HR know there is a problem with their company's return to office policy. 73% say it is a problem for employee retention.

“Working from home is unlikely to completely go away, but many employers believe working together and in person is a huge factor in creating workplace culture. This creates a tension employers and employees will have to navigate.”  

Over two years since the end of the pandemic, the debate over the return to the office still rages, and the divide between employee and employer is now a chasm across which it seems impossible to build a bridge. The problem is that both sides need to build that bridge together.

Adding fuel to the fire is media commentary on the situation, which is so contradictory it astounds me.

In my first newsletter of 2024, I want to reflect on the utter travesty of 2023 for so many employees. I can only hope for common sense to prevail this year.

Of course, I am talking about the return-to-office mandates being issued by so many organisations.

I thought the quote from Tom Peters was a good title for this newsletter. If you are paying attention and reading all that is being written and spoken about the return to the office, then you will be confused.

It is contradictory, concocted, and controversial.

The idea that how and where we work will return to how it was before the pandemic is false. Companies may try to go back by demanding a return to the office on a full-time basis, but it will not endure. Not only do employees want autonomy and flexibility, but they also deserve it.

We can only move forward as further radical change is likely, as are new challenges in how workers are engaged and managed.

Not only have employees been threatened with performance management and job losses if they do not return to the office, but executives are also having their bonuses linked to their time in the office and getting their employees there.

This, to me, is out-and-out bullying tactics

During the pandemic, companies recruited employees they did not need. They wanted a deep bench and to avoid competitors getting the talent. They recruited people who had nothing to do. Now, there are massive layoffs.

There is an impact on people due to a lack of humanity.

Last week I explored six biases to which leaders can succumb and be detrimental to their leadership capability. They can adversely impact decision-making, hiring, recognition, promotion, and situational assessments.

This week I explore some more biases, how to avoid them, and how to overcome them.

When leaders do not recognise their cognitive biases, it can be extremely dangerous, not only to them, but the team, and the organisation.

Leaders must remove their blinkers and be aware of their biases, how to avoid them, and how to overcome them.

If your employees can work a 4-day, 32-hour week and you can still outsmart your competitors, then go for it. If you can do the same with a 3-day week, knock yourself out. Enable it with investment in automation, artificial intelligence, and productivity skills.

Winning organisations will be those who recognise the skills that will be needed to augment automation and artificial intelligence. These include advanced technological skills such as programming. They will also include social, emotional, and higher cognitive skills, such as creative thinking, critical thinking, and complex information processing.

A recent study from Zenger Folkman found only 16.6% of leaders excel in both grit and coachability.

Leaders must develop both traits.

Grit fuels determination and perseverance.

Coachability acts as the catalyst for continuous improvement through feedback and adaptability.

Even though many organisations made record profits during the pandemic when many of their employees worked from home, many bosses are demanding employees return to the office citing productivity as the driver.

The problem is that these bosses do not know how to measure the productivity of their workers, especially knowledge workers.

Some 71 per cent of business leaders say they’re under immense pressure to squeeze more productivity out of their workers, according to a new Slack survey of 18,000 knowledge workers, including managers. But most are measuring what workers put in, rather than what they put out.

Trust is comprised of Character and Competence.

Competence reflects how you are on the outside, your capability, and the results you deliver. These depend primarily on the level of development of your mental intelligence, your education, and what you have learned during your professional career. Capability is demonstrated by skills, knowledge, and experience. Results are demonstrated by reputation, credibility, and performance.

Trust is based on Character and Competence.

Character reflects how you are on the inside, your intent, and the level of integrity you display in your relationship with others. These depend primarily on the level of development of your emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Intent is demonstrated by caring, transparency, and openness; integrity is demonstrated by honesty, fairness, and authenticity.

It astounds me that organisations with a low trust factor between leaders and employees and vice versa continue to survive. They are toxic places in which to work for everyone and I wonder if those keeping the lights on are just doing so as the retirement package delivery is imminent, and the organisation’s demise is looming too.

Some time ago I started to collate positive and negative comments about remote work by executives across various companies. I wondered whether their stance on remote work had any correlation with employee engagement and company performance. You can read the results for yourself.

A recent article in BBC Worklife caught my eye when it raised this issue. Despite many workers getting what they asked for in terms of flexibility, autonomy, and remote working, one thing that hasn’t gone away is presenteeism.

Psychological safety is not about being nice or mollycoddling, it is not an alternative word for trust, it is not about tolerance of others, and it is not about removing accountability. It is not about wrapping people in bubble wrap and insulating them from threats and friction. It is not about overprotection.

We must practice active listening. This enables us to listen to obtain information, listen to understand, and listen to learn. If you practice active listening it means you are making a conscious effort to not only hear the words being spoken but more importantly, the complete message that is being communicated.

I think the lack of effective communication and active listening is a result of people assuming that because they “communicate” and “listen” all the time, they must be ok at it. This is not the case.

Just because you can speak does not mean you are communicating.

Just because you can hear does not mean you are listening.