Let’s face the sad reality. For many years, employers have been leading the show. Rules, politics, processes, structures – everything has been created to make an employer more profitable. But something has turned down. In 2020, the global pandemic made leaders rethink how they react toward the employees in the companies. While employers still have a wide choice of options in some parts of the world when hiring employees in developed economies, the hunger for qualified and motivated employees has taken over the willingness to control. With the intent to grow results further, leaders of the largest companies in the world started looking at their employees first as human beings instead of just numbers in the payroll report. That shift from transactional to person-related behavior created an advantage for the employees. And from those standing quietly in the corner, they have turned into “fearless” individuals, fighting for their freedom to work the way they think is right. Nothing wrong with this, at least on the first side.
However, after the first year since the start of the pandemic, the behavior of the employees has changed from freedom-seeking to freedom-demanding individuals. They started demanding how the work would be done, interfering with the company’s results. The investments companies have planned to make in people and structure have dramatically risen, and those who didn’t make it to satisfy the list of demands from the employees have started losing some of them.
With the belief that the employers’ era has ended, employees pushed to become the leading power to direct the business. No more leadership demands and controlling behaviors, and no more structures that may set some limitations. The sensitiveness and emotional instability became so high that people with long professional paths quit their jobs for no apparent reason.
The work-from-anywhere concept has always been explored as an option for a specific group of people working globally, but it has turned into a fancy trend. And employees turned to that idea as a strategy to “win their freedom again.” At first, employers looked surprised and needed to accept this trend. This was not because the leaders in the companies didn’t want to give them freedom but because the trend was in a growing economy that made companies dependent on their workforce to deliver results. With the shift in the economy and the need to produce more, leaders decided to give the freedom and carefully ask their employees how to support them to become more productive while exploring that freedom opportunity created for them.
That took everyone to a childish situation where employees demanded without reasoning. Receptionists, cashiers, and people from traditionally people-dependent workplaces raised their voices to demand work from home or anywhere. What was a model in a niche has turned into an all-people trend. At first, leaders were somehow surprised and gave everything people wanted to stop the irrational movement from one place to another. People’s self-confidence rose, while simultaneously, their commitment to companies fell. According to Boston Consulting Group research from 2022, companies have introduced some 26 percent more perks connected with employees’ distant work, while at the same time, employees’ opinion was that their company did not do enough to support their flexible and work from anywhere expectations. This research was conducted in 32 countries and covered only 552,000 people from traditionally flexible industries.
While this discrepancy may look scary, in the second half of 2023, companies have started pushing that trend back. Some of the largest companies in IT demanded their employees back to the office even at the cost of losing part of them. Others just stopped the work from anywhere. The third part made it clear that if employees want to work from anywhere, their work will be intensely monitored. Another group of companies and leaders introduced a type of double standard – creating more opportunities for growth for those present in the office and living those working remotely back.
What a pity, how irrational that was again.
Even the “hybrid work” model didn’t work well because people understood what hybrid means, and a smaller number of leaders could set a meaningful framework for how their company sees hybrid, remote, or on-the-spot work.
With this discrepancy, productivity has fallen, efficiency has dropped, and engagement is at the lowest in measuring it. People started fighting with the rules – with no intent to stop, and from the other side, leaders moved into defense and aggressor positions to defend what they wanted to return as a model. That led to phenomena such as “quiet quitting,” where people started to see the company as just a place where they spent part of their life without intending to be involved in organizational and cultural changes.
This sad picture happens all over the world. To manage it, two groups of companies have been formed. The first group is the emotional one. Way too many emotions, often “final and unchangeable” decisions, unhappy people, controlling management and leadership, and missing self-awareness. On the other hand, another group of companies are learning how to deal with this practical situation logically. There are basic rules that involve people from different layers in creating them. The model does not make everyone happy but clarifies how decisions are made and what has impacted them. The leaders, exploring this logical opportunity, invest time and effort to stabilize what has already been done and what is up to come. The minus of this second group is that some of the cases make it a long process of indicatively listening to employees, making the decision-making process take way too long and nervous for people.
To move smoothly to the decision-making process and involve as many people as possible, a good leader must build uniqueness to the situation in which they are in solution. To help them manage the elephant and sustain a balanced environment, leaders need to focus on creating “a healthy environment.” This may include several elements and steps:
No reaction at first
It is in human nature to respond. Most often, this quality of ours moves us forward to a conflict. People were initially designed to argue about their position in every situation. Even if we have not thought about how to do it, we naturally answer to each situation. The reaction may be visible or hidden, but it is still there. Leaders are no exception. The difference is that when the leader reacts, their action substantially impacts the wider audience. The more controlled the reaction, the more positive the outcome.
“Filtering the water.”
In the nineteenth century, an English doctor found sick people drastically dropped if they filtered the water. It is the same with the information that is coming to the leader. The more filtering they do, the better the quality of the information received becomes. Eliminating “the noise” in communication leaves the leader with the most relevant information for further steps.
Looking critical but not criticizing
While people listen with the intent to answer, the leader may need to move back and listen to what is happening. Looking at the situation from different angles and preparing questions that challenge some assumptions may turn the decision process in a more positive direction. When people want something, they often hide the real reason and give generic reasons for their wishes in front of the organization and their leadership teams. Mostly, this is connected with the feeling of embarrassment when sharing the real reason why they need or “demand” something.
Build the blocks
Getting to the final decision on supporting people’s “illusionary demands” separates the weak from the strong leader. The weak leader often sets boundaries, rules, and limitations and creates a system for controlling others. Conversely, a strong leader who believes in people’s abilities and trusts their behavior sets the ground for flexibility, built on organizational needs that allow people to be more productive, efficient, and happy. Each case presented to the leader builds a part, a block from the final decision.
Create the external image of the built future environment.
With all the facts and the information collected, the leader must create a balanced approach toward how people work and deliver. This was named the hybrid work model in the last few years. Still, although it looks tempting to put such a model in place, the leader must be able to explain why this model was chosen and what the benefits are for both sides. Missing this part will lead to people who plan to cheat the model, lowering the engagement toward the company and its priorities.
Present with confidence and readiness to be criticized
Organizations are not steady structures. They are built for people and for the people to work. If an organization has already given freedom with no strings attached or has created a controlling environment, changing the environment rapidly will create turbulence. In times of turbulence, those who leave the company first perform average or below the standards. These people will disturb the system and argue about what they are losing or why they get so low compared to the external world. Here is where the emotional intelligence level of the leader plays a crucial role. They need to listen without answering the critics directly and in front of others. Creating a battlefield of people aggressively defending different versions of the same environment negatively impacts everyone. Listening to the criticism and taking time to prepare an answer are crucial not only to keep the piece but also to boost people’s internal motivation to support the decision.
Plan to remove obstacles
The hybrid and distance work became so quickly popular that people decided they are part from their day to day life and started using them as weapons against the employers. A lot of leaders around the world have heard the phrase “If you don’t allow me a distance/hybrid work, I will quit!”, or a similar one. But that is only a short term gain for the person or the group of people. Although it looks like a strong argument for employers to reshape their cultural and environmental norms, there must be a limit for the freedom employees demand. And this limit must be set by the organization’s leader or leaders. No matter the obstacle there must be a plan to remove it and this plan must be implemented as soon as it is approved. The longer the wait, the more the damages are.
Act sharply and communicate directly
Recently I have had a conversation in our organization with a lady who went to often working from home. And while doing this she was nowhere to be found – neither phone, communication software or e-mail. Until one day during one of her distance working scheduled time, she came furiously to the office saying that because of a broken VPN client she had to leave her home chores and come to the office. While she was upset, her words and behavior caused a lot of rumoring and mumbling. Her direct manager looked surprised, but didn’t wanted to argue, so he tried to calm her down and take the blame of what is happening. Which made the lady more furious. At this situation there was nothing to be done, except, breaking the silence and taking the lady in one of the meeting rooms. There I have directly explained again our policy and internal agreements and pointed on how inadequate this behavior was. The lady answered that if we want from her to change her agenda she will quit. I gave her a list of paper and asked to write her resignation. Surprised from that she turned back and started explaining how emotions have blurred her mind. But the evil was done. The whole office was mumbling and talking. Not long after that and three more cases with the same person and she was out of the company. At first we thought that this will lead to some discrepancies in the behavior of other people, but it had the opposite effect on everyone – they became more careful and ready to discuss this distance working. It is how the leaders in the company learned the lesson that leaving something unsolved does not help the situation. And no matter the issue, taking it seriously and acting directly with strong communication, based on ethics and defined standards has to be priority to solve issues. Sometimes these issues may be solved with losing a person, but that does not have to scare the leader. It is more like a sign that the leader cares for everyone and does not tolerate discrepancies based on sympathies.
Explain the situation to others quickly
What makes leaders look not trusty is the thing that they slow the explanation after the action. If that happens often the rumors rats take place and start building the agenda. And in most cases this agenda creates tension and toxicity, because larger part of the information shared is not facts, but personal assumptions, based on emotions and share of limited information. And people are very good in creating stories from every type. The problem with the distance work and the consequences of someone’s behavior not following the established standards is that way to many people think that working from distance means full freedom. If the leader has set this as an agenda and want to change it, after the direct action with the person, there must be a direct communication with all others using this benefit to explain again what are the expectations and what are the standards that have been accepted and implemented. Some of the people may act emotionally and with no logical explanation, but the faster the clearance is made the lower the level of unsatisfied people is. Turning directly to all other people after solving an issue with distance work can benefit the process and boost trust in the standards used from the company for this model of work.
Open your door for personal and group discussions
With the working from distance case it is the same as with every other perk people receive. They don’t look at what they get, but compare that element with other companies. And while people miss the most important element – the industry they work for – most of the time their assumptions are wrong. But still that doen’t matter much, because the missing element creates that feeling of being screwed up. That is why the leader must open their door and be ready to discuss with every employee. No matter what the employee thinks it is in the hands of the leader to give additional information based on facts and discuss from the point of view of the industry the company is, the nature of the work , etc. The sadest thing I have heard about working fromm distance in the last two years was a receptionist who came to tell me that she also wants home office and she thinks that it will be a good idea to create a schedule so that the couriers, guest and the colleagues in the office be aware when she is not going to be present to support them. It may sound as a joke, but this same receptionist looked at her daughter, working at a different company and serving online clients from different countries. This case only shows how inadequate the thinking of most people is when they compare what they receive or can receive. That is why the leader must be prepared to discuss and, if necessary, stop the intention of the employee to do something no matter the cost of their actions for the company or the other part of the team.
Make no compromise to keep the peace
Now, not everyone can work remotely. But people don’t see the clear picture wneh they hold a particular position. And today this is the topic that makes them jelause, thinking of how to sabotage the system, and hiding from the work and responsibilities assigned for them. Although you can send home a person that creates unique product by their own, those, who work directly with others face to face are often “struggling” to understand why they can’t go home. The new rules of distance or home working have also settled new priorities – people now think first of their personal chores and then to work. And often this creates discrepancies in performance and brings unsatisfactory performance on the table. Here the role of the leader is not to find the most strict program and agenda, but to create flexibility based on the role specifics and align that flexibility with people needs. Still, after creating this first part, the second task is harder for the leader – they need to focus on being honest, direct and working by a standard in this situation. Implementing the standards on how the particular employee has to deliver results means to stick to them and not allow creation of a double standard, where some of the roles may be tolerated when they underdeliver, while others may feel punished if they do not overdeliver. The standard means that everyone knows what acceptable performance and behavior means for their role and keeping it strong is a prerequisite for success and higher level of engagement.
Remove discrepancies
Now this may sound harsh, but if the leader misses to understand how a behavior, tolerated, but not explained to others impacts the greater good of the team, they have already failed to achieve sustainable results. People love their freedom and the more they get the more they want. If the leader does not manage the expectations by an established standards, they often lose the people. This is why it is important to keep the piece in the room, by pushing on the standards created. No exceptions, even for those who look close to the leader. An honest approach and no compromise toward those creating discrepancies in the team toward they work is important to keep team morale on higher level. Acting directly toward discrepancies is one thing, but getting to the end with each one is the action that shows true leadership and makes the team’s believes and connection stronger in time. Compromising discrepancies may look like a good approach for balancing, but it creates more damage than does good. So, acting directly with them, turns the group into a trusting and united team.
IN CONCLUSION:
The remote work has become an elephant in the room, not because it has many different faces, but because leaders try to propose it as a too flexible way of working. In many situations this becomes more like a pain point for the organizations instead of helping their productivity and efficiency efforts. Some countries in the world have put a lot of efforts to legalize the remote work, but the strongest action still remains within companies and teams. And the most impactful person that may get things done is the leader, working to manage that elephant without breaking the glass in the room.
The Human place - a path from you to yourself 