After the long weekend, I told myself I’d look for new stories. Which, of course, means that two catnip-infused storylines I’ve been following had to make a return. First, some research that Gartner published about changes in work.
Quoting the research:
As economic conditions sour, you may be tempted to take back more control over work — for example, by mandating a rigid return to the office. Our data shows that would be a big mistake.
We surveyed more than 400 employees and leaders of organizations around the world who have worked consistently under some kind of hybrid-work model since the pandemic. Most of those work models delivered below-average outcomes. But one is wildly successful.
Our findings show that the failing models are all location-centric, attaching some kind of rigid on-site requirement. Only one model scored above average — “hybrid-flexible,” which offers leaders and employees some flexibility to choose where they work from.
More successful still is a hybrid-flexible model that incorporates other key elements of human-centric work design — that is location flexibility plus the practices of intentional collaboration and empathy-based management. You can’t just port over your work and management approaches from an on-site environment and expect them to work in a hybrid world, but if you transition successfully to a human-centric hybrid approach, our data shows you can clearly foil flight and power performance among employees.
The research focuses on how accountable employee autonomy is the required element. They offer those three statements – a flexible work experience, being intentional about collaboration, and empathy-based management – as the critical factors to success. And, you want to get employee input – those that did were more than 2.5 times more likely to achieve high performance.
I’ll add to this another set of interesting data – the Washington Post highlights that remote jobs are in demand but drying up. According to a recent job site report, fifty percent of job applications submitted on LinkedIn are for work-from-home positions, making up just 15 percent of listings. And, although there are nearly two job openings for each applicant regarding on-site work, the opposite is true for remote jobs: There are two active applicants for each available work-from-home job on LinkedIn. That means the gap between demand for jobs and supply of workers for on-site positions is four times as high as it is for remote work.
Why do we care?
What I expected to happen is playing out, and data reinforces it. Intentional choices about the design of hybrid work are paying off. Plus, when that data is held up against the jobs data, showing a demand by potential employees to work remotely. If you’re finding it difficult to find people, make sure you’re offering remote work, and then to make it successful, be deliberate in the way that is implemented. It’s paying off.