivers a Lifeline | Entrepreneur

    How Hybrid Work Has Given Family Caregivers a Lifeline | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Hybrid and remote models are not just influencing how we do our jobs but significantly transforming the approach towards elder care. These new work formats have empowered the way we care for our elderly loved ones while diminishing the previously unchallenged role of senior housing facilities.

    Unfortunately, newspapers like The Wall Street Journal are decrying this change with headlines like “Is Work From Home to Blame for Senior Housing’s Muted Recovery?” Such pieces smack of an anti-consumer, anti-family and pro-special interest attitude. Instead, we should celebrate consumers not having to shell out money unnecessarily for services they don’t need on senior living, while also maintaining multi-generational family units that strengthen family bonds.

    Related: Addressing Employee Elder Care Issues Is Good Business

    The benefits of hybrid work for the “sandwich generation”

    The advent of hybrid work schedules has proven to be a game-changer for a particular group of people known as the “sandwich generation,” middle-aged adults — often between their 40s and 50s — caught between the responsibilities of raising their children and caring for aging parents. Before the rise of hybrid work models, these individuals often felt like they were in a tug-of-war, being pulled in multiple directions at once.

    But now, the paradigm has shifted dramatically. The flexibility of hybrid work has transformed this seemingly endless juggling act into a more manageable, even gratifying endeavor. It’s as if they’ve been given a magic wand, turning a high-stakes balancing act into a well-choreographed ballet.

    Picture this: An employee, let’s call her Lisa, is in the middle of her workday. In the traditional work model, she would be in her office, miles away from her elderly mother and children. Now, working remotely, she can attend a virtual meeting, then immediately switch gears to help her child with homework and later accompany her mother to a routine doctor’s appointment, all without leaving her home.

    This seamless integration of professional and personal life has become a reality thanks to hybrid work. The days of Lisa rushing through traffic, anxiously glancing at the clock as she races from the office to a nursing home, are a thing of the past. Now, Lisa can fulfill her role as a loving daughter and mother, all while continuing to excel in her career.

    Moreover, this shift isn’t just benefiting Lisa. It’s positively impacting her entire family. Her elderly mother gets to spend more time with her family, her children are receiving more attention and guidance, and Lisa herself is less stressed and more fulfilled. This new work model has not only given her the flexibility to manage her time better but also the satisfaction of knowing she is there for her loved ones.

    In this way, the rise of remote and hybrid work models is not just a trend, but a societal shift that is empowering the “sandwich generation” and transforming the dynamics of family care. It’s a radical change that is having profound impacts on families, businesses and communities across the country.

    Remote work schedules have come as a much-needed boon for those juggling the dual responsibilities of raising children and caring for older parents, often referred to as the “sandwich generation”. The flexibility of hybrid work is turning what once was a stress-inducing juggling act into a more manageable endeavor.

    Now, with flexible work hours, employees can attend to elder care responsibilities without the fear of compromising their careers. The days of rushing from the office to a nursing home are being replaced with a seamless transition from professional tasks to personal responsibilities, all within the comforts of home.

    Reframing the senior housing narrative

    The era of hybrid work has led to a shift in focus from senior housing facilities to home-based care, causing a noticeable decrease in demand for the former. Some media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, have negatively framed this trend, attributing the muted recovery of the senior housing market to the rise of remote work. However, this perspective only captures a part of the broader narrative.

    Rather than viewing this as a setback for senior housing providers, it is essential to see it as an opportunity for innovation and adaptation. After all, progress and innovation are born out of change. Just as a chameleon changes its colors to adapt to its environment, senior housing providers need to adapt to the evolving needs and expectations of their customers.

    In the past, the senior housing sector may have been the go-to solution for families juggling work and elder care responsibilities. But now, as hybrid work becomes the norm, families have the flexibility to care for their loved ones at home. This shift doesn’t necessarily signal a death knell for the senior housing industry. Instead, it offers an opportunity for these facilities to reinvent their services and find new ways to support families.

    For instance, senior housing providers could offer more flexible, part-time care services for families who need support but not full-time care. They could also develop programs that help the elderly stay engaged and connected with their communities while living at home. In essence, this is a time for the industry to creatively respond to the changing landscape of elder care.

    From a financial standpoint, this shift towards home-based care presents families with potential significant savings. Rather than seeing this as a threat to the senior housing market, we should see it as an opportunity for families to better allocate their resources. The money saved from reducing reliance on full-time senior care facilities can be redirected towards enhancing the quality of life for the elderly or investing in other areas like education for the younger generation.

    In reframing the narrative, we should celebrate this change as a positive evolution in the way we care for our elders. This shift is not about choosing one form of care over another, but about providing families with more options to choose what works best for them. The rise of hybrid work has catalyzed this change, and it’s up to all of us to embrace it and adapt accordingly.

    Related:

    A win-win scenario for families and businesses

    The shift towards hybrid and remote work is indeed a win-win scenario. It allows employees to strike a better work-life balance, and businesses to retain valuable staff who previously struggled with care responsibilities. It’s about time we celebrate this change instead of resisting it, as I tell companies that ask me to help them figure out their hybrid work models.

    The transformation of our work culture has far-reaching effects, extending beyond the confines of our workspaces and into our family lives. The shift to hybrid work is driving change in elder care, demonstrating the profound impact of workplace flexibility on various aspects of life.

    Rather than lamenting the challenges, let’s embrace the opportunities this change brings. The hybrid work model has already shown its potential to benefit our careers and care duties. It’s fostering stronger family bonds by maintaining multi-generational family units and reducing unnecessary expenditure on senior living services. That’s a future worth celebrating!

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • The Damaging Results of The Mandated Return to Office is Worse Than We Thought | Entrepreneur

    The Damaging Results of The Mandated Return to Office is Worse Than We Thought | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    We’re now finding out the damaging consequences of the mandated return to office. And it’s not a pretty picture.

    A trio of compelling reports — the Greenhouse Candidate Experience Report, the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED), and Unispace’s “Returning for Good” report — collectively paint a stark picture of this brewing storm.

    Unispace finds that nearly half (42%) of companies that mandated office returns witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated. And almost a third (29%) of companies enforcing office returns are struggling with recruitment. Imagine that — nearly half! In other words, they knew it would cause some attrition, but they weren’t ready for the serious problems that would result.

    Perhaps they should have. According to the same Greenhouse report, a staggering 76% of employees stand ready to jump ship if their companies decide to pull the plug on flexible work schedules. Moreover, employees from historically underrepresented groups are 22% more likely to consider other options if flexibility goes out the window.

    In the SHED survey, the gravity of this situation becomes more evident. The survey equates the displeasure of shifting from a flexible work model to a traditional one to that of experiencing a 2 to 3% pay cut.

    Related: You Should Let Your Team Decide Their Approach to Hybrid Work. A Behavioral Economist Explains Why and How You Should Do It.

    The talent hunt: A game of chess with flexibility as the queen

    In the game of talent acquisition and retention, flexible work policies have swiftly emerged as the queen on the chessboard — commanding, decisive and game-changing. The Greenhouse, SHED, and Unispace reports — when viewed together — provide compelling evidence to back this assertion.

    Greenhouse finds that 42% of candidates would outright reject roles that lack flexibility. In turn, the SHED survey affirms that employees who work from home a few days a week greatly treasure the arrangement. It’s like enjoying a day at the beach while still being connected to the digital world.

    Curious about what’s luring employees away? The Greenhouse report has cracked the code:

    • Increased compensation (48%)
    • Greater job security (34%)
    • Career advancement opportunities (32%)
    • Better flexible work policies (28%)
    • A more positive company culture (27%)

    In other words, excluding career-centric factors such as pay, security and promotion, flexible work policies shine brighter than the Vegas Strip in employee desires.

    Interestingly, Unispace throws another factor into the mix — choice. According to their report, overall, the top feelings employees revealed they felt towards the office were happy (31%), motivated (30%) and excited (27%). However, all three of these feelings decrease for those with mandated office returns (27%, 26% and 22% respectively). This highlights that staff are more open to returning to the office if it is out of choice, rather than forced.

    Case studies of attrition with the return to office

    Take, for example, a regional insurance company with a workforce of around 2000 employees. The company enforced a return to the office policy, causing waves of unrest. It soon became evident that their attrition rates were climbing steadily. It echoed the Greenhouse report’s findings: a majority of employees, 76%, would actively seek a new job if flexible work policies were retracted. The underrepresented groups were even more prone to leave, making the situation more daunting.

    At that point, they called me to help as a hybrid work expert that The New York Times called the “Office Whisperer.” We worked on adapting their return-to-office plan, switching it from a top-down mandate to a team-driven approach, focusing on welcoming staff to the office for the sake of collaboration and mentoring. As a result, their attrition rates dropped and the feelings of employees toward the office improved, in line with what the Unispace report suggests.

    In another case study, a large financial services company began noticing employee turnover despite offering competitive salaries and growth opportunities. Upon running an internal survey, they realized that, aside from better compensation and career advancement opportunities, employees were seeking better flexible work policies. This aligned with the Greenhouse and SHED findings, which ranked flexible work policies as a crucial factor influencing job changes. After consulting with me, they adjusted their policies to be more competitive in offering flexibility.

    A late-stage SaaS startup decided to embrace this wave of change. They worked with me to introduce flexible work policies, and the result was almost immediate – they noticed a sharp decrease in employee turnover and an uptick in job applications. Their story echoes the collective message from all three reports: companies must adapt to flexible work policies or risk being swept away.

    Related: Why Empowering Your Hybrid Workers to Co-Create a Winning Return to Office Plan Leads to Longterm Gain

    The brain factor: How cognitive biases play a role

    As we navigate these shifting landscapes of work, we cannot ignore the human elements at play. Like unseen puppeteers, cognitive biases subtly shape our decisions and perceptions. In the context of flexibility and retention, two cognitive biases come into sharp focus: the status quo bias and anchoring bias.

    Imagine a thriving tech startup, successfully operating in a hybrid model during the pandemic. As the world normalized, leadership decided to return to pre-pandemic, in-person work arrangements. However, they faced resistance and an unexpected swell of turnover.

    This situation illustrates the potent influence of the status quo bias. This bias, deeply entrenched in our human psyche, inclines us towards maintaining current states or resisting change. Employees, having tasted the fruits of flexible work, felt averse to relinquishing these newfound freedoms. The Greenhouse report bears testament to this, with 76% of employees open to job hunting if their company rolled back flexible work policies.

    Consider a large financial institution that enforced a full return to office after the pandemic. Many employees, initially attracted by the brand and pay scale, felt disgruntled. The crux of the problem lies in the anchoring bias, which leads us to heavily rely on the first piece of information offered (the ‘anchor’) when making decisions.

    When initially joining the company, the employees were primarily concerned with compensation and job security, the “anchors” in their decision-making process. However, once within the fold, the pandemic caused them to shift their focus to work-life balance and flexibility, as confirmed by both the Greenhouse and SHED reports. Unfortunately, the rigid return-to-office policy made these new anchors seem less attainable, resulting in dissatisfaction and an increased propensity to leave.

    So, as we steer our ships through these tumultuous waters, understanding these cognitive biases can help illuminate our path. Recognizing and accounting for the status quo and anchoring biases can enable us to create a workplace that not only attracts but also retains its employees in this age of flexibility. After all, success in the world of business is as much about understanding people as it is about numbers and strategy.

    Embracing the wave of change

    If there’s one overarching theme resonating from the Greenhouse, SHED, and Unispace reports, it’s this: Companies need to embrace the wave of flexible work policies or risk being left adrift. As we set sail into the future of work, flexibility isn’t just a passing trend; it’s a necessity, the new standard. After all, the key to not just attracting talent, but retaining it, lies in one simple word: flexibility. To ignore it is like trying to run a marathon with one shoe. Possible, perhaps, but far from comfortable or efficient.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • ‘Hybrid Work or I Quit’ Say 50% of Financial Professionals. Here’s Why Work Flexibility is a Non-Negotiable. | Entrepreneur

    ‘Hybrid Work or I Quit’ Say 50% of Financial Professionals. Here’s Why Work Flexibility is a Non-Negotiable. | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Gone are the days when financial professionals were as much a part of the office landscape as cubicles, conference rooms and coffee machines. Today, they’re pushing back against the shackles of conventional workspace dynamics, underscoring the paramount importance of flexibility.

    In the face of office attendance mandates as rigid as a trapeze wire, financial professionals are raising their voices in a chorus of defiance. The ultimatum they deliver is as clear as a well-audited balance sheet — adapt to flexible work models or face a torrent of resignations. They’re as direct and straightforward as a cash transaction: If you insist that I forsake the comforts of remote work to be physically present five days a week, don’t be surprised to find my resignation letter on your desk.

    Related: The Forced Return to Office is the Definition of Insanity. Here’s Why.

    A pulse on the market: Survey bares the hard truth

    This clamor for change isn’t just a hunch or a fleeting sentiment; it’s substantiated by hard data. The latest MLIV Pulse survey serves as a billboard for this sea change in employment preferences. 48.5% of professional investors vocally expressed their readiness to jump ship if their roles required a full-time office presence.

    The persistent ripples of this stance challenge traditional work arrangements, much like the early morning wake-up call that jolts the dreamer back to reality. Wall Street heavyweights such as JPMorgan Chase are already stepping on this shaky ground, pushing for a return to full-time office schedules. However, their insistence on archaic work models might be as successful as trying to convince a seasoned sprinter to trade his running shoes for flippers — out of sync with reality.

    Flexibility is the future: Shifting tides in employment dynamics

    The game of employment has metamorphosed, and the traditional rulebook has been thrown out of the window. In this new landscape, workers value autonomy over compliance, much like cats prefer independence to obediently following their human’s every whim. The market, too, seems to be tuning into this frequency, with more than two-thirds of banks providing some form of flexible work arrangement.

    Imagine this scenario: Moving from two to three days in the office may spark some discontent, akin to a coffee aficionado being asked to endure decaf. But when that number hits four, the murmuring might explode into a symphony of protest.

    The financial sector has seen an uptick in layoffs, yet the professionals in its realm remain undeterred. The MLIV Pulse survey illuminates that layoffs have had little to no influence on the choice to work from the office. It’s as if they’re watching a storm from the safety of their home – aware, but seemingly unaffected. Yes, finding a job with a more flexible schedule in such a climate may be more challenging than decoding the mysteries of the stock market, yet the conviction for flexible work remains unscathed.

    A real fear resonates among employees that ceding even a smidgen of flexibility could open a Pandora’s box, leading them down a slippery slope to full-time office work. It’s a high-stakes tug-of-war, with employees steadfast in their determination not to be yanked back into the rigid, all-office work model.

    I’ve seen this fear when I run focus groups for financial services companies in helping them figure out their hybrid work arrangements. Employees are ready to jump ship if their flexibility is hampered, and UBS and other banks that offer more flexible work arrangements have already gained talent from less flexible banks.

    Related: Is The Future of Work Flexible — Or Not? Governments Are Making Moves to End The Debate Once and For All.

    Compliance or defiance: The response to companies’ in-office mandates

    Despite the clamor for flexibility, around 86% of financial professionals comply with their companies’ in-office mandates. They represent the silent majority who, despite their discontent, brace themselves for rush hour traffic and conform to the office grind. This conformance, however, resembles an uneasy truce between rival factions more than a harmonious accord.

    For those choosing the path less traveled and ignoring these mandates, repercussions seem to be as rare as a blue moon. Out of the 1,320 surveyed, a mere 28 reported any form of managerial or HR reprimands for their non-compliance.

    Here’s food for thought: Even the once-sacrosanct ritual of grabbing lunch or post-work drinks is experiencing a tectonic shift. The MLIV Pulse survey shows that financial professionals, despite their thicker wallets, are reigning in their weekday spending. The change is as stark as seeing a fast-food junkie turn into a green-juice guzzler overnight.

    It’s not only the corporations feeling the tremors of this change but the cities themselves are also caught in this tidal wave of transformation. The once-bustling downtowns of metropolises like New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia are gasping for breath as remote work eats into their bustling weekday trade. It’s like observing a once-thriving coral reef slowly being suffocated by rising sea temperatures. The loss is palpable.

    However, it’s not all bad news. The suburbs are gaining what the downtowns are losing. When working remotely, financial professionals are still ordering takeout food, just not from downtown.

    Embracing the shift or facing the fallout

    The verdict is out, and the jury of financial professionals has spoken in unison. Flexibility in work schedules isn’t merely a desirable perk; it’s a non-negotiable condition of employment. Much like the transition from paper ledgers to digital spreadsheets, the transition to flexible and remote work is no longer a prediction for the future; it’s a reality of the present. To stay relevant in the game, companies need to play by the new rules. Attempting to impose antiquated work models onto a workforce demanding flexibility is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – it simply won’t work. If organizations don’t adapt to this changing tide, they may find themselves standing alone on the banks, watching their talent pool drift away on the raft of flexibility.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • Underdog Startups Threaten Hiring Dominance of Big Tech After Adopting This Irresistible Work Policy | Entrepreneur

    Underdog Startups Threaten Hiring Dominance of Big Tech After Adopting This Irresistible Work Policy | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Tech companies under 500 employees — and thus the most innovative and forward-looking — are leading the charge when it comes to flexible work. According to the recent Flex Index report, a whopping 88% of small tech companies offer employees full flexibility in where they work. At the same time, 65% of giant tech companies with over 25,000 employees have transitioned to a “structured hybrid” model with specific in-office work requirements. There is a growing divide between big tech and small tech when it comes to flexible work options, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of large tech firms.

    Related: How Flexible Work Will Give Your Business the Biggest Advantage

    A flexibility divide

    While behemoths like Apple, Google, and Meta are walking back remote work in favor of two to three days per week in the office, smaller tech startups are embracing virtual-first policies that give employees full control over where they work. This poses a threat to the dominance of big tech companies, which have traditionally had the upper hand in attracting top talent due to their vast resources and brand power.

    For many ambitious tech workers seeking autonomy and work-life balance, small startups with flexible policies may prove irresistible. The future is unclear, but for now, the flexibility divide between big tech and small tech is poised to reshape how Silicon Valley attracts and retains top talent. This trend will likely only accelerate as remote-first generations join the workforce, demanding flexibility as a top priority in their job search.

    While legacy tech giants rose to prominence with an office-centric mentality, the new wave of innovation may depend on startups fully embracing virtual work. Remote employees tend to have higher job satisfaction and lower burnout rates, allowing startups to tap into a more diverse global talent pool. Yet scaling flexibility is easier said than done, and big tech’s structured return to office risks diminishing some of the benefits of remote work for innovation and inclusion.

    Big tech’s shift to structured hybrid models with two to three assigned in-office days reflects a philosophy that in-person interaction fosters collaboration, apprenticeships and team cohesion. However, this stance fails to recognize the value of virtual communication and its role in boosting autonomy, diversity and work-life balance for many employees. By limiting employee choice in work location, big tech also risks losing top talent to startups with more flexible policies.

    While facetime may benefit some teams and tasks, compelling employees to commute and collaborate in person risks reduced productivity and job satisfaction for many knowledge workers. As tools like video conferencing, virtual whiteboards, and team messaging grow more advanced, the need for physical offices to foster collaboration and innovation is diminishing. The office may have a role to play, but not at the cost of flexibility and choice.

    Rather than require blanket return-to-office policies, forward-thinking companies should evaluate collaboration needs on a team-by-team basis and implement flex programs with employee input. They must recognize that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work, and that flexibility and cohesion can absolutely co-exist with the right investments in virtual collaboration infrastructure and management training.

    The future of work depends on companies scaling flexibility and investing in the technology and culture to support virtual teams. While the flexibility divide currently favors small tech, any company able to overcome the challenges of managing remote work at scale may gain a competitive advantage.

    For now, small tech startups embracing virtual-first flexibility have an opportunity to attract top talent and pioneer new models of innovation suited to a remote world. But big tech would be wrong to dismiss flexibility as a “startup phase” alone. With a supportive culture and the right collaboration solutions in place, companies of any size can scale flexibility and tap into benefits like reduced costs, access to global talent, and higher employee productivity and wellbeing.

    The possibility is there for forward-thinking companies in any industry to make flexibility a competitive advantage — if they are willing to invest in the management and technology to do so. While the future remains uncertain, one outcome is clear: Choice and autonomy matter deeply to knowledge workers, and companies able to provide flexibility at scale will be best positioned to succeed in the post-pandemic world.

    The future of flexible tech

    The critical question is whether small tech startups can scale flexibility. Currently, 67% of tech companies with under 100 employees are fully remote, compared to 26% of tech companies with 250 to 500, and just 8% of tech companies with over 500 employees.

    While flexibility may be easier to implement at a small startup, will these companies harden their stance on work locations as they mature? I’ve helped tech companies ranging from late-stage startups with 50 to 100 employees to behemoths with over 30,000 staff figure out their flexible work models, and I have to say that the larger they get, the more challenges they face with making remote work truly effective. That’s because the challenges of managing remote teams and collaborating across distances may increase with company size. Larger companies typically have more complex organizational structures, multiple offices and a wider range of roles with diverse collaboration needs. They may also face greater scrutiny and bureaucracy, making quick shifts to virtual work more difficult.

    However, for companies able to surmount these challenges, the rewards of flexibility could be significant. With strong communication tools, management training and an outcomes-based mindset, flexibility may continue to enhance innovation and attract top talent even after startups scale. The companies able to achieve this stand to gain substantial cost savings, access to global talent and higher productivity and employee wellbeing.

    Ambitious yet employee-centric tech startups would be wise to implement flexible programs thoughtfully and brace for challenges, but not assume that scaling means limiting choice. By proactively addressing common obstacles around collaboration and oversight, tech leaders can create flexible programs ready to scale. With investments in infrastructure, policy, and culture, the result could be a win-win for both startup and employee.

    The companies that thrive will be those recognizing flexibility not as a temporary phenomenon but rather as a permanent shift in how and where knowledge work happens. They will implement remote collaboration and management solutions with scale in mind, provide guidelines and training for productive virtual work, and evaluate employee performance based on outcomes and impact rather than hours logged or roles. They will treat flexibility as vital for innovation, not as an employee perk alone.

    The future of work is still being written. But if small tech companies can figure out how to scale flexibility, they may gain a key competitive advantage over big tech. The opportunity is there for forward-thinking startups to pioneer new models of remote collaboration as they grow – without compromising on autonomy, work-life balance or productivity. For now, the flexibility divide favors small tech – but the future could belong to those companies that find ways to push the boundaries of virtual work regardless of their size.

    While legacy tech companies struggle with providing flexibility at scale, a new generation of startups has a chance to make remote work a competitive advantage if they invest in solutions and culture to overcome common challenges, like:

    • Communication silos: With poor communication infrastructure and policies in place, remote teams can become disconnected and isolated. Startups must implement collaboration tools, encourage informal interactions and provide guidance on best practices for productive virtual collaboration.
    • Management challenges: Managing remote employees requires a high degree of trust, as well as training for managers unused to overseeing virtual teams. Startups must evaluate management practices, provide resources for leading remote teams and hire managers able to motivate and engage employees from a distance.
    • Lack of cohesion: Some express concern that remote work reduces opportunities for relationship-building and mentoring. Startups can address this by organizing virtual social events, setting up mentorship programs, and leveraging technology that enables more personal connections between coworkers.
    • Security and compliance risks: With remote work, ensuring data protection, privacy and policy compliance may require additional effort. Startups need to apply best practices for remote cybersecurity, provide employee education around safe virtual work environments, and implement monitoring systems enabling visibility into how sensitive resources and data are accessed.

    Related:

    Conclusion

    The future of innovation depends on pioneers — and in a post-pandemic world, the pioneers of virtual work may be tech startups that scale flexibility. With the right investments and culture in place, small tech companies have an opportunity to make flexible work a competitive advantage and tap benefits beyond cost savings alone.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • 1 in 3 Office Workers Under 40 Admit to ‘Quiet Quitting’ For This Singular Reason | Entrepreneur

    1 in 3 Office Workers Under 40 Admit to ‘Quiet Quitting’ For This Singular Reason | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Imagine the frustration of trying to fill a bucket with a hole at the bottom; it’s a frustrating, losing battle. That’s exactly what’s happening to businesses, except the bucket is the workplace, and the slow, steady leak is disengaged employees quietly withdrawing their enthusiasm, productivity, and loyalty, through what’s known as “quiet quitting.”

    Now, consider this finding from the Ivanti 2023 Report: Elevating the Future of Everywhere Work — an astonishing one in three office workers under 40 admit to this form of psychological resignation. It’s the corporate equivalent of a slow leak in a tire – hard to spot, but just as capable of deflating your workforce as a sudden blowout.

    Related: If You Want to Remain Competitive, You Need to Overhaul Your Workplace Training. Here’s How.

    Identifying the culprit: The rigid office environment

    So, let’s take a moment to channel our inner Sherlock Holmes and trace the footsteps leading to this quiet quitting conundrum. Over 40% of office workers report burnout from excessive workload, and another 46% cite a lack of motivation as the perpetrator. Imagine these issues as a pair of invisible gremlins, silently wreaking havoc, pushing employees closer to the exit with every passing day.

    Now, here’s the interesting bit: Both these mischievous twins seem to have a strong preference for traditional, in-office settings. That’s right, folks; the villain in our plot isn’t an economic downturn or a competitive job market. It’s the conventional, four-walled, cubicle-filled, nine-to-five office environment.

    The irresistible allure of flexibility: Balancing office and remote work

    What can act as the silver bullet to slay these gremlins? Let’s call it “The Great Balancing Act.” Much like a skilled acrobat deftly navigating a tightrope, modern employees crave the ability to balance their time between the office and their homes. According to the Ivanti report, while only 43% of workers currently enjoy this freedom, a whopping 71% desire it, creating a gaping 28-point “preference gap.”

    Visualize this gap as a vacant dance floor, eagerly waiting for the dancers. It’s a space brimming with potential — a chance to increase employee engagement, productivity, and satisfaction. The dance floor is ready; all it needs is the right tune.

    Hybrid work: A CEO-endorsed lifeline

    Fortunately, the eagle-eyed executives perched at the top of the corporate ladder are starting to take notice. An encouraging 71% of global CEOs and a stellar 84% of U.S. CEOs are singing praises for hybrid working, recognizing it as a positive force for employee morale. They’ve sensed the winds of change and, instead of futilely trying to shield their organizations, they’re adjusting their sails to ride the gusts.

    Picture it like this: hybrid work is the Swiss Army Knife of modern work practices — a versatile, multi-purpose tool that empowers employees to tailor their work-life balance. By contrast, much like Swiss cheese, rigid office schedules are filled with holes that gradually siphon away employee satisfaction.

    Unleashing the potential of everywhere work

    It’s time to roll out the red carpet for Everywhere Work — an innovative approach that drives productivity, retains top talent and enhances employee satisfaction. It’s about tearing down the rigid walls of traditional office settings and fostering an environment of trust, autonomy and flexibility.

    Imagine a jazz musician improvising a stunning solo on stage. Just like this musician, an “Everywhere Worker” is given the liberty to sync their work rhythm with the melody of their life. They are no longer forced to straitjacket their personal commitments into the rigid confines of a 9 to 5 timetable. Instead, they’re given the freedom to create their unique work-life symphony, blending the notes of professional commitments with the harmony of personal life.

    Indeed, the Ivanti report shows an improvement in such flexible work over time. In the 2022 Ivanti Everywhere Workplace Report, 49% of survey respondents say they have been negatively affected in some way by remote work, and 9% claim that they have been passed over for a promotion. By contrast, in the equivalent Ivanti 2023 Report: Elevating the Future of Everywhere Work, only 34% say they have been negatively impacted by such work, and 2% believe they have been passed over for a promotion due to hybrid working. This change indicates an improvement in the ways both individuals and organizations handle remote work and a reduction in proximity bias.

    Related: Employers: Hybrid Work is Not The Problem — Your Guidelines Are. Here’s Why and How to Fix Them.

    The power of flexibility: Fueling productivity, retention and satisfaction

    Consider this: The flexibility inherent in Everywhere Work allows employees to switch work locations based on the nature of their tasks. Need to collaborate with a team? They can head into the office. Require deep focus for a project? Working from home provides a sanctuary from office distractions. It’s like choosing the right tool for the job, a choice that amplifies productivity and job satisfaction.

    Moreover, this flexibility allows employees to optimize their work schedule around their most productive hours, just like a nocturnal owl or an early bird choosing to hunt when their energy is at its peak. The result is a workforce that is not just more engaged, but also more effective and satisfied.

    When we dig deeper into the benefits of Everywhere Work, we unearth an often overlooked, yet critical aspect — mental health. By reducing commute stress and providing control over work-life balance, hybrid work is akin to a soothing balm for the weary souls of employees. It’s like the protective shell around a delicate egg, shielding employees from the crushing pressures of burnout and overwork. The upshot? A significant dip in “quiet quitting,” as employees find renewed joy, motivation, and satisfaction in their work. Indeed, that’s what my clients find as I help them figure out a flexible return to office and hybrid work policy.

    The bottom line: Embrace the future of work, today!

    The conclusions drawn from the Ivanti 2023 Report are crystal clear, echoing like a clarion call for businesses: adapt or risk becoming relics. As we journey deeper into the 21st century, the workplaces that will not just survive but thrive are those that offer flexibility, respect work-life balance, and prioritize employee mental health.

    The future of work isn’t a distant dream; it’s here, knocking on our doors. It’s not about packing employees into offices like sardines in a tin can. It’s about giving them the reins to control their work-life balance, nurturing their mental health, and respecting their needs. It’s about understanding that work is not a place you go, but a thing you do.

    As you chart the course for your organization’s future, remember: the key to preventing your employees from quiet quitting isn’t in chaining them to their desks — it’s in unshackling them. So, embrace the future, close the “preference gap,” and let your workforce dance to the tune of Everywhere Work. The stage is set, and the audience — your employees — are eagerly awaiting the performance.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • How My Team Doubled Their Productivity Once I Started Doing This Instead | Entrepreneur

    How My Team Doubled Their Productivity Once I Started Doing This Instead | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Time management has been a productivity buzzword in the workplace for decades. Since the industrial revolution, people have been trying to find ways to maximize their output and efficiency, by focusing on the clock.

    As a successful business owner since 2008, I did everything I could to maximize productivity and encouraged my team to manage their time. I implemented tactics like instilling a 4-day workweek, hoping it would help my team manage their time better. They loved the shorter weeks, but we found that they still felt like they were in a constant state of racing the clock.

    [ad_2]

    Tanya Dalton

    Source link

  • This Work Policy is Driving More Millennials to Buy a Home in Suburbia | Entrepreneur

    This Work Policy is Driving More Millennials to Buy a Home in Suburbia | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In the grand game of real estate, there’s a new king on the board. The suburbs are not just surviving, they’re thriving, and it’s all thanks to the game-changer that is flexible work. Who needs a skyscraper view when your office is your living room, and your commute, is a mere amble from bed to desk?

    “We expect the ability to WFH to remain an incentive for young families to seek out more remote suburban and rural markets where housing may be more affordable,” a recent Bank of America report suggests. It’s like swapping a sardine-can city apartment for a comfortable, spacious home. It’s not rocket science; it’s simply the art of making work work for you.

    The five-day office week, like the dodo, is heading for extinction. Lawrence Yun, the chief economist at the National Association of Realtors, says, “A little bit of a longer commute is not a hindrance” if you’re not in the office Monday to Friday, 9-5. Not when you’ve got the flexibility to decide where and when you work. Why endure the daily urban rat race when you can occasionally roll with the relaxed suburban pace instead?

    Related: A New Remote Work Trend is Helping Employers Retain Talent Amid Labor Market Pressures

    Millennials: Not so urban after all

    Remember when we thought millennials were city slickers, with their Uber rides and brunch habits? Turns out, they’re embracing the suburban dream as eagerly as a kid pouncing on the last slice of pizza.

    Hyojung Lee, a professor of housing and property management at Virginia Tech, humorously notes, “We’ve always talked about millennials as urban people… But it turns out they’re not that cool anymore.” Indeed, some 45% of millennials now plan to buy homes in the suburbs, according to a recent Bank of America survey. That’s up from 33% in 2015. Perhaps it’s not about being “cool” anymore but about being “smart.”

    The gourmet exodus: A culinary revolution in suburbia

    This new suburban migration is not just about homes and workplaces. It’s also transforming the gastronomic landscape. Urban retail vacancies surpassed suburban ones in 2022, for the first time since 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal. Like ants to a picnic, restaurants and retailers are flocking to these thriving town centers.

    Consider the salad chain, Sweetgreen. Once a downtown staple, it’s now making the suburbs its main stage with 50% of its locations nestled there. And it’s not just salad — even big-name chefs are choosing suburban towns for their next culinary adventures. It’s as if suburbia has become the new Manhattan for the restaurant world.

    The face of suburbia is changing, too. Long associated with homogeneity, suburbs are now outpacing the national average for racial diversity, according to a Brookings Institution analysis. The stereotype of the white picket fence is slowly giving way to a vibrant mosaic of cultural diversity.

    The city still stands: A reality check

    Despite this suburban boom, downtowns aren’t ready to throw in the towel just yet. Yun reminds us that people are returning to city centers, even in the hybrid work era. And while suburbs close to cities are flourishing, demand in the far-out ‘burbs has dropped significantly since the pandemic’s peak.

    So, in this grand game of real estate, it’s not about cities losing or suburbs winning. It’s about recognizing that the playing field is changing. As we embrace the flexibility that technology affords us, our living preferences are evolving in turn. As I tell my clients whom I helped figure out their return to office and hybrid work plans, you need to go where your employees are, rather than simply trying to impose a top-down command-control structure on them — at least, if you want to retain your top talent.

    Related: You Should Let Your Team Decide Their Approach to Hybrid Work. A Behavioral Economist Explains Why and How You Should Do It.

    Cognitive biases: Unseen forces shaping our choices

    Underneath our decision-making processes, cognitive biases often run the show. They’re like puppeteers, subtly influencing our choices and judgments. Two key biases that might be influencing this suburban migration are the status quo bias and the anchoring bias.

    First, let’s consider the status quo bias. This is our tendency to prefer things to stay the same by doing nothing or maintaining our current or previous decision. With the onset of the pandemic, the status quo was disrupted, forcing us to adapt to a new “normal” — working from home.

    For many, this temporary change has transformed into a comfortable routine. The novelty has worn off, replaced by the status quo bias. We’ve become accustomed to the convenience, freedom and flexibility of remote work. The prospect of returning to our previous lifestyle — the daily commute, the rigid office hours — seems more daunting than sticking to the new status quo.

    The anchoring bias, on the other hand, refers to our tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we encounter (the “anchor”) when making decisions. When the pandemic hit, the “anchor” for many was the vision of a lifestyle free from daily commuting and office constraints. This initial impression has strongly influenced subsequent decisions about work and living arrangements.

    Moreover, as we have seen suburban life flourish — with burgeoning retail spaces, diverse communities, and the promise of a more balanced lifestyle — these positive first impressions have only been reinforced. The anchor has been cast, and it’s landed firmly in suburban territory.

    By understanding these cognitive biases, we can make more informed decisions about our work and lifestyle choices. As we navigate this era of change, it’s crucial to challenge our biases, question our assumptions, and remain open to all possibilities. Only then can we truly make the most of the opportunities that the future of work presents.

    Conclusion

    In the end, whether it’s the city’s siren call or the suburb’s sweet serenade that wins your heart, it’s clear that flexible work has forever changed the way we live. It’s reshaped not just our working lives, but our homes, our communities and our landscapes. The suburbs are having their moment in the sun, not as a retreat from the city, but as a compelling alternative.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • How Leaders Can Help Employees With ADHD Succeed in Remote Work | Entrepreneur

    How Leaders Can Help Employees With ADHD Succeed in Remote Work | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Imagine stepping into a maze — winding paths, hidden pitfalls, and the tantalizing lure of success waiting just around the corner. That’s the corporate landscape for you. Now imagine navigating the same maze while riding a unicycle. The paths get trickier, the pitfalls become gaping chasms and the goal seems miles further away. This, my friends, is the struggle workers with ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) face daily.

    Skynova’s recent survey, which analyzed the challenges and triumphs of 1,008 workers with ADHD, throws light on this issue. The survey is akin to a high-powered flashlight, illuminating hidden corners and detailing how these workers are faring, particularly in the uncharted territories of remote work.

    Related: The 5 Superpowers People With ADHD Can Use to Be Better Entrepreneurs

    The daunting dial: Remote work dials up challenges for workers with ADHD

    Picture the daily work life of an individual with ADHD as a boxing match. Every punch, every dodge, every round won or lost is a new challenge or victory. Now, introduce remote work into this picture. It’s like giving the adversary an extra glove. The same study by Skynova shows that remote workers with ADHD find their daily tasks 17% more challenging than their on-site peers. The challenge is no longer a straightforward match; it’s morphed into a tag-team wrestling bout with hidden opponents and unforeseen tactics.

    But the plot thickens further, like a detective novel with a surprise twist. Remote workers with ADHD are 54% more likely to struggle with impulse control than their on-site colleagues. The lure of distractions for these individuals is akin to a child let loose in a candy store, with all the goodies in the world at their fingertips. The challenge is a sticky one, holding on with the tenacity of bubble gum on a hot sidewalk.

    So, what’s the secret ingredient to brewing a workplace that’s ADHD-friendly? The answer is as simple and delightful as adding whipped cream to your hot chocolate — flexible schedules. Picture a night owl, not confined by the traditional 9 to 5, but free to spread its wings when it’s most alert and productive. This is the allure of flexible schedules, which 64% of employees with ADHD have chosen as their top benefit for how workplaces can help those with ADHD.

    Thus, ironically, remote work both correlates with more challenges in daily tasks for those with ADHD and serves as a solution, by providing greater flexibility. Given that nearly two-thirds of those with ADHD choose flexibility as their most important benefit for addressing ADHD in the workplace, it seems the benefits of remote work outweigh the costs.

    Indeed, that’s what surveys of my clients find when I help them in the return to office transition and flexible hybrid work policies: those with ADHD, fatigue, brain fog and a set of other conditions express a stronger preference for more flexibility, in schedule and place of work than those who don’t suffer from such conditions. However, Skynova’s survey highlights an issue I haven’t sufficiently considered, namely whether those with certain conditions, such as ADHD, might benefit from greater support to address impulse control challenges.

    The silver lining: Career growth and ADHD

    ADHD might seem like an impediment, but Skynova’s survey highlights that it’s not a career killer. Imagine yourself stuck in rush-hour traffic — congested, slow, but not stagnant. Progress is slow, but it’s progress nonetheless.

    Many hybrid (74%) and on-site (68%) workers admit that they have grown in their careers despite their ADHD. It’s like watching a small sapling grow into a mighty tree despite the rocky soil. Meanwhile, 61% of their remote counterparts echo this sentiment, albeit at a slightly lesser frequency.

    The numbers portray a powerful story, much like a riveting novel. A whopping 58% of employees with ADHD express satisfaction with their career choices. They are the content diners at a restaurant, satiated and pleased with the meal of career options served to them.

    The balancing act: Nurturing a supportive environment for workers with ADHD

    It’s now time to shine a spotlight on the corporate maestros — the organizations. Here, the picture is a mixed bag of popcorn, with flavors ranging from savory to unsavory. On the bright side, four in 10 workers with ADHD play a harmonious tune, stating that their company or manager strikes the right chord in providing a supportive environment.

    Remarkably, two-thirds of these corporate tightrope walkers believe they have grown in their careers despite the juggling act. It’s a testament to their resilience and determination. However, 39% express that their ADHD has sometimes acted like an overly cautious GPS, restricting their journey by suggesting safer, albeit longer and less rewarding routes.

    In some cases, ADHD is more than just a hurdle – it feels like a looming mountain. Over a quarter of workers with ADHD have tasted the bitter pill of layoffs, with 21% suspecting that their ADHD was a contributing factor. It’s akin to being penalized for a snowstorm when all you did was forget your snow boots.

    Related: Benefits of a Positive Work Environment

    Cognitive biases: The invisible puppeteers of the ADHD narrative

    Just as a marionette is controlled by the invisible strings of its puppeteer, our perceptions and decisions about ADHD and remote work can often be manipulated by cognitive biases. These cognitive biases can distort our understanding and influence our decisions, like an autocorrect feature that sometimes corrects us in the wrong way.

    Confirmation bias is like a picky eater at a buffet, choosing only the foods it likes and ignoring the rest. This cognitive bias drives us to favor information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs while discarding any data that challenges them.

    In the context of ADHD and remote work, confirmation bias might lead us to focus exclusively on the challenges faced by individuals with ADHD. We might be more inclined to view ADHD as a barrier, only taking note of the 17% increase in daily challenges for remote workers with ADHD. We might overlook the part of the Skynova study that tells us that a significant percentage of workers with ADHD (65%) have managed to grow in their careers despite their challenges. Or that 64% prefer flexibility as the top way that companies can help address challenges for people with ADHD. It’s like ignoring the spectacular dessert section in the buffet because we are too fixated on the sushi counter.

    In the workplace, managers and colleagues might also succumb to confirmation bias, interpreting the actions of employees with ADHD through a lens of preconceived notions. For example, an employee with ADHD who forgets a deadline might be viewed as “irresponsible,” reinforcing negative stereotypes about ADHD. In doing so, we overlook the unique strengths and potential that these individuals bring to the table.

    Related: The ‘E Word’: Why You’re Afraid of It, and Why You Should Embrace It Instead

    The empathy gap is like standing at the edge of a wide canyon, unable to reach the other side because we cannot bridge the divide. This bias refers to our difficulty in understanding others’ experiences, particularly if they differ significantly from our own.

    In the world of remote work, the empathy gap can lead to a lack of understanding and support for colleagues with ADHD. For instance, people without ADHD might struggle to grasp why a remote environment presents extra challenges for their ADHD colleagues. It’s like trying to understand why someone might be afraid of heights when you’ve never climbed higher than a step stool.

    They might not understand the heightened struggle with impulse control that their remote colleagues with ADHD experience. As a result, they might unintentionally make decisions or judgments that further exacerbate these challenges. For instance, a manager might schedule back-to-back virtual meetings, not realizing the difficulty this may pose for an employee with ADHD who may need short breaks between tasks for optimal focus and productivity. Indeed, the second most-named benefit after flexible schedules helpful for addressing problems for those with ADHD was employers encouraging breaks when needed, named by 44% of survey respondents.

    In order to counteract these cognitive biases, it is crucial to foster an environment of open conversation and education about ADHD. Understanding these biases, like holding up a mirror to our thoughts, is the first step towards ensuring that our decisions and actions become more inclusive and supportive of all workers, whether they are navigating the corporate labyrinth from an office cubicle or a home desk.

    Conclusion: A call for adaptation and understanding

    To sum it all up, navigating remote work with ADHD is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube on a roller coaster — thrilling, challenging, and certainly not for the faint-hearted. Yet, with the right modifications, such as flexible schedules, the roller coaster can be transformed into a scenic train ride — still exciting, but now manageable and even enjoyable.

    An office, whether physical or virtual, should not resemble a battleground where survival is the only goal. Instead, it should be a sandbox where everyone gets to play, build, and thrive. So, let’s remove the obstacles and fill the sandbox with tools and toys that enable everyone to create their best sandcastles. After all, a castle is most majestic when built by many hands.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • What Working Moms at Your Company Really Need This Mother’s Day | Entrepreneur

    What Working Moms at Your Company Really Need This Mother’s Day | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    As the aromatic scent of Mother’s Day roses begins to waft through the air, let’s ponder on a different kind of bouquet we could offer our hardworking mothers. Picture this: a bouquet of flexible work options, wrapped up in the velvety petals of understanding and empathy. Now that’s a gift that keeps on giving!

    The surprising state of motherhood

    The latest State of Motherhood report from Motherly, with almost 10,000 mother respondents, paints an interesting picture. The number of stay-at-home mothers nearly doubled from 2022 to 2023, leaping from 15% to 25%. The pendulum of motherhood, it seems, has swung back to its norm, staying within the typical range of 24% to 28%. Last year was the outlier, a remarkable blip on the radar, with a significantly lower number of stay-at-home moms.

    Why? Because mothers were armed with the magic wand of work flexibility. As more companies are herding their employees back to the office, some mothers find themselves in a tight corner. With no other choice, they take on the full-time job of caring for their kids, triggering an exodus from the workforce.

    According to Jill Koziol, Motherly CEO and cofounder, “In 2022, mothers were riding the wave of flexible or hybrid work arrangements, relics from the pandemic era. With the abrupt return to in-office work, it seems the invoice was sent directly to the mothers.”

    That’s what I tell my clients who are deciding whether to have a flexible or inflexible return to office plan: if they don’t offer mothers flexibility, a large number will leave the workforce. It’s an inevitable consequence of a top-down mandate.

    Related: You Should Let Your Team Decide Their Approach to Hybrid Work. A Behavioral Economist Explains Why and How You Should Do It.

    Who paid the price?

    In our rush to return to “normal,” we may overlook the cost of such transitions. The Motherly survey tells a tale of a quiet, yet impactful departure from the workforce. And the numbers don’t lie. A full 18% of mothers changed jobs or left the workforce entirely last year. Some may read this statistic and shrug, but let’s dive deeper into the why.

    For 28% of these mothers, the desire to be at home with their kids was the driving force. On the surface, this seems like a personal choice, and indeed it is. But underneath, there’s a complex network of factors at play, including the lack of flexible work options.

    For 15% of mothers, the absence of childcare options was the deal breaker. This isn’t a minor inconvenience. It’s a roadblock that slams the brakes on a mother’s career, often with long-term consequences.

    Related: Why Employers Forcing a Return to Office is Leading to More Worker Power and Unionization

    The flexibility factor

    And yet, the solution isn’t as elusive as it may seem. The Motherly survey found that 64% of stay-at-home moms would return to the workforce if offered flexible work schedules. The mere availability of flexible work isn’t a bonus or a perk. It’s a powerful lever that can significantly alter the employment landscape for mothers.

    Imagine the impact. Thousands of mothers re-entering the workforce, contributing their skills, perspectives, and ideas. Thousands of families gaining additional financial security. It’s a win-win situation, and all it requires is a shift in perspective, a reevaluation of our rigid work structures.

    An alternative approach is improving the affordability of childcare. Over half, 52% of the mothers surveyed, would return to work if affordable childcare was available — less so than if offered flexibility, but still a large chunk. The current system, where childcare costs often eat up a significant portion of a paycheck, is untenable for many families.

    But this isn’t an issue that individual families should shoulder alone. Employers, policymakers, and society at large all have a role to play in creating solutions. This might include employer-sponsored childcare, subsidies, or policies that help bring down the cost of childcare. Thus, individual employers who are unwilling to be flexible should offer childcare support: they won’t get the full benefits of flexibility, missing out on 12% of working moms, but they will get most of the benefits.

    Conclusion

    Of course, most companies won’t be able to afford that expense. So here’s a radical idea for this Mother’s Day. Instead of the typical gifts, let’s consider giving mothers something that will truly make a difference: flexible work. It doesn’t cost the company more money — instead, flexible work saves money, to the tune of up to $11,000 per employee. This isn’t a gift that’s given once and forgotten. It’s a gift that keeps on giving, day after day, month after month. It’s a gift that acknowledges the realities of motherhood and the value of a mother’s contribution to the workforce. Let’s make this Mother’s Day the start of a new era. An era where we don’t just pay lip service to the importance of work-life balance, but actively create the conditions that make it possible. An era where flexible work isn’t an exception, but the norm.

    usechatgpt init success

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • Forcing Your Employees Back to The Office Full-Time for Mentorship Isn’t The Answer — This Is. | Entrepreneur

    Forcing Your Employees Back to The Office Full-Time for Mentorship Isn’t The Answer — This Is. | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Picture this: A large tech company decides to bring employees back to the office, believing that this will encourage mentoring and support organizational continuity. For example, consider what Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff said in Spring 2023 on a podcast: “For our new employees who are coming in, we know empirically that they do better if they’re in the office, meeting people, being onboarded, being trained. If they are at home and not going through that process, we don’t think they’re as successful.”

    That’s why Salesforce decided to change its policy from its previous fully flexible model. For example, the company’s Chief People Officer, Brent Hyder, wrote in a September 2022 company blog post that “at Salesforce, we’ve never had office mandates, and we never will.” However, in the Spring of 2023, Salesforce demanded that sales and marketing staff come to the office four days a week. We’re seeing many tech, finance and other leaders make similar claims and adopt similar policies.

    Certainly, these changes at Salesforce and other companies represent well-intentioned moves trying to develop the careers and performance of junior staff. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that they are misguided in the post-pandemic world. The result? Resentful senior staff, lackluster mentoring and a suboptimal work environment. Here’s why, and how to fix it.

    The broken osmosis strategy: When senior staff feel resentment

    Many leaders, driven by their memories of pre-pandemic times, believe that forcing employees to return to the office will naturally lead to mentoring and development. However, the pandemic has shown senior staff that they can be highly productive outside the office, and many of them now resist the idea of returning. When I ran focus groups while helping 23 companies figure out their return to office and hybrid work arrangements, I found that many senior staff forced to return to the office often come in, put on headphones, and avoid interacting with anyone, effectively nullifying the intended osmosis effect.

    For instance, consider a former client, a regional insurance company where senior staff, feeling resentful about the forced return, became less available for mentoring, leading to junior staff struggling to adapt to their new roles and responsibilities. The insurance company’s productivity and employee morale took a hit as a result, which they hired me to help them address.

    Related: Why Employers Forcing a Return to Office is Leading to More Worker Power and Unionization

    The mentoring mismatch: Rewarding soft skills over technical abilities

    The forced return to the office can lead to a disparity in mentoring. The focus groups revealed that the only junior staff receiving mentoring in this “forced return” scenario were those with strong initiative and social skills. Unfortunately, this approach leaves those who need mentoring the most — employees lacking social skills and initiative — in the cold. After all, the ones who need mentoring most are the ones without strong initiative and social skills, since mentoring helps develop these soft skills. Moreover, strong social skills often don’t correlate to the ability to do the technical job well. Thus, the ones who do get mentoring are often the ones with great soft skills, but weaker technical skills.

    In the case of a large professional services firm that asked me to consult for them, this exact situation unfolded. The employees who benefited from the forced return were those who could navigate social interactions adeptly, while the technically skilled but socially awkward employees were left behind.

    In another client, a late-stage SaaS startup, a similar situation occurred. The employees with outstanding interpersonal skills managed to secure the attention of senior staff, while their colleagues with strong technical skills but weaker social aptitude struggled to obtain the mentoring they needed. This imbalance can lead to a skills gap that hampers the overall performance of the organization.

    The path forward: Hybrid mentoring programs

    Instead of forcing everyone to return to the office and hoping for osmosis-driven mentoring, it’s imperative to create a hybrid mentoring program that encompasses in-person and virtual mentoring elements. Such a program has been successfully implemented for several of my clients, such as the companies mentioned earlier. The result was happier senior staff and more effective mentoring.

    Why are senior staff more willing to come to the office to do mentoring rather than through a mandate? Well, my focus groups with senior staff showed that they overwhelmingly realized the value of in-person mentoring: Not only did they get in-person mentoring themselves, but they also recognized that in-person connection is very important for building trust. It allows junior people to be vulnerable when they ask questions that reveal vulnerability.

    Such a policy does not require indiscriminate mandates of return to office for three to five days a week: instead, it requires people to be in the office for certain set tasks. Senior staff is much happier and more likely to support and have buy-in into coming to the office and doing mentoring gladly when they know they have a good reason to be in the office for a mentoring meeting. They are not going to be nearly as resentful as for what feels to them like an arbitrarily mandated office return informed by biased thinking reflective of pre-pandemic realities, which results in resistance, attrition, disengagement and morale problems among senior employees.

    By contrast, established employees feel that their individual and specific expertise and contributions are being valued when they are asked to come to the office specifically to do a mentoring meeting; moreover, they end up spending less time in the office if they do several mentoring meetings a week than if they have to be in the office for a full three to five days. Thus, company leaders get what they want, senior staff get what they want and junior employees get what they want. A win-win-win for all.

    Related: The Surprising Reason Behind Why Many Leaders Are Forcing Employees Back to The Office

    Key components of a successful hybrid mentoring program

    From my experience, a hybrid mentoring program requires several key activities:

    • Individual lunch sessions with senior professionals: One-on-one interactions with senior professionals are the most powerful form of mentoring, but given the scarcity of time for senior professionals, this should not be the only mentoring activity.
    • Virtual coffee roulette with senior professionals: A lower time burden for senior professionals, allowing for more accessible mentoring arrangements, even though less impactful than individual lunch sessions.
    • Group lunch sessions with senior professionals: A senior employee takes out a few junior employees for lunch, which facilitate knowledge sharing and relationship building in a time-efficient manner for senior professionals.
    • Group mentoring: A senior employee mentors a cohort of junior employees, fostering a collaborative learning environment and reducing time demands on senior staff.
    • In-person coworking sessions: One senior and several junior employees work together on their individual tasks in shared spaces in the office for a couple of hours. Junior team members can ask questions as they come up, while the senior staff person can check in on their work every half-hour or so. Doing so promotes teamwork and organic knowledge transfer while decreasing the burden on senior employees.
    • Virtual coworking sessions: Similar to in-person coworking, but conducted via videoconference for increased flexibility.

    Successful mentoring programs involve a number of important guiding principles:

    • Goal-oriented mentoring: Ensure mentoring programs have clear goals and incentives to maximize engagement and effectiveness. Align the program with the organization’s values and objectives, so that both senior and junior employees understand its purpose and importance.
    • Regular evaluations: Assess the progress and success of mentoring initiatives to ensure continuous improvement. Solicit feedback from both mentors and mentees and use the insights to refine and enhance the program.
    • Mentor training and support: Equip senior staff with the skills and resources they need to be effective mentors. Offer training sessions to help them develop their coaching and communication skills, and provide ongoing support to ensure their success in the mentoring role.
    • Customization and flexibility: Recognize that different employees have unique needs, and design a mentoring program that can be tailored to accommodate individual preferences and requirements. This approach will help maximize the program’s impact and effectiveness.
    • Accountability and follow-up: Establish clear expectations for both mentors and mentees and track their progress throughout the mentoring relationship. Encourage regular check-ins and follow-ups to ensure that both parties are meeting their commitments and making progress toward their goals.

    A bold new approach for a post-pandemic world

    The key takeaway? Forcing employees back to the office in hopes of fostering mentoring through osmosis is a relic of the past. In a world where remote and hybrid work are now the norm, it’s time to adapt and implement hybrid mentoring programs that cater to the needs of both senior and junior staff. Embrace this bold new approach, and watch your organization thrive in the face of change.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • Why Employers and Employees Aren’t Agreeing on Expectations | Entrepreneur

    Why Employers and Employees Aren’t Agreeing on Expectations | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In just seven years, we will face a global worker shortage of 85 million people, according to the 2023 Workforce Trends ManPower Group report. That means there will be major shifts in the power balance between employees and employers. Traditional employers with a command and control leadership style will have less power as power shifts more to employees.

    With increased power over employees, expectations are shifting. Consider these statistics:

    • 31% of current workers would take another role in the next month if it offered a better blend of work and lifestyle.
    • 68% of Gen Z workers are not satisfied with their organization’s progress in creating a diverse and inclusive work environment and 56% would not accept a role without diverse leadership.
    • More workers think that the ability to collaborate (83%), solve problems (82%) and be trustworthy (82%) are more important to do their job well than simply being a high producer (76%).
    • 57% of employees are already pursuing training outside of work, because company training programs don’t teach them relevant skills.
    • 75% of investors say companies should address ESG (environmental, social and governance) issues, even if doing so reduces short-term profitability (diversity, equity and inclusion fit in the “S”).

    To address these growing macro trends, organizations need to:

    • Model and reinforce workplace flexibility — especially senior leadership).
    • Objectively measure employee performance (a.k.a. behaviors + results).
    • Proactively address ESG social issues before it is mandated.

    Related: How to Balance Employee Happiness and Business Expectations

    1. Model and reinforce workplace flexibility — especially senior leadership

    Considering nearly one-third of workers would leave their roles immediately for better work-life integration, this signals a growing expectation for authentic flexibility. No longer a nice to have, it is a must-have for workers. More traditional cultures have been slow to change, expecting employees to return post-pandemic to the status quo. Rather than retreat to past notions of workplace expectations, this is an opportunity to shift to meet shifting employee expectations. People are looking to leaders to not just say flexibility is important but to model it through their own actions. As leaders work remotely and take time off, employees feel safer doing so as well.

    Here are some unconventional ways leadership can promote flexibility (Note: For front-line workers, virtual work may not be a possibility and flexibility can be more constrained):

    • Host a workplace offsite at a remote location where employees can bring their families, mixing work and life in a relaxed environment.
    • Set expectations for in-person days in the office environment. Consider maybe one or two designated days per week that your employees are expected to be physically present, and working from home the remainder of the days.
    • Be clear about holiday observances cross-culturally. Be cognizant of holiday celebrations and out-of-office obligations.
    • Talk to team members about their travel interests or family visits, encouraging them to work from other locations if they can and want to during less busy times.

    2. Objectively measure employee performance (behaviors + results)

    Subjective criteria invite bias into the performance management process. More often, inclusive behavior is just as important as the ability to get results. If your employees are getting results with exclusionary behavior, they need to be held accountable for these behaviors as well — trust, collaboration and problem-solving skills. Increasingly, toxic workplace behavior is a key reason for employees self-selecting out organizations. If you tolerate toxic behavior because the person is getting results, it’s the same as saying toxic workplace behavior is acceptable.

    Consider adding competencies to the performance management process to ensure people are not only getting the results but they’re being held accountable for their behavior. Competencies like communication, leadership, empathy and vulnerability are highly correlated with healthy workplace cultures. What gets measured and gets done. When people are held accountable for their behavior, the culture shifts.

    Related: Employees Only Meet Expectations When They Know What’s Expected

    3. Proactively address ESG social issues — before it’s mandated

    Europe’s expected mandate of ESG reporting will affect any organization that does business in Europe. Rather than having to react once enacted, it’s important to proactively prepare. Because diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are a part of the social component of ESG, organizations will be expected to report on DEI activities and representation numbers. Investors, customers and employees alike are asking how organizations are contributing to positive social change. As the power continues to shift to employees, expect this question to be asked more often, realizing future consumers and employees are voting with their dollars and employment decisions. People want to work with organizations that are creating social good.

    Case study

    A Fortune 25 client of ours in the financial services industry realized this shift in employee power. Instead of maintaining the status quo, they decided to develop a program that responded to changing employee needs. They built a nine-month Men as Allies program with a curriculum to support learning on flexibility, inclusive leadership skills and how to effectively mentor and sponsor people different from themselves. The result was a boost in year-over-year membership growth of 30% for women and 40% for men as allies. Promotion rates and retention for women in the program increased as well.

    With a growing disconnect in workplace expectations, it’s important that organizations realize that the workplace needs to change, not the employees. By modeling flexibility, measuring employee performance and anticipating ESG expectations, we can meet employees where they are and create more inclusive workplaces where all people feel seen, heard and feel like they belong.

    [ad_2]

    Julie Kratz

    Source link

  • Video: Four-day work week, cracking down on junk travel fees, and more on CNN Nightcap | CNN Business

    Video: Four-day work week, cracking down on junk travel fees, and more on CNN Nightcap | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    The Points Guy Founder Brian Kelly tells “Nightcap’s” Jon Sarlin how consumers can avoid paying junk hotel and airline fees. Plus, EZPR’s Ed Zitron says the ad-based model of social media is dying. And Bloomberg Commentator and author of “The Nowhere Office” Julia Hobsbawm explains why the largest 4-day work week trial ever conducted could change the future of work. To get the day’s business headlines sent directly to your inbox, sign up for the Nightcap newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft and Google promised to invest in these communities. Now they’re backtracking | CNN Business

    Microsoft and Google promised to invest in these communities. Now they’re backtracking | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    When Microsoft President Brad Smith announced in February 2021 that the tech giant had purchased a 90-acre plot of land in Atlanta’s westside, he laid out a bold vision: The company, he said, would invest in the community and put it “on the path toward becoming one of Microsoft’s largest hubs” in the United States.

    The announcement, which was met with enthusiastic coverage in local media, promised the construction of affordable housing, programs to help public school children develop digital skills, support for historically Black colleges and universities, new funding for local nonprofits, and affordable broadband for more people in Atlanta.

    “Our biggest question today is not what Atlanta can do to support Microsoft,” Smith wrote. “It’s what Microsoft can do to support Atlanta.”

    Two years later, Microsoft announced a series of cost-cutting efforts, including eliminating 10,000 jobs, making changes to its hardware portfolio and consolidating leases. As part of those moves, Microsoft put development of its Atlanta campus on pause this month, a spokesperson confirmed to CNN.

    The decision to pause plans feels like a “broken promise” that caught many residents of the predominately Black neighborhood where Microsoft planned to build the campus off-guard, according to Jasmine Hope, a local resident and chair of her neighborhood planning unit.

    “All the promises of, ‘We’re going to put a grocery store here, we’re going to bring jobs to the area, we’re going to have a pipeline between the schools and Microsoft to create jobs,’ all that seems like it’s out the window,” she told CNN. “But the consequences are still being felt by the neighborhood.”

    A Microsoft spokesperson said the land is not for sale, “and we still aim to set aside a quarter of the 90 acres for community needs.” Microsoft will continue efforts “to create a positive impact in the region and be a contributing community partner,” the spokesperson added.

    As the tech industry boomed in the United States throughout the past decade, cities across the country vied to become tech hubs. State and city officials competed for Silicon Valley giants to bring offices, data centers and warehouses to their communities in hopes of creating jobs and bringing other benefits that cash-strapped local governments might struggle to fund on their own. In perhaps the biggest example of this, 238 communities submitted bids in 2017 to be home to Amazon’s second headquarters, with some offering major tax breaks or even to rename land “city of Amazon.”

    But now, a number of large tech companies are rethinking their costs, after years of seemingly limitless hiring and expansion. The reason: a perfect storm of shifting pandemic demand for online services, rising interest rates and fears of a looming recession. Much of the focus of this tech downturn so far has been on the long list of layoffs, but companies have also teased plans to dramatically reduce real estate expenses across the country.

    Facebook-parent Meta, Microsoft, Salesforce and Snap have each shuttered offices or announced plans to cut back on real estate, according to recent corporate announcements, filings and local news reports. Some tech companies have said they’ll let leases expire or go fully remote. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company is “transitioning to desk-sharing for people who already spend most of their time outside the office.”

    The effect of those pullbacks can already be felt across the country, from New York City, where Meta reportedly scaled back its real estate footprint in the Hudson Yards neighborhood, to San Francisco, where some local businesses say they are facing the ripple effects of remote work and multiple tech office closures.

    “Tech had pretty much gained market share to become the top industry leasing office space across the US, and that started back in 2012, 2013,” said Colin Yasukochi, the executive director of the Tech Insights Center at CBRE, a commercial real estate firm. In 2022, however, finance and insurance companies overtook the tech industry for the highest share of US office leases, according to CBRE’s data.

    “Really, over the last couple of quarters, you’ve seen the tech industry decrease its leasing activity pretty significantly,” he added. “That’s really, I think, the biggest impact that you’ve seen regarding these layoffs and austerity measures: the leasing activity pullback by the tech industry.”

    But the impact of that pullback is perhaps most stark in the communities with less robust tech hubs.

    Quarry Yards, on Atlanta’s westside, has been a source of some promise and dashed hopes. In 2017, Georgia officials included the formerly industrial area on a list of sites where Amazon could build its second headquarters, as part of its pitch to the e-commerce giant. Amazon ultimately went with other cities, but four years later, another Seattle tech giant scooped up the land.

    After the purchase, Microsoft described Quarry Yards as a place with “wide, tree-lined streets” but “broken sidewalks.” The area, Microsoft said, is “food desert with no grocery store, pharmacy or bank.”

    The community, according to Hope, consists of “a lot of elderly, Black neighbors.” These residents, she said, have been worried about gentrification and displacement for years as housing prices and property taxes surge in the metro Atlanta region.

    Jasmine Hope, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Motions Analysis Laboratory, Emory University.

    “Just the announcement of Microsoft coming into town” brought new buyers and developers into the area, she said, exacerbating these longstanding concerns. Data from Zillow indicates average home values in the neighborhood surged more at a significantly faster pace between January 2020 and December 2022 than Atlanta as a whole.

    But residents also had cautious optimism about the benefits Microsoft promised to the community, according to Hope. Now, the community is left with higher prices but none of the promised improvements or economic opportunities. “We’re not going to see any benefits and only deal with the consequences,” she said.

    “It feels like the community is now going to be burdened by this,” she said.

    Hope’s community isn’t alone in confronting the whiplash of Silicon Valley’s real estate pullback. Late last month, the city of Kirkland, Washington, said in a press release that it had been notified by Google that the company will not be proceeding with its proposed redevelopment project that initially aimed to bring a massive new campus to the city.

    In a Kirkland City Council meeting held just last summer, representatives from Google teased a slew of community benefits from the build — including infrastructure improvements, such as the creation of bike lanes and pedestrian trails, as well as a more than $12 million investment in affordable housing. The planning process between Google and the city had been taking place since the fall of 2020.

    “As we continue to shape our future workplace experience, we’re working to ensure our real estate investments meet the current and future needs of our workforce,” Ryan Lamont, a Google spokesperson, told CNN in a statement. “Our campuses are at the heart of our Google community, and we remain committed to our long-term presence in Washington state.”

    Even San Francisco, whose fortunes are tied to Silicon Valley more than any other city, is showing signs of strain from the one-two punch of the shift to remote work and office closures.

    Office vacancy rates in the city hit a record high of 27.6% in the final three months of last year, according to CBRE, compared to the pre-pandemic figure of 3.7%.

    “The previous high was about 20%, after the Dotcom bust,” Yasukochi, of CBRE, told CNN. “We’re at the highest point that our records have shown.”

    The rise of remote and hybrid work had been a major driver in tech giants cutting back on their real estate investments, Yasukochi said. Then came the recent cost-cutting measures.

    Local business owners say they are now feeling the impacts.

    An office sits vacant on October 27, 2022 in San Francisco, California. According to a report by commercial real estate firm CBRE, the city of San Francisco has a record 27.1 million square feet of office space available as the city struggles to rebound from the Covid-19 pandemic. The US Census Bureau reports an estimated 35% of employees in San Francisco and San Jose continue to work from home.

    Mark Nagle, the owner of a 21-year-old Irish pub and restaurant in downtown San Francisco called The Chieftain, told CNN he has witnessed a “cascade of closures” of tech and corporate offices in his neighborhood recently — including the shuttering of a Snapchat office just down the street.

    “We’re in a great location normally, we’re downtown,” Nagle said. But now his business is surrounded by several vacant retail spaces and multiple lots that are under construction.

    The number of workers regularly coming into the area has not bounced back since the start of the pandemic, Nagle said, and neither has his business. Nagle said that in addition to workers stopping by for a drink at the end of their days, nearby companies would frequently hold events and meetings at The Chieftain, but that those have also largely dropped off.

    At least six bars and restaurants in a two-block radius of him have shuttered in recent years, he said.

    “You’re making do with less and it’s made the business so much more unpredictable,” he added. “And we’re one of the lucky ones that can keep their doors open.”

    – CNN’s Clare Duffy contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Snap demands employees work in office 80% of the time starting early next year | CNN Business

    Snap demands employees work in office 80% of the time starting early next year | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    Snapchat’s parent company is asking workers to return to the office 80% of the time, or the equivalent of four days a week, beginning early next year, in the latest sign of tech employees receiving less flexibility nearly three years after the pandemic took hold and amid a wave of industry cost cutting.

    “After working remotely for so long we’re excited to get everyone back together next year with our new 80/20 hybrid model,” a spokesperson for Snap

    (SNAP)     confirmed to CNN in a statement Tuesday. “We believe that being together in person, while retaining flexibility for our team members, will enhance our ability to deliver on our strategic priorities of growing our community, driving revenue growth, and leading in [augmented reality].”

    The new policy will take effect at the end of February.

    News of Snap’s stricter in-office policy was first reported by Bloomberg, which cited an internal memo from CEO Evan Spiegel telling employees they may have to “sacrifice” some amount of “individual convenience” but it will benefit “our collective success.”

    Silicon Valley companies, known for their perk-filled campuses, were among the first to go remote in the early days of the pandemic. More recently, however, some have attempted to mandate workers spend more time in the office. Apple, for example, has called for its corporate workers to be in the office at least three days a week, sparking tensions with some of its staffers. But workers may have less leverage to push back amid a growing number of mass layoffs.

    In late August, Snap announced plans to lay off some 20% of its global employees, or more than 1,200 staffers. A number of other tech companies have since followed suit. Meta, Twitter and Amazon have all cut staff recently, while others like Apple

    (AAPL)     are rethinking their pace of hiring.

    After billionaire Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter

    (TWTR)     closed, he quickly fired some 50% of the social platform’s staff and reversed course on the company’s flexible remote-work policy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Let Your Team Decide Their Approach to Hybrid Work. Here’s Why and How.

    Let Your Team Decide Their Approach to Hybrid Work. Here’s Why and How.

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    A November 2022 survey by Gallup finds that 46% of hybrid employees report being engaged at work when their team determines their hybrid work policy of when to come to the office. By contrast, if employees are free to determine their own approach, only 41% report being engaged. If the leadership determines the top-down policy for everyone, only 35% are engaged, and if it’s their direct supervisor, 32% are engaged.

    It makes sense when you think about it. Team members know best what they need in order to collaborate and socialize together effectively. After all, the only useful function of the office is to facilitate collaboration, socialization and mentoring: people are much more productive in their individual tasks at home. So it makes all the sense in the world for the rank-and-file teams to determine what works best for their needs.

    Yet the Gallup survey shows only 13% of employees say that their team determines their approach to hybrid work. That’s unfortunate and undermines engagement among hybrid workers. And it’s easy to fix.

    From my experience helping 21 companies figure out their hybrid and remote work arrangements, the best practice is for the leadership to provide broad but flexible guidelines for the whole company. Then, let teams of rank-and-file employees determine what works best for them.

    Related: So Your Employees Don’t Want to Come Back to the Office. Here’s How to Create Purpose and Culture in Remote Teams

    Empower each team leader to determine, in consultation with their team members, how each team should function. The choice should be driven by the goals and collaborative capacities of each team rather than the personal preferences of the team leader. The top leadership should encourage team leaders to permit, wherever possible, team members who desire to do so to work remotely.

    To set the stage, first, conduct an anonymous survey of your staff on their preferences for remote work. All companies are different, and you want to know about your staff in particular. More importantly, employees want to feel that they have input on major company decisions. That applies especially to policies concerning working conditions. You’ll get a lot more buy-in, even from staff who may be unhappy with your final policies, if they feel consulted and heard.

    As part of the survey, have respondents indicate who their team leader is: that keeps the survey answers anonymous, but can be provided to team leaders to help them understand the desires of their teams.

    The reason it’s important to ask this in the surveys is that many lower-level supervisors feel a personal discomfort with work from home. They feel a loss of control if they can’t see their staff and are eager to get back to their previous mode of supervising.

    That’s why there’s a low level of engagement when team leads are given sole discretion to make the decisions. You need to have team leaders understand what are the actual preferences of their team members without any team member feeling inhibited by giving their team leader undesirable information.

    While you may choose to ask a variety of questions, be sure to find out about their desire for frequency of work in the office. Here’s a good way to phrase it:

    Which of these would be your preferred working style going forward?

    • A) Fully remote, coming in once a quarter for a team-building retreat
    • B) 1 day a week in the office, the rest at home
    • C) 2 days a week in the office
    • D) 3 days a week in the office
    • E) 4 days a week in the office
    • F) Full-time in the office

    In all the companies where I consulted, there were never more than a quarter who wanted to go back to the office full-time. In fact, one company with over 3,000 employees had 61% of its staff express a desire for fully remote work. And it wasn’t even a tech company.

    In the highly probable case that your results aren’t too different from the typical company, you’ll want to follow the lead of the companies I helped. Namely, you’ll institute a hybrid-first model, with some flexibility for employees who want to work remotely full-time and whose roles permit them to do so.

    Next, make sure that team leaders justify the time their team needs to be in the office. That justification should stem from the kind of activities done by the team. Team members should be free to do their independent tasks wherever they want. By contrast, many — not all — collaborative tasks are best done in person.

    Related: 3 Ways to Empower Everyone to Lead (and How to Do It)

    Team leaders should evaluate the proportion of individual versus collaborative tasks done by their teams. Then, they should use that proportion as a basis for a discussion with the team to determine the frequency of when team members come to the office. And it should be a consensus-based decision-making process, informed by the surveys, with a focus on collaboration, socialization and mentoring. All team members should come to the office on the same days of the week to facilitate collaboration.

    What if team members wish to be fully remote and have a team leader who doesn’t want any remote team members? If this team member can demonstrate high effectiveness and productivity, and if their tasks are mostly individual — 80% or more — the team leader should allow them to work remotely. That team member should only come to the office once a quarter for a team-building retreat.

    However, if the team member needs to collaborate intensely with their team, they might not be able to fulfill that aspect of their role effectively if everyone else is in the office. In that case, they need to either come into the office at least once a week. Alternatively, they might consider finding a new team with a more accommodating team leader. Or they might adjust their role on the team to take on largely-individual tasks.

    There should be a very good reason if the team leader desires more than two days in the office per week. Such reasons exist.

    For example, in one company for which I consulted, the sales teams who placed outbound sales calls decided to do full-time office work. The team leaders argued persuasively that sales staff benefited greatly from being surrounded by other sales staff during outbound calls. Such calls are draining and sap motivation. Being surrounded by others on the sales floor making similar calls boosts motivation and energy. Moreover, hearing others make calls offers an opportunity to learn from their successful techniques, which is difficult to arrange in telework settings. However, such exceptions are rare.

    Generally speaking, no more than 5% of your staff should be forced to be in the office full-time. Surveys show that about 80% of workers who are capable of working remotely expect to do so. Employers indicate they will continue offering a variety of hybrid work options. Yet many are unsure about how to implement this model effectively.

    For maximizing employee engagement, while also facilitating team collaboration, the best practice involves having teams make the decisions. This team-led model will ensure that team members can collaborate most effectively. Using this technique will enable you to seize a competitive advantage in the return to the office.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • Twitter employees head for the exits after Elon Musk’s ‘extremely hardcore’ work ultimatum | CNN Business

    Twitter employees head for the exits after Elon Musk’s ‘extremely hardcore’ work ultimatum | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Another employee exodus appears to be underway at Twitter as many workers rejected Elon Musk’s terms for staying with the company, choosing instead to depart, according to multiple current and former employees.

    As the deadline approached for Twitter employees to respond to Elon Musk’s ultimatum to commit to working in an “extremely hardcore” fashion at the company or leave, some employees appeared to publicly indicate they had chosen the latter option. On Thursday afternoon, Twitter staffers began posting the salute emoji, which has become a signal that someone is exiting the company. One Twitter employee said in a tweet that deciding to join the company was “one of the easiest decisions ever made. Deciding to leave today was 100% the opposite.”

    Meanwhile, an internal Slack channel at the company was filled with employees posting the salute emoji after the 5pm ET deadline, indicating they had chosen not to sign Musk’s pledge and depart the company, employees told CNN.

    Twitter’s remaining workforce had until 5 p.m. ET on Thursday to decide whether they wanted to be a part of the culture Musk wants to implement at the social media company, or else effectively resign, according to an email he sent to staff Wednesday.

    A former Twitter executive who recently exited the company described Thursday’s employee exits as a “mass exodus.”

    On Thursday evening following the exits, employees remaining at the company received an email alerting them that the company’s offices will be temporarily closed and badge access will be restricted through Monday, according to a copy of the email obtained by CNN from a current Twitter employee. Musk’s team similarly shuttered offices during the mass layoffs earlier this month out of a concern for safety and an apparent fear that exiting employees could attempt to sabotage the company on their way out.

    Two Twitter employees told CNN ahead of the deadline on Thursday that they planned to reject the ultimatum, citing a toxic work environment they say the billionaire has introduced. Another Twitter employee told CNN Wednesday they were still weighing the decision, saying the email from Musk “felt like a punch in the gut because no matter how you felt about wanting to stay or wanting to go, you were forced to make a decision and feel like you’re up against the time clock to make the best decision for you and your family.”

    The employee added: “Those decisions are more than just 24 hours.”

    Musk told employees on Wednesday that his goal is to build “Twitter 2.0” and that employees who choose to stay will be required to commit to working “long hours at high intensity” and presumably agreeing to Musk’s demand for Twitter employees, who have been largely working remotely, to return to in-office work. As of midday Thursday, employees still did not have clarity on which remote-work exceptions would be granted if they decide to stay, one employee said.

    Later on Thursday, amid an apparent scramble by management to avoid losing too many workers to the ultimatum, Musk sent an email to staff attempting to clarify his position on remote work, according to text of the email obtained by CNN from a Twitter employee who asked not to be identified.

    “Regarding remote work, all that is required for approval is that your manager takes responsibility for ensuring that you are making an excellent contribution,” Musk said in the email, adding that workers would be expected to attend in-person meetings no less than once a month.

    Twenty minutes later, Musk sent a follow up email saying: “At risk of stating the obvious, any manager who falsely claims that someone reporting to them is doing excellent work or that a given role is essential, whether remote or not, will be exited from the company.”

    The decision to issue an ultimatum came after Musk earlier this month fired half of Twitter’s staff, reducing its workforce to around 3,700 employees, and also reportedly cut many of Twitter’s contract workers. He also pushed out its top leadership and dissolved the board of directors. Musk also recently fired some employees for criticizing him in tweets or on internal Slack channels.

    “I don’t want to stick around to build a product that’s being poisoned from the inside and out,” said one of the employees who plans to reject the ultimatum, but requested anonymity to avoid putting the severance at risk. “Everyone has a price to a certain degree and this severance gives me some comfort into looking for a better environment in the time frame despite the economy.”

    That employee said management now appears to have grown concerned about the number of people planning to depart and are “scrambling” to convince talent to stay. Twitter, which has reportedly eliminated most of its public relations team, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Another Twitter employee, who asked not to be quoted, shared similar concerns and said they planned to also exit the company.

    A recently laid off employee who remains in touch with former coworkers told CNN that everyone they had spoken to plans to reject Musk’s ultimatum and exit the company. “People can’t overlook the public mockery and firing of other employees,” the former employee told CNN. “In the same vein, they can’t overlook or feel comfortable working for someone who has handled the last few weeks in the way Elon has.”

    “People don’t want to sacrifice their mental health and family lives to make the richest man in the world richer,” the former employee added.

    But the decision may not be so easy for others. The ultimatum comes during a difficult period for the tech industry, following mass layoffs and hiring freeze announcements at many major firms including Meta, Amazon, Lyft and others. Employees working in the United States from other countries could also risk losing their work visas if they leave the company.

    A fourth employee told CNN Thursday they plan to stay at the company “because change is rarely influenced from the outside.”

    The shakeup likely to come as a result of the ultimatum will be the last element of the “fundamental organizational restructuring” following Musk’s takeover, he told a Delaware court Wednesday during a trial over his Tesla pay package.

    Musk said in the Wednesday email that the “new Twitter” will be “much more engineering-driven,” leaving some non-engineering workers questioning whether their jobs could be at risk even if they opt to stay.

    “There’s no assurance in this, you’re just like, ‘I might be able to advocate for myself, I might not,’” the employee who expressed uncertainty about the decision said. “What’s behind this door? You don’t know. The only door you know that’s certain is the exit door.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link