Employee sentiment says “hybrid” please

A recent report from ADP Research Institute called “Employee Sentiment on Workplace” contained some interesting survey results. ADPRI surveyed 9,000 US employees who either worked remotely or onsite at workplace locations during the pandemic. They also surveyed employees who divided their work week between onsite and remote locations (hybrid workers) who said they experienced better social and manager dynamics that their fully onsite or remote counterparts – combining key upsides of both working arrangements.

Unfortunately, despite three worker types surveyed, the report does not provide perception comparisons across all three types and their responses. The majority of the report compares onsite and remote workers only and excludes the results from the hybrid workers.

There are still conclusions that I have drawn from the results provided.

The best of both worlds

The following table illustrates the findings when the results from remote, hybrid and onsite workers were provided.

In all but three cases, hybrid worker perceptions are higher than their remote or onsite colleagues. That is, workers who have flexibility to work between an office and a remote location have stronger perceptions of their manager and teammates than remote or onsite workers.

We must be cognisant that this survey was conducted during the pandemic and the results may reflect this. For example, remote workers perceived their team as supportive (66%), followed by hybrid workers (62%) and onsite workers (59%). There is a similar result from workers perceiving their team as collaborative with remote workers having the highest result (62%)and onsite workers the lowest (47%).

These results could be because of the pandemic as opposed to despite of it.

When forced to work completely remotely due to the pandemic, the need for support and collaboration across those teams increased accordingly. Team members proactively reached out to support and collaborate with each other across locations.

The only other area where hybrid worker perception was not the highest was in regard to spontaneous conversations with teammates. It is clear that onsite workers currently have more opportunity for the water cooler conversations. The virtual water cooler is an online, digital alternative to the physical water cooler conversation. Virtual water coolers include unremot, Snack and Donut and more are emerging and evolving every day. By leveraging technology, the gap between the ability for onsite workers to have spontaneous conversations compared to the hybrid and remote worker, will soon be closed.

I believe that these results firmly support the overwhelming employee push for a hybrid working model. The results confirm that the CEO’s demanding a return to the office on a fulltime basis and citing impact on culture and collaboration as the drivers, are disillusioned. Hybrid and remote workers are more supportive and collaborative than their onsite counterparts.

The other results

I don’t find these findings surprising given the circumstance in which most workforces were operating in February 2021 when the survey was conducted.

Longer days 

It has been well reported that remote workers have been working longer days than onsite workers. The survey found that the longer day was on average 1 hour longer for remote workers. The pandemic disrupted both work and personal routines and blurred the lines between work and home life for remote workers. It is imperative as we move towards new hybrid and remote working models that we enable our employees to make a clear delineation between the two. There are various ways to accomplish this including creating a “workspace” at home that is dedicated to work. When an employee walks away from this space, whether it be the end of the kitchen bench, the table in the bedroom or the coffee table in the lounge, they see it as detaching from work just like leaving the office building.

More meetings

Remote workers reported 10% more meetings and work-related conversations (25%) than their onsite colleagues (15%).  A consequence of the move from onsite to remote work was an increase in ‘formal’ meetings. Discussions and conversations that would previously have taken place in a more informal manner were replaced with scheduled meetings. The perceived inability to connect the right people in the right place at the right time other than call a meeting was the root cause.

Leaders and their teams need to reflect and determine what constitutes a meeting, a video call, a telephone call, online document collaboration or a conversation in a collaboration channel and instigate the guidelines. Define the parameters and then work within them while improving iteratively.

This will reduce the well-reported Zoom fatigue. Before any meeting is scheduled the question to be asked is, “do we really need a meeting and if we do, do all these people need to be there.”

Ideal place to live

The survey found that there was little change in a worker’s perception of an ideal place to live pre-pandemic to the current time.

The perception of whether an urban centre, suburb or small town / rural area was an ideal place to live had not been impacted by the pandemic.

What is not clear is the current location of the workers answering the survey. Whilst their ideal location to live may not have changed, it is not evident how many not currently living in that ideal location would now move having proved that remote work can work.

A worker may have always wanted to live in a small town but was restricted from doing so due to the geographical location of the office. That constraint no longer exists for many. 

Frequency of communication

An interesting result was the perception of remote workers that the frequency of communication with their manager had deteriorated since the start of COVID by 26%. In contrast onsite workers (whose manager also works onsite) perceived that frequency of communication with their manager had decreased by 14%. Onsite workers with remote managers also reported a deterioration by 24%.

The results indicate that regardless of location and proximity to their manager, all workers reported a decrease in the frequency of communication at a time when an increase in both the frequency and quality of communication was paramount to employee wellbeing by reducing concern, anxiety, and stress. In an article I wrote for Remote Report in June this year, I shared the research findings from McKinsey that found almost half of the employees surveyed reported that a lack of communication was causing them concern or anxiety.

This highlights the lack of ‘real’ leadership being exposed by the pandemic. Leaders of onsite, remote or hybrid teams must ensure that there is frequent, consistent, and valuable communication for all employees. This is core to the principle of inclusivity and equity for all everyone.

Demonstration of workload / progress and finding time to connect with their manager

17% of workers working remotely and 17% having a remote manager perceived demonstration of workload / progress as a challenge compared to 12% of onsite workers.

A similar pattern emerged from workers saying they had a challenge finding time to connect with their manager. 25% of remote workers and 24% of onsite workers with a remote manager said it was a challenge compared with 18% of onsite workers with a co-located manager.

Let’s to look at the flip side of these figures.

The percentage that does NOT have a challenge demonstrating workload / progress:

·       83% of remote workers

·       83% of onsite workers with a remote manager

·       88% of onsite workers with a co-located manager

The percentage that does NOT have a challenge finding time to connect with their manager:

·       75% of remote workers

·       76% of onsite workers with a remote manager

·       82% of onsite workers with a co-located manager

The challenge for leaders of remote and hybrid teams is to close any gaps that proximity to workers reveals. Workers should not have challenges getting access to their manager due to their location.

It may have been easier in a physical environment to see that your manager is in their office, the door is open and therefore they are probably available, but technology can bridge that gap. Calendar booking software, user presence in collaboration tools and messaging system can be used to find time to connect. Leaders must work with their teams to determine the best way to indicate their availability. 

Listening to each other and ensuring active participation of all

In contrast to what one might expect from this survey, onsite workers have a bigger challenge in listening to each other and ensuring active participation of all than the remote workers.

This could be strongly linked to the fact that remote workers considered their team to be more supportive and collaborative than onsite workers. Remote workers may not perceive listening and participation as a challenge due to the fact they have proactively addressed the challenge when forced into remote work.

The fact is that that there is not much difference in the perception of listening and participation between remote and onsite workers. Only 9% more of onsite workers perceived listening to each other as a challenge and only 2% more perceived active participation of all to be a challenge.

It is a must for leaders to ensure that everyone has a voice, is heard, their input valued, and their participation encouraged and welcomed regardless of where workers are located.

Perception of being micromanaged

Onsite workers have a greater perception of being micromanaged.

It is my firm belief that remote workers feel they have more autonomy and flexibility in how they work as they are not in the line-of-sight of their managers. Micromanagement is much harder to do when your workers are working remotely. Whilst there is clear evidence that managers tried to emulate their line-of-sight of workers at the start of the pandemic through the deployment of employee surveillance software, it does not equate to over-the-shoulder micromanagement.

There is no place for micromanagement in any organisation today. Good leaders empower their employees, provide autonomy, give clear direction, and then get out of the way. They are there to provide support and remove obstacles when they are needed. Bad bosses direct - good leaders provide direction.

Perception of company encouraging innovation

Onsite workers perceive that their company encourages innovation (53%) less than remote workers (68%).

Working remotely and having a feeling of increased autonomy may also lead remote workers to perceive that their company encourages innovation more than onsite workers.

Having more autonomy to work how they want, when they want and where they want, can allow for more creativity, experimentation, and innovation as a side product.

This flies in the face of the CEOs who are demanding their employees return to the office on a fulltime permanent basis citing adverse impact on collaboration and innovation as reason. Innovation is not reliant on face-to-face interactions. It is leaders and their teams that must decide when there is value in face-to-face experiences and how to utilise virtual experiences to augment them.

Innovation is far more likely to be hindered by lack of empowerment, trust, and motivation that it is by location and physical proximity.

Takeaways

The pandemic has afforded organisations one of the greatest opportunities in generations and also one of the biggest challenges.

The size of the challenge is not a reason to avoid taking advantage of the opportunity.

This is a change to reflect, reimagine and reinvent the way we work for the better of all

There has to be an acknowledgement that work is what we do and not where we go.

The future is hybrid, and its success will be dependent on leader removing proximity bias and driving inclusivity and equity across teams.