fairness

If you want fairness, you might need to give something up

Posted on by Blog

I came into business on the back of studying Psychology many light years ago before it became such a hot topic for undergraduates. Fortunately for me, back then you didn’t need three straight As to get anywhere near the hallowed halls of university. The course that I took, and the modules I chose, focused a lot on child development something that I’ve light heartedly (and sometimes seriously) suggested prepared me well for dealing with fellow execs and the world of work.

Let’s take the concept of fairness. There are countless studies that show that a quite a young age, around three or four, children understand the principles of fairness. They understand that if you have three toys and two friends, then the fair thing is for every child to have a toy to play with. But there is often a gap between understanding and behaviour depending on the context being observed – whether there is a level of collaboration, whether rewards are given separately, whether there is a windfall.

Fast forward into the world of work and whilst we aren’t necessarily talking about toys anymore (unless you work for Hasbro or Lego), the concept of fairness is something that we talk about a lot. For example, we’ve all seen the various cartoons and explanations of the difference between, equality and equity. Similarly, studies have shown that employees view fairness at work as being one of the fundamental pillars of “a good work place”.

But similarly to the kids in the experiments who understand the concept of fairness but don’t want to share their toys, there is often a gap between our desire for a fair outcome and our willingness to accept that this might mean we, ourselves, need to give something up. Let’s go back to where we started this post, in getting into university. Unless university places increase exponentially (and there’s another post in here somewhere about whether they have tried to do this at great cost to young people) then by increasing access and widening participation it is likely to mean that the children of people who might previously attended without batting an eyelid, might not be getting into the university or course of their choice.

The whole concept of WFH (yes I am going to mention this again) is another example of us not factoring fairness into our own decision making. The proponents of WFH will often say, “I am more productive”, or “I can work like this, so why shouldn’t I?”. And of course they’re entirely correct and in some organisations where everyone can do the same, say a digital marketing agency, that might be a fair direction of travel. But in those where that isn’t the case, let’s say a retail bank, how many would give up their own freedoms in order to create a fairer workplace for those that can’t?

Why is this important? Is this just another opportunity for Neil to have a pop at working from home? Well no, not on this occasion, it is important because as leaders, as people professionals, it is fundamentally our responsibility to shape workplaces that are as fair as possible. And to do that we need to do a number of things; we need to make decisions that won’t be popular with some and not be lured by the idea that fairness and approval are the same thing; we need to be very aware of our own perceptions of fair and what we personally might need to give up; and we need to recognise that it will never be perfect and that not being perfect is ok as long as we are constantly checking in on our decisions and our approach and how we can make them fairer, little by little, bit by bit.

Whatever happens, just don’t be a loser

Posted on by Blog

Last week was one of those where I either seemed to be listening to someone talking about the changing workplace, or alternatively talking to others about it. One of the joys of people properly coming out of pandemic mode is the chance to get together with others and explore the themes and issues that we are seeing in our organisations and how we might navigate some of the future challenges.

I have a natural suspicion of anyone who projects too much certainty about the future, after all nobody in the world of work really predicted anything that we’ve been through in the last few years. And similar to my recollections of Tomorrow’s World from the 1970s, there is always a slight hint of entertainment and headline seeking, or perhaps the hope of a business book deal. But the one thing that strikes me about many of these proclamations, is they never talk about the losers.

For every fictitious future autonomous knowledge worker, who can pick and chose the projects they collaborate on and where they choose to work, there is almost definitely another worker who is in the modern equivalent of bonded labour, or low, insecure, temporary underpaid work. For every programme of virtual wellbeing for stressed out hybrid workers, there is a strata of workers running multiple jobs and excessive hours, in order to earn just less than enough.

Or let’s put it another way. For every holiday in the Dordogne, there is a ferry crew on changed terms. For every party dress, there’s a sweatshop in the industrial heart of the country, for every home delivery there’s an enforced zero hours contract. Indignation is one thing, but it doesn’t pay the bills or improve their quality of life.

I’m not a fantasist, I know there will always be winners and losers that we need different people to do different work, that not everyone will be paid or looked after the same. But I do think things can and should be better and that will only come about if we spend more time talking and considering their future as well as the one we want for ourselves. We can’t talk about the future workplace or the future of work without looking at the future for all. We ignore it the risk of further societal inequality and resultant instability.

What could, what would, what should a future look like that is better for all? Or is our best advice, ” whatever happens, just don’t be a loser”?

Just have a little pension, I’m still hurting from a love I lost

Posted on by Blog

It doesn’t matter how much organisations talk about retention, EVP, their responses to the supposed “Great Resignation” and their enduring cultures. Nothing shines a light on our view of the labour force as entirely transitory as the approach that many organisations take to pensions.

I’m old enough to remember Final Salary pension schemes being in place and was lucky enough to have participated in a couple in the early years of my employment. And even in the simple language of the scheme there is a tell tale to how we have changed our perception of employees and their careers. The expectation in so many organisations is that we no longer expect you to stay here until you retire and so we aren’t going to incentivise you to do so.

Whilst I understand that there are complex financial considerations about the specific provision of defined benefit schemes, that shouldn’t hide the fact that too many organisations’ approach to pension provision is nothing short of woeful and one of the reason why the Government were forced to act through statutory minimum contributions. There has been a silent race to the bottom which has taken place out of the eyes and ears of the mainstream debate.

Compare and contrast with the last twelve months coverage of hybrid working (yes I am on this bandwagon again), and debates about the number of days that organisations will ask their people to be in. Is there the same debate about the level of contributions that organisations are making into their employee schemes? Of course not, and the double irony is that the supposed liberation that has come as many organisations sell off their property portfolio will harm both pension fund investments and, I can almost guarantee, won’t go back to employees in any shape or form.

So who cares? What does it matter? The Government will take care of it, right? Well there are two possible answers to that, if the answer is no then we are going to have employees working until they die and if the answer is yes, we’re placing a huge burden on the next generation and the one after that. It hardly sounds like inter-generational fairness. If we believe that we, as organisations, have a role to play in society then we could do far worse than making sure that our employees can survive after they’ve left us.

PS. Take That, if you were asking. I bet they never thought they’d be misquoted in that context!

Our debate needs less noise and more thought

Posted on by Blog

In “normal” times, any discussion about the future of work is fraught with danger, the impact of coronavirus on workplaces has added a multiplying factor of one hundred. Disproportionate time and space is given to the voices on the extreme who declare a new dawn, glossing over the inconvenience of the details of the working population and their day to day experience, to outline a dream based on the experience of a tiny minority.

Work has never and will never operate in isolation of society. It is one of the most fundamental factors in both our individual psychology and the communities and societies that we operate within. Like it or not, it is part of who we are. That’s why good work matters and why creating good jobs is of fundamental importance.

The last four or five months have shown us that there are certain industries, professions and sectors that we simply cannot live without. Our emergency services, our carers, our utilities, our farmers and food warehouses, our delivery drivers and distribution and supermarket networks. These are the very workers that have helped us to navigate through the darkest days in many of our living memories.

In any consideration of the future of work, these are the very people and industries that we should be looking to in order to understand how to create a better normal. And yet, the voices that we so often hear are small, inessential technology businesses, employing only a handful of people and with the economic and societal impact of a dried up stain from an over priced mug of chai latte. Naive and oversimplified statements like “knowledge workers can work anywhere and at any time”, are bandied around. Surgeons? Engineers? Physicians? Academics? These are the real knowledge workers.

At the heart of the challenge we face is societal fairness. I’ve long argued that our direction of travel on workplace flexibility has in fact been a polarising and damaging journey. Where flexibility for the privileged means being able to work at home on a Friday and for large parts of our workforce means uncertainty of hours, invasive uses of technology and instability of employment. This has played a significant, contributing factor to many of the problems that we see across our country.

Whatever we do we must not use this inflection point, and I think we can rightly use that term in this context, to focus on one very small group of employees because their voices are the loudest and perhaps most attractive. If we do, we risk further damage to the fabric of society. We should focus the debate with the people that matter most, that make the biggest difference and who we simply cannot do without. We should build our future of work around and in service to them

At this time of year, many of us would normally be heading to find some sun and relaxation by the sea. A familiar sight at beaches across the world, our attention is drawn to the (normally male) holidaymaker sitting at the front of a banana boat, screaming at the top of their voice with the adrenaline and rush of a child high on Skittles. Yet ahead is where the action really is, the speedboat that pulls it along without which the ride would not exist, calmly and diligently going about its business. Less exciting maybe, but undeniably more important.