As both a line-manager and organisational philosopher, sadly the latter is not an official title much less a paid role, I am engaged in constant discussions about employee rights, norms, and perks. These conversations are nothing new. Since written records began there is documentation of labourers' grumbling about pay, conditions, and treatment by overseers. Closely followed by overseers biting back about labourers grumblings. This happened in 1159 BC when wages for tomb-builders at Set-Ma'at ('The Place of Truth') were repeatedly late, violating Ma'at:
We have gone on strike not from hunger but because we have a serious accusation to make: bad things have been done in this place of Pharaoh.
Wilkinson 2013, 337.
Yet if history teaches one thing about industrial relations, it is that tensions come in peaks and troughs. Usually stimulated by extraordinary circumstances such as wars, pestilence, or technological epochs (think the invention of writing, the industrial revolution, or digital age). Anything which disrupts social cohesion and creates opportunities for mobility will spawn grumblings and new expectations — fashionably called 'the new normal'.
Perhaps the most recent example of this was the COVID-19 pandemic in which pretty much everyone was sent home and what many came to see as a 'new normal' was established. This included staying in exercise gear all day, joining meetings from your phone while entertaining the kids engaging in home education duties, taking advantage of one of the few reasons the government allowed for leaving the house (never before or since have I seen so many people taking a walk in the neighbourhood), and soaring wages in many sectors.
The difficulty for employee relations is that some people are terrible at grasping context. That is, just because something is permitted in one context does not mean it is acceptable in another.
A crude example of this is a gym changing room, where it is perfectly permissible for me to strip stark naked as I change outfits. Do the same thing in the middle of the street or in the office, and I would at the very least find myself on the wrong side of social mores, at most facing an indecent exposure charge as the police haul me off for processing.
In the world of employment context is no less seminal. Just because I see my wage soar as I bounce from company to company every six months during a pandemic as shortages of 'insert name of role' drive up renumeration, it does not inevitably follow that the same slot machine approach to getting a pay rise will be available when there are hundreds of applicants for every job and businesses are facing declining revenue. The same is true with 100% remote work when the government has mandated people do not travel more than 2 kilometres from their place of residence. In short, my perceptions of what work should look like need to adjust to the prevailing conditions.
This goes for employers as much as it does employees. If my profits are driven by junior members of staff working on presentations at 2 am, something that has often been rife in the world of Big Four consulting, I need to accept the pace of work will slow and profits likely decline when the government introduces the 'right to disconnect'.
So much so obvious. But what does this mean looking ahead to FY25?
The New Normal
Before getting into what the 'new normal' looks like, a phrase I detest while we are on it, a hard truth needs surfacing. Namely, work is not about the employee; it is about the organisation. With an increasingly vocal group of GenMe mentality employees and managers advocating unrestricted freedom of choice and unlimited self-interest as a right, I expect this is a revelation that will be shocking for some. So, I will repeat it for those who cannot believe I said it. Work is not about the employee; it is about the organisation.
While some managers do sound like Argus Filch in Harry Potter:
It's just a pity they let the old punishments die out… hang you by your wrists from the ceiling for a few days, I've got the chains still in my office, keep 'em well oiled in case they're ever needed.
My assertion is not the bestial cry of a retrograde manager it may at first seem. Rather, it is to pick up on the strong trend in senior governance circles regarding the responsibilities of a director and to apply them to employees. An approach that enables governance to emanate meaningfully throughout the organisation rather than being some niche topic undertaken by a select few.
For those who have engaged deeply, or even casually flirted, with the Australian Institute of Company Directors you will be aware the mantra for directors and officers is that they must act 'in good faith'. Which means in the best interests of the organisation. Not their personal interests, or the interests of a group they may represent — but in the interests of the organisation. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) enshrines this in section 181 making it a civil offence to contravene. It even takes things step further in section 184 and makes contravention a criminal offence if a director does not act:
(c) in good faith in the best interests of the corporation; or
(d) for a proper purpose.
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s.184(1)(c) (criminal).
Though it is not mentioned as often as it should be, employees are under the same injunction as defined in their contract of employment, State and Federal laws, and employee codes of conduct. This means that decisions made, reports written, and actions taken (be it by managers or direct reports), must be in good faith and in the best interest of the organisation. It is a 'win win' when our self-interest in building our brand aligns with the organisation's best interests, but when the two are not aligned the right choice is clear. While this may seem obvious in principle, it is surprisingly rarely applied in practice. Examples of this are:
- Presenting favourable sales figures to meet KPIs or make their case for more resources, when in fact sales are costing the business money.
- Making strategic recommendations that support the prevailing direction of Board thinking for the purpose of personal advancement, rather than having difficult conversations in the face of Board enthusiasm.
- Trying to let things blow over because direct action may damage personal brand, rather than tackling poor performance or bad behaviour when it arises.
As a philosopher I am as interested in the spirit as the letter of the law. Which brings us back to the 'new normal'. Simply put, the responsibilities of employees were not changed by the pandemic. A specified amount of time, in a specified location, delivering specified services in exchange for a specified income is still owed. If you work for an organisation that has implemented a nine-day fortnight or four-day week, this has likely been done as a 'perk' not via a change to your contract of employment. The same will in all probability be the case for your place of employment if your organisation or manager likes to support remote working.
The thing about 'perks' is that they can be taken away even more easily than they can be granted. A process that can result in obligations of 5-days a week in the office — just like in the 'bad old days' before Covid. In short, there is no 'new normal' until your contract of employment and various laws, regulations, codes, and statutes change. This is why I say work is not about the employee, it is about the organisation.
For those who are feeling a little disenfranchised, dispirited, and despondent at this point, before you click away in disappointment let me stress - this realisation is a cause for liberation not commiseration, and one of the keys to how I reduce the level of emotional labour I spend in the pursuit of a fulfilling career. A process that enables me to largely switch off from work when I get home and not spend sleepless nights worrying about my day job.
The reason for this is, as I argued in Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast:
If I predict that the conditions of my employment will change, and they do not, it will come as a rude awakening when I can no longer act as 'daddy day care', live an unrealistic commute away in the expectation of being 100% remote, or face the torment of having to sit in a room with colleagues rather than simply see their faces online.
As an employee if I keep my obligations to the organisation front and centre, while positioning myself for a range of probable futures, I am setup for success whether things switch to a new normal, stay the same, or revert to the way they were. Something which will improve my mental health, enhance my professional brand, cause less dislocation of my lifestyle, and generally make the world of work a happier and less contentious place.
As a manager my responsibilities and opportunities are no different but bring additional accountabilities as I have temporary delegated authority. In that if I push the mantra that direct reports are there for the benefit for the organisation too far, mistake my personal brand's best interests for those of the organisation, or try and make a power play to bolster personal standing at the expense of my team, I risk a similar situation as at Set-Ma'at over three thousand years ago. The most capable in the organisation will feel poorly treated and those less able will expect an even worse fate given what happened to their peers. A process that erodes team morale, reduces efficiency, takes staff focus away from key strategic goals, and results in a toxic culture. Put another way, a decline in growth and transformation. This happens because my team understand I have violated the principle of Ma'at (order and justice) — even if I think company policy, HR backing, or my temporary delegated authority has me in the right.
Good night, and good luck.
References
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Wilkinson, T. (2013). The rise and fall of ancient Egypt, Random House trade pbk. ed, New York: Random House.
