Metaright @ Metaright @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

Interestingly, Unispace throws another factor into the mix: choice. According to its report, overall, the top feelings employees revealed they felt toward the office were happy (31%), motivated (30%), and excited (27%). However, all three of these feelings decrease for those with mandated office returns (27%, 26%, and 22%, respectively). In other words, staff members were more open to returning to the office if it was out of choice, rather than forced.
Real-life cases are mirroring findings

Recently, I was contacted by a regional insurance company with a workforce of around 2,000 employees. The company enforced a return-to-office policy, causing waves of unrest. It soon became evident that its attrition rates were climbing steadily. In line with the Greenhouse report’s findings, most employees would actively seek a new job if flexible work policies were retracted. The underrepresented groups were even more prone to leave, making the situation more daunting.

At that point, the company called me to help as a hybrid work expert who the New York Times has called “the office whisperer.” We worked on adapting the return-to-office plan, switching it from a top-down mandate to a team-driven approach, and focusing on welcoming staff to the office for the sake of collaboration and mentoring. As a result, the company’s attrition rates dropped and the feelings of employees toward the office improved, in line with what the Unispace report suggests.

In another case, a large financial services company began noticing employee turnover despite offering competitive salaries and growth opportunities. Upon running an internal survey, managers realized that aside from better compensation and career advancement opportunities, employees were seeking better flexible work policies. This aligned with the Greenhouse and SHED findings, which ranked flexible work policies as a crucial factor influencing job changes. After consulting with me, they adjusted their policies to be more competitive in offering flexibility.

A late-stage SaaS startup decided to embrace this wave of change. The company worked with me to introduce flexible work policies, and the result was almost immediate: Managers noticed a sharp decrease in employee turnover and an uptick in job applications. Their story echoes the collective message from all three reports: Companies must adapt to flexible work policies or risk being outcompeted by other employers.
Inside an employee’s head

As we navigate these shifting landscapes of work, we cannot ignore the human elements at play. Like unseen puppeteers, cognitive biases subtly shape our decisions and perceptions. In the context of flexibility and retention, two cognitive biases come into sharp focus: the status quo bias and anchoring bias.

Imagine a thriving tech startup, successfully operating in a hybrid model during the pandemic. As the world normalized, leadership decided to return to pre-pandemic, in-person work arrangements. However, they faced resistance and an unexpected swell of turnover.

This situation illustrates the potent influence of the status quo bias. This bias, deeply entrenched in our human psyche, inclines us toward maintaining current states or resisting change. Employees, having tasted the fruits of flexible work, felt averse to relinquishing these newfound freedoms.

Consider a large financial institution that enforced a full return to office after the pandemic. Many employees, initially attracted by the brand and pay scale, felt disgruntled. The crux of the problem lies in the anchoring bias, which leads us to heavily rely on the first piece of information offered (the anchor) when making decisions.

When initially joining the company, the employees were primarily concerned with compensation and job security. Once within the fold, the pandemic caused them to shift their focus to work-life balance and flexibility, as confirmed by both the Greenhouse and SHED reports. Unfortunately, the rigid return-to-office policy made these new anchors seem less attainable, resulting in dissatisfaction and an increased propensity to leave.

As we steer our ships through these tumultuous waters, understanding cognitive biases can help illuminate our path. Recognizing and accounting for the status quo and anchoring biases can enable us to create a workplace that not only attracts but also retains its employees in the new age of flexibility. After all, success in the world of business is as much about understanding people as it is about numbers and strategy.

Full text:

We’re now finding out the damaging consequences of the mandated return to office. And it’s not a pretty picture. A trio of compelling reports—the Greenhouse Candidate Experience report, the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED), and Unispace’s Returning for Good report—collectively paint a stark picture of this brewing storm.

Unispace found that nearly half (42%) of companies with return-to-office mandates witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated. And almost a third (29%) of companies enforcing office returns are struggling with recruitment. In other words, employers knew the mandates would cause some attrition, but they weren’t ready for the serious problems that would result.

Meanwhile, a staggering 76% of employees stand ready to jump ship if their companies decide to pull the plug on flexible work schedules, according to the Greenhouse report. Moreover, employees from historically underrepresented groups are 22% more likely to consider other options if flexibility comes to an end.

In the SHED survey, the gravity of this situation becomes more evident. The survey equates the displeasure of shifting from a flexible work model to a traditional one to that of experiencing a 2% to 3% pay cut.
People were more open to returning to the office if it was out of choice

Flexible work policies have emerged as the ultimate edge in talent acquisition and retention. The Greenhouse, SHED, and Unispace reports, when viewed together, provide compelling evidence to back this assertion.

Greenhouse finds that 42% of candidates would outright reject roles that lack flexibility. In turn, the SHED survey affirms that employees who work from home a few days a week greatly treasure the arrangement.

The Greenhouse report has ranked employees’ priorities as:

    
Increased compensation (48%)
Greater job security (34%)
Career advancement opportunities (32%)
Better flexible work policies (28%)
A more positive company culture (27%)


  

In other words, excluding career-centric factors such as pay, security, and promotion, flexible work ranks first in employees’ priorities.

(Continued...)

In Pokemon, the move supersonic confuses your opponent. However, it only has a 55% chance of hitting successfully. This Zubat is using supersonic on you. Are you unscathed?!

I honestly can't really imagine anyone digging out a multitude of old consoles just to be able to play one or two titles each. If you want to play older games, surely emulation is the only feasible option for the vast majority of people.

Also, thanks for pasting the full text here!

I've never heard of Epiphany before. Anyone here have input?

Anxiety issue tbh

You've moved the goalposts. First, you said this:

I’m happy to support devs. 8 don’t like working for free. Not sure why they should have to. And so it’s either ads or subscriptions.

In other words, if you don't pay a subscription or see ads, the developer gets no money at all. You're using the app "for free."

Now you're saying that it's not "for free," just not enough to make a living. And what's more, you're using a mere suspicion to justify your very confident insistence that we need to "pick our poison," and that a one-time purchase is just not an option.

Basically, my point is that you need to choose what point you want to make and stick with it, because your argument has changed dramatically in the course of just two comments.

That is actually what I was referring to, yes. It is a much better option than a subscription.

No I wasn't. I was talking about a one-time purchase, which is the default option for most products in existence.

Does this meme make you feel disrespected? Why?

And so it’s either ads or subscriptions. Pick your poison.

Please think really hard for a moment and try to consider whether there are more ways to purchase something than by subscription or ad support.

You will own nothing, and you will be happy.

I would like to know this for KBin as well.

I suspect your story is not unusual. Piracy is, at worst, a morally neutral action.

Oh, that person was definitely insulting people and accusing them of addiction, and it wasn't cool at all. I just think the whole "let people enjoy things" retort is ridiculous and overdone.

I see. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

I think we can all agree that your right to "basic necessities" ends where my right to lucrative market speculation begins.

More clarification would be helpful, I agree.

the same way each other digital storefront does

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but "everyone else is doing evil too" is not an incredibly effective defense against doing evil.

I used to see reports that you could "carry over" your account from one instance to another. Do you have any details on this, or whether this also works between different services (e.g. KBin and Lemmy)?

Rights are not a purely legal concept. You can have rights that are not codified by law.