Mandates to be in the office may be counterproductive.
In Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, contemplates which of two possible options, life or death, is the better. As we navigate our post-COVID world, many employers find themselves contemplating a similar dichotomy: that is, whether it is better to insist that your employees return to the office or maintain a working from home regime.
While once we may have taken for granted that, in return for a salary, employees present themselves at the office from 9am–5pm, Monday-Friday, experience now shows us that this is not the way of the future. Managing a shift in expectations about where and when employees need to be to work is something all employers need to consider as the need for business outcomes is carefully balanced with employee expectations.
We live in uncertain times. It is stating the obvious to say the world of work has changed. With change comes uncertainty, and with uncertainty comes a range of different reactions.
Some people might cope by enjoying a glass or two (or three!) of fine wine, while others might throw themselves into a sporting endeavour. For some people, the way to manage and process uncertainty is to find something to control and in exerting this control they feel they can cope with their environment and lives more effectively.
However, handling uncertainty by exerting control over a personal space is one thing: when it comes to the workplace, it is a completely different matter. Seeking to return to the pre-COVID status quo as a means of dealing with workplace uncertainty may be tempting to some employers, but it will potentially backfire in the longer term. Employees have seen that they can function effectively at work without the 9 to 5, on-site routine. Therefore, attempts to mandate a return to the office environment may be seen as an attempt to exert unnecessary control that employees are likely to want to resist.
people want the freedom to make choices
As humans, employees want choice. Unsurprisingly, we have seen demonstrated what we already knew intuitively: every person is different, and different people want and need different things. A standard routine of 9am to 5pm, five days a week in the office, often with a lengthy commute thrown in each way, doesn’t suit everyone.
While some of us are challenged by sitting at home with just the dog for company, others flourish in the home office - even if isjust the kitchen table. And in between the office socialite and the home dweller, there is a range of diverse human beings who would like a mix of both.
So how do employers make decisions about the best workplace model and work out which is the better option: to office or not to office? Let’s start by looking at the data and the cognitive science.
the data says we all want different things!
A large workplace study by Gallup explored whether employees prefer a particular type of hybrid schedule. The study addressed the question of whether employees are open to mandated office days When asked about their hybrid work arrangement preferences:
24% preferred their employer require a certain number of days per week in the office
16% preferred their employer require all members of their team to work in the office on a few specific days per week
22% preferred their manager/team to coordinate schedules so that everyone is in the office at least one day per week together
38% preferred complete autonomy over how many days and which specific days they want to work from the office
This data shows that while almost 40% of employees responded that they wanted no mandates when it came to workplace attendance there were also 40% of respondents who wanted their employers to insist on workplace attendance, at least a few days a week.
This would suggest employers are in a ‘no-win’ situation. The adoption of blanket mandates will alienate a significant proportion of employees, while a no office attendance policy will leave others frustrated and potentially disengaged. It seems that only thing that is clear at this stage is that employees want different things.
what about the cognitive science?
So, if the data shouts “we all want different things!” what does the cognitive science tell us about working with this data? There’s an interesting theory (not new) called Reactance Theory, which describes how people react when they sense a threat to their freedom of choice. When a person feels that their freedom to choose an action is restricted, they are more likely to choose that action. Remember when you were told as a child that you couldn’t have that chocolate ice-cream, so you just wanted it so much more? That is reactance theory at play.
What is the dark side of reactance theory? Reactance drives people to perform the threatened or newly forbidden behaviour to prove that they still have free will even if, in the process, they may unintentionally cause themselves harm. So, when someone says don’t touch that hotplate and you do it anyway, you’ve demonstrated you have free will even if you end up with a burnt hand in the process.
Similarly, when we apply this thinking to the workplace, it is not hard to understand that employees want to have control over their job and freedom of choice at work. At a minimum they want to be involved in the decision making.
Managers who don’t engage and listen and who tell everyone they must come into the office to work might find their employees will stay at home just to prove that they can!
the importance of placemaking
If mandating staff to be in the office full-time is not going to be successful, what’s the alternative? In most workplaces, employers have legitimate requirements to have staff present in person in the office, at least part of the time. Team collaboration, brainstorming, and relationship-building are all activities that work better in person. But how do employers achieve the best outcomes for the business while meeting employee needs and expectations, and avoiding mandates and unintended negative consequences?
As one of Australia’s leading workplace consultancies with nearly twenty years’ experience, Puzzle understands workplace design and strategy. Puzzle has also spent quite some time reflecting on the issue of employee choice and its impacts on future ways of working.
We believe that authentic employee engagement is the critical factor. This engagement may look different for each organisation, but it needs to have the focus of finding the best way to engage with and support employees while meeting business outcomes in the new flexible, hybrid world.
When it comes to the issue of ‘to office or not to office’, we suggest that, instead of trying to impose mandates and control where and when employees work, employers should focus on what we term ‘placemaking’.
Placemaking is about ‘making a place’ where people want to be present to work and collaborate. The modern employee is unlikely to want to undertake a lengthy commute to the office to sit in an unattractive workspace where they are distracted by the loud conversation of their colleague at the desk next to them. In contrast, a thoughtfully designed workplace that meets the needs of employees engaged in a variety of tasks such as low focus individual work, or collaboration and team meetings will go a long way towards encouraging employees back into the office, at least part of the time.
Secondly, every employer knows the criticality of increasing or maintaining employee satisfaction. In the current climate of a war for talent, listening to your employees is more critical than ever to minimise employee turnover and improve business outcomes. Therefore, placemaking should also involve employers clearly articulating what they need in terms of business outcomes and then engaging their employees to find out what they want and need in their work environment to achieve those outcomes. By including employees in the process of placemaking, employees are more likely to feel heard, supported and engaged in the success of the business.
Of course, creating beautiful workspaces, clearly articulating business outcomes and engaging with employees to understand their needs are only some of the strategies that employers can consider as they seek to navigate the workplace of the future.
So, instead of descending into the madness of mandates, and entering battles with employees that, like Hamlet, end in the demise of all, we suggest that one of the first things employers should consider when trying to encourage workplace attendance is to engage employees in placemaking. The results could be amazing!
Comments