Recently, I spoke to a gathering of HR professionals and learned something interesting. The most negotiated part of the employment agreement these days (at least for this major employer, and others) is not salary. It’s the ability to work a hybrid schedule. But is hybrid work a perk, or an advantage to employers? It depends on who you ask and where they are.
As the original wave of Covid recedes in our memory, there were stages of returning to whatever the new normal is going to be. (Note: We are talking here about North America. Europe and the UK have had different results, which we’ll discuss later.)
- Stage one was The Great Resignation. People who really loved being in the office couldn’t wait to get back, but those who grew to love remote work decided they were never going to work in an office again.
- Then came a period where many organizations formulated policies (sometimes in consultation with staff, sometimes not) and began asking people to come back to the office.
- After nearly a year, it became clear that many assumptions about returning to the status quo were wrong. For some companies, it was a second wave of resignations as people realized full-time commuting was more trouble than it was worth (financially and mentally) and that many jobs could successfully be done at home anyway. For others, it was the sense that having so many people choose their own schedule made it difficult to collaborate, and schedules needed to be reexamined.
- That led to large-scale renegotiations about what the “right” answer was. Increasingly, companies settled on some variation of a hybrid schedule.
That’s where we are now, with wide disparity in what the exact formula for in-office versus remote is. These discussions and the outcomes have largely depended on whether employers and workers view hybrid work as a business advantage or simply a perk that can be easily granted.
This distinction matters in the long run. Currently unemployment in the US is statistically very low (3.5%, versus the long-term average of 5.9%) When it’s harder to find employees, the theory is that gives workers more power to make demands of their employers. Companies are trying to find perks and benefits that attract workers without negatively impacting the bottom line. Allowing workers to work from home a certain percentage of the time is a relatively easy demand to accommodate.
One HR person referred to these agreements as akin to hostage negotiations. One side is pressuring the other and while they may agree, aren’t happy about it.
And perks can be rescinded as conditions change. If unemployment suddenly spikes, employers have shown they are more than willing to increase demands for people to be in the office. Not all companies feel this way, though.
The companies that view hybrid work as a business advantage and build it into their DNA are far less likely to react quickly or change the way they work. Some of the advantages of hybrid work are:
- Easier recruiting, both locally and they can expand their outreach because a five-day-a-week commute is less of a factor in attracting talent.
- Work can get done as appropriate. The rise of asynchronous work allows teams to be intentional about whey collaboration and real-time communication matters, as opposed to when and where people can do their best work.
- Yes, worklife balance matters, and workers who are less stressed and feel like the company cares about them are more engaged, productive and stick around longer.
This doesn’t mean hybrid work is right for every company, but how employers view these arrangements often dictates whether it is seen as a strategic plan or a temporary accommodation.
Where is your company at? Have you found an accommodation that works? Does it feel temporary? Is the way you’re working now an actual, reasoned decision or an unsatisfying compromise. We’d love to know.
0 comments