ReportWire

Tag: hybrid schedule

  • Flexible work is feminist–and women won’t return to a system that hasn’t served them well to spare the feelings of powerful men

    Flexible work is feminist–and women won’t return to a system that hasn’t served them well to spare the feelings of powerful men

    For the first 15 years of my career, I commuted into an office every day. This meant that by the time I had children, my workplace contributions were invisible to them. All they noticed was my absence, not my leadership skills at work. I missed a lot, too: Some days I left the house before they woke up to make it to my first meeting, or walked in the door too late to hear the highs and lows of their days.

    Now that I take fundraising, hiring, and sales calls from home a few days each week while my daughters do homework or play in the next room, they have exposure to the reality of my work. I hope the lessons they are learning about work and its place in a full life will have a positive impact on them in the years to come. 

    As the return-to-office movement gained steam over the past few months, bosses don’t understand why people aren’t returning to the office. They’re voicing concerns over productivity, creativity, culture, advancement, and mentoring–and even asserting that the remote and hybrid work experiment of the past few years has reinforced the critical importance of sitting in an office. Wall Street executive Steven Rattner questioned the effectiveness of remote work, relying on statements from Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon to further his argument. More recently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman called remote work “one of the tech industry’s work mistakes.”

    It’s probably not a surprise that employees don’t feel similarly–new research shows that employees still aren’t permitted to work remotely as much as they’d like. And it is hardly a coincidence that the demographic which benefited most from the old system has also expressed the most anxiety about changing it. But we shouldn’t confuse the feelings of powerful men with facts.

    Despite all of the efforts of the feminist movement that have spanned generations, the reality is that it still largely falls on women to challenge gender inequities in society. Women are still trying to do it all, despite CEOs preserving work arrangements that are outdated and counterproductive when it comes to modern families and changing gender roles. By reimagining when, where, and even how we work, we can make meaningful progress toward gender equality and address the dramatic underrepresentation of women and people of all genders in our companies, particularly at the most senior levels. 

    We’ve been stuck in the same corporate work norms since the late 1940s when many families could live comfortably on one paycheck and just a third of women worked outside of the home. While so much else has changed (women entering the labor force in record numbers in the late 1960s; the Anita Hill Senate hearing in 1991 that centered the movement around the compounding effects of race and class, the internet revolution, a pandemic that sent millions of workers home and yet didn’t crater the economy), we are being told the only way to work is to return to a schedule invented with the Model T.  

    The case for flexible work has a social and moral imperative. It helps retain women, reduces burnout, and makes it easier to have children and deliver on caregiving responsibilities. According to a recent survey of female hybrid workers that combine in-office and remote work, 88% believe the flexibility of hybrid work is an equalizer in the workplace, and two-thirds say it has had a positive impact on their career growth path. Flexible work provides greater opportunities for career advancement across gender lines and increases the number of women in leadership, which is good for business. Companies with more women in leadership have more engaged workers and are more profitable.

    Ninety percent of women want the ability to work remotely, including fully remote or hybrid-work options, and with it have experienced an increased sense of belonging, greater psychological safety, and, thanks to less unstructured time with colleagues, fewer microaggressions. This is even more pronounced for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities. Support for flexibility and the ability to work remotely is inextricably tied to gender equality and benefits us all: women, men, and marginalized genders. 

    The primary breadwinner role is disappearing, with 29% of opposite-sex couples earning the same amount of money and women out-earning their husband in 16% of marriages, and yet, women still spend two more hours on caregiving and 2.5 more hours on housework. Whether a stay-at-home mother or one that works outside the home, mothers still take on the lion’s share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, even though that work continues to be woefully undervalued, underappreciated, and undercompensated.

    For opposite-sex couples with two wage earners, remote work supports gender equality at home by increasing a mother’s paid labor and increasing a father’s domestic labor. Fathers who work from home more frequently perform a greater share of housework and childcare, and their partners are more likely to be employed and work more hours in paid labor. There’s more: Children benefit long term economically and socially when their mother works outside of the home: daughters are more likely to be employed, be supervisors, and earn more, and sons spend more time doing chores around the house and taking care of family members. 

    To be sure, flexibility can go wrong, especially if employers reward the people who spend more time in the office with all of the raises, promotions, and plum assignments. In such a scenario, flexibility could inadvertently contribute to a gender gap in pay and advancement. Proximity bias, the unconscious tendency to favor those that are physically closer to us, is a real pitfall and can lead to two classes of workers that break down by gender and race, with the less favored class being women and workers of color. 

    At the individual level, the benefits of flexibility for employees don’t always hold. When your commute only requires you to walk a few feet and open your laptop, it’s easy to extend your work day, which can have a negative impact on well-being and increase conflict between work and family, particularly for women. Anyone who has tried to work from the middle of their kitchen table knows how challenging it can be to focus when you’re not in a dedicated workplace, especially if you can’t access or afford childcare.

    But these downsides are worth the tradeoffs. The real reason flexible work arrangements haven’t worked or have led to a perception among CEOs of poorer outcomes is that companies haven’t invested in the education, practices, and policies which promote gender equity and improve their workplaces, such as paid leave and mentorship programs. Flexible work certainly isn’t the only key to a more gender-equal society but it’s a hell of a lot better for the most marginalized workers.

    The data on hybrid and remote work arrangements is “at best inconclusive,” which Rattner himself concedes. Flexible work isn’t an excuse for workers to do less work, but rather for them to do more lifemore focused work, more family time, and a greater focus on their well-being. It’s not a rejection of work, but a renouncement of a system that hasn’t served us well. 

    It’s within the power of companies and CEOs to recast the “ideal” worker, value workers who shoulder domestic and caregiving responsibilities, support flexible work arrangements and policies and equip managers to lead through the multidimensional challenges of flexible work. 

    However, the onus is not just on CEOs. All workers, when and where possible, can support flexible work by choosing it for themselves and empowering colleagues to work when and where they need to.

    We must destigmatize flexible work and prevent it from becoming another mommy track, a career path for mothers that offers flexible work at the expense of career advancement–or even worse, another version of the tired misogynist trope “women belong in the house.”

    Flexible work will continue to be a win for women as long as it doesn’t come with penalties, like slower paths to promotions or relegating women to pink-collar fields. And like parental leave, men need to take it without consequence, too, in order to support gender equity and make a powerful statement about the value of caregiving.

    Three years ago, flexible work was novel. Two years ago, it was normal. Today, it’s necessary. Our future workplaces–the ones my children and yours will inherit–rely on us to get this right. 

    Erin Grau is the co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of Charter, a future-of-work media and research company.

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

    Erin Grau

    Source link

  • Resistance, attrition, quiet quitting, and a drop in diversity: Meet the Four Horsemen of the forced return to the office

    Resistance, attrition, quiet quitting, and a drop in diversity: Meet the Four Horsemen of the forced return to the office

    As increasing numbers of companies are requiring employees to return to the office for at least several days per week, they’re running into challenges with resistance, attrition, quiet quitting, and diversity–what one of my clients called the “Four Horsemen of the return to the office.”

    These issues all stem from the fact that workers who are able to work remotely prefer to do so most or all of the time. An August Gallup survey of remote-capable workers shows that 34% of respondents want to work remotely full time, 60% want to work a flexible hybrid schedule, and only 6% want to work in a traditional office-centric setting. A June McKinsey survey of all workers, remote-capable and not, found that over half of all respondents want to work less than half the time in the office. And a September survey from the School of Politics and Economics at King’s College reported that 25% of respondents would quit if forced to return to the office full time.

    Resistance

    No wonder that workers facing return-to-office mandates show resistance, the first of the Four Horsemen. For example, Disney’s CEO Bob Iger has demanded that all employees return to the office at least four days a week The leadership of Apple has required its employees to come to the office three days a week. While Apple employees are not known for stirring trouble, in this case, 1,000 employees signed a petition requesting more flexibility. In September, GM announced that all salaried employees would have to return to the office three days a week. The message sparked intense employee backlash, leading to GM walking back its requirements and delaying any required return to the office to the following year.

    In a September survey, Gartner found that only 3% of companies would fire noncompliant employees, and only 30% would have HR talk to those who don’t show up. No wonder that large U.S. banks trying to force employees back to the office are meeting with high rates of noncompliance of up to 50%. Many other employees are showing up for a part of the workday, from 10 a.m. to two p.m.

    The Labor Day return-to-office mandates resulted in a rise in office occupancy in early September, reaching 47.5% during the week ending September 14 in 10 major cities tracked by Kastle Systems, a security access card provider. Yet office occupancy never rose higher than 50% for the rest of 2022–and ended the year at 48.2%.

    Attrition

    Given this resistance, some workers simply quit, joining the Great Resignation and making attrition the second of the Four Horsemen. That includes rank-and-file employees, as well as top executives such as Ian Goodfellow, who led machine learning at Apple. He quit in protest over Apple’s mandated return to office of three days a week.

    A National Bureau of Economic Research paper about a study at Trip.com, one of the largest travel agencies in the world, is a case in point. It randomly assigned some engineers, marketing workers, and finance workers to work some of their time remotely and others in the same roles to full-time in-office work. Those who worked on a hybrid schedule had 35% better retention.

    Even finance, the industry that is leading the charge for returning to the office, has suffered significant churn. European banks, which offer more flexible hybrid work policies, are using these to hire talented staff from the less-flexible U.S. banks. Smaller and more flexible financial planning firms are headhunting financial planners at larger and less flexible companies. Even bankers at the top banks, like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, are leaving due to the return-to-office requirements.

    Quiet quitting

    Perhaps even more dangerous than resistance and attrition, the third of the Four Horsemen, quiet quitting (employees psychologically disengaging from their work and doing just enough to get by without getting in trouble) rots a company’s culture from within.

    A September 2022 survey by Gallup found that these quiet quitters make up about half of the U.S. workforce. Forcing employees to come to the office under the threat of discipline leads to disengagement, fear, and distrust, according to Ben Wigert, director of research and strategy for workplace management at Gallup. Indeed, Gallup found that if people are required to come to the office for more time than they prefer, “employees experience significantly lower engagement, significantly lower well-being, significantly higher intent to leave [and] significantly higher levels of burnout.” By contrast, employees feel gratitude to companies that give them more flexibility and show trust: as one such employee said, “if my company is going to come in and give me this flexibility, then I’m going to be the first to give them 100%.”

    Indeed, research by Stanford University even before the pandemic found that workers who spent four days a week working remotely were 9% more engaged than in-office staff. Gallup finds that “the optimal engagement boost occurs when employees spend 60% to 80% of their time—or three to four days in a five-day workweek—working off site.” No wonder, then, that mandates forcing employees to come to the office result in quiet quitting.

    Drop in diversity

    The final of the Four Horsemen relates to the serious loss of diversity associated with the mandated office return. A Future Forum survey found that 21% of all white knowledge workers wanted a return to full-time in-office work, but only 3% of all Black knowledge workers wanted the same. Another Future Forum survey found that 38% of Black men wanted a fully flexible schedule, but only 26% of white men did. The Society for Human Resource Management found that half of all Black office workers wanted to work from home permanently, while only 39% of white workers did so.

    Why do we see this difference? It’s because Black professionals still suffer from discrimination and microaggressions in the office, and are less vulnerable to harassment in remote work. Similar findings apply to other underrepresented groups.

    Evidence shows that underrepresented groups are leaving employers who mandate a return to the office and are fleeing to more flexible companies. For example, Meta Platforms offers permanent fully remote work options. By doing so, they found that “embracing remote work and being distributed-first has allowed Meta to become a more diverse company,” according to Sandra Altiné, Meta’s VP of workforce diversity and inclusion. In 2019, Meta committed to a five-year goal of doubling the number of Black and Hispanic workers in the U.S. and the number of women in its global workforce. Thanks to remote work, Meta’s 2022 Diversity Report shows that it attained and even outperformed its 2019 five-year goals for diversity two years ahead of its original plans.

    Companies that offer less flexibility have DEI staff ringing alarm bells about how the desire for remote work among underrepresented groups threatens diversity goals. Underrepresented groups are joining the Great Resignation in greater numbers in the context of the mandated office returns.

    Solutions

    In working with my clients who wish to bring their employees back to the office and slay the Four Horsemen, I find a combination of strategies to be crucial. Before launching an office return, we consider compensation policies. A June 2022 survey by the Society for Human Resources reports that 48% of survey respondents will “definitely” look for a full-time work-from-home job in their next search. To get them to stay at a full-time job with a 30-minute commute, they would need a 20% pay raise. For a hybrid job with the same commute, they would need a pay raise of 10%.

    A September 2022 survey by Goodhire found that 73% of workers believe companies should pay in-office workers more than remote workers. Indeed, research by Owl Labs suggests that it costs an average of $863/month for the average office worker to commute to work versus staying at home, which is about $432/month for utilities, office supplies, and so on.

    That data helped my clients develop a fair compensation plan that paid staff a higher salary if they spent more time in the office. Doing so helped address the first two Horsemen, resistance and attrition. Some of my clients even used that policy as a simple yet effective incentive to nudge most of their staff to return to the office in a way that minimized resistance and attrition, while saving significantly on payroll for the small minority who chose to work remotely.

    Addressing quiet quitting required a range of techniques. One involved working on improving culture and belonging, such as retreats with fun team-building exercises. Another is centered on helping staff address burnout, such as by providing mental health benefits. Finally, it helps if employees feel you care about their professional development: upskilling pays off.

    To help prevent diversity losses, as well as facilitate underrepresented groups getting promoted, it’s valuable to create a formal mentoring program with a special focus on underprivileged staff. That means providing minority staff with two mentors, one from the same minority group and one representing the majority population. Doing so offers the minority mentee a diverse network of connections with the specific knowledge and relationships they will need to advance, while the fact that each mentee has two mentors makes the workload manageable for mentors.

    So, if you are committed to returning to a mostly or fully in-person workforce, remember that you need to watch out for–and defeat–the Four Horsemen before they threaten the success of your return-to-office plan.

    Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., helps executives use hybrid work to improve retention and productivity while cutting costs. He serves as the CEO of the boutique future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the best-selling author of seven books, including Never Go With Your Gut: How Pioneering Leaders Make the Best Decisions and Avoid Business Disasters and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams: A Manual on Benchmarking to Best Practices for Competitive Advantage. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox and over 15 years in academia as a cognitive scientist at UNC-Chapel Hill and Ohio State.

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link