The most frequent question I get about workplace flexibility from people leaders isn’t about whether it impacts productivity. It’s “How do I get through to other c-suite execs?”
In my experience, the best answer to that is storytelling that conveys other perspectives.
I witnessed, for example, a private conversation between chief financial officers trying to one-up each other on their desire to return to full-time in-office work. Then one among them said, “I’m not doing that; I share custody of my kids and I’m not going back.” It made everyone else stop and think about whether they were just applying their own perspective on the “right” solution for everyone. That led to a more nuanced conversation with less chest-thumping.
The research and data are clear that productivity, profitability, culture, connection, and innovation increase at workplaces that provide flexibility. But, too often, executives aren’t open to hearing other perspectives, and willfully ignore the facts and statistics supporting flexibility. Instead, they fall back on their own experiences to guide their views.
Usually, it’s a senior executive—most often a CEO or former CEO—who proclaims that we need to get back to work, and what they mean is work the way it worked for them. In their view, they were successful because they sat next to the boss or a mentor who showed them the ropes when they were coming up in the ‘90s. They put in the hours, the sweat, they went to the happy hours and built the connections.
Return-to-office announcements get rooted in broad statements of business value—culture, connection, productivity—but without the data to back them up. Externally, these statements get repeated—while internally they cause strife.
The root causes are more complex. CEOs who are under performance pressure have their own fears, and might feel a lack of control and want to return people to what they knew worked for them. But there’s also often a broader issue at work: we don’t trust each other.
“I don’t know that they’re walking the dog four hours a day, but I know they can’t if they’re in the office,” one CEO put it to me. My response was to ask what percentage of his company he thought were really that problematic. Even if it was 10%, what did he think the reaction would be among the other 90% who were delivering on their jobs? Painting everyone with policies meant to address underperformers is the slippery slope to lowest-common-denominator work.
That fear is driven by a lack of trust in their own managers, and often unwillingness to invest in outcomes-driven leadership techniques. But it’s also contrary to their own experiences and orientation. These are folks who live to work; they are driven and motivated by success. They have made sacrifices, especially in their personal lives—they aren’t their kids primary caregivers, they can’t be. I should know, I’ve been one of them.
While not all of them are older, white, male and not a primary caregiver, that is the dominant type because they’re the ones most able to succeed in the system of work we’ve built that too often focuses not just on outcomes, but on appearances: are you a “9-to-5 guy,” or a “5-to-9 guy”? Are you in it to win it? I’ve been one of those people too.
I worked my ass off, I was well-paid and trained to be “seldom wrong, but never in doubt,” and I grabbed the brass ring. But along the way I learned some things, mostly because I learned to listen to other people’s experiences. I met others who couldn’t win the game the way it’s set up.
My experiences may be instructive, but they are mostly instructive for people like me. All of us need to listen to other voices.
Read the rest of this column on Charter’s website.