I have a bad feeling about the true back-to-office motivations for many companies. They say it’s about collaboration, but is it really about fulfilling the requirement for a minimum number of employees in the building per week, so the company can get the tax break it was promised? Could it be that the company had the misfortune of leasing huge office space right before the pandemic, which it is now stuck with for the next 10 to 15 years, and being stuck with it, the executives feel the space must be used?
If those less-than-ideal motivations are the true driver of back-to-office initiatives, should a company be honest and say so, or should the company keep talking about the power of in-person collaboration? In that case, what does the company say to the employee who may not have anyone on their work team in the office, yet they still are required to come in? It’s easy for an organization to trip up on its lies.
Power of Transparent Communication?
I found this piece on the importance of “transparent communication” by Zachary Amos on AllBusiness.com. Amos says transparency is important for motivating employees. I can believe that. It’s demoralizing when you suspect your company’s leaders, including even your own boss, are lying to you.
Amos references a Gallup survey that shows how poorly companies communicate openly with employees: “Only 27 percent of respondents felt their supervisors kept them updated about current trends at work. A mere 29 percent said their managers actively supported them through changes.”
Back-to-Office Initiative Communicated with Transparency
When creating back-to-office initiatives, for example, a company could think of its employees as partners in a shared challenge, rather than as pawns or cogs to help it achieve its secret top motivation (i.e., getting its lucrative tax break). Transparent communication would look like an executive holding a town hall to explain the problem the organization was facing—the potential loss of a financially valuable tax break.
“We are faced with an unfortunate challenge,” the executive could say to introduce the subject. “Just before the pandemic hit, we invested in this large office space. It was a fantastic deal at the time and came with a substantial tax break. In our post-pandemic world, most of us have come to value remote work, and, in some cases, are more productive at home. I want to pitch it to all of you to work together to find a solution to this challenge. One solution would be to require all of you within a reasonable commuting distance to come in three days a week. Would some of you like to offer alternative solutions that would allow us to achieve the minimum number of employees in the office per week to allow us to get the tax break we were promised?”
Transparency Can Tap Into Employee Problem-Solving Abilities
When you communicate with employees as partners rather than pawns, you may be surprised how willing many of them are to help you find a solution to the organization’s problem.
“How about if those who are newest to the company, those who have been here less than five years, are required to come in three days a week, while those who have been here five to 10 years are required to come in two days per week, and those who have been here for 10 years or longer are required to come one day per week? Would that enable you to make your numbers?” one employee might suggest.
This suggestion might actually solve two problems: the need to get a sufficient number of employees back to the office every week to get the tax break and employee turnover. The incentive is that the longer you stay with the company, the less in-person office time you must do. A broader version of the policy would be for newly hired employees to come in five days per week, while those who have been with the company for two years come in four days per week, those who have been employees for five years come in three days per week, those who have been employees for 10 years come in two days per week and those who have been employees for 15 years or longer don’t come in at all except for meetings.
Another employee might offer the suggestion that everyone come in three days per week, but there is at least a small version of profit-sharing related to the tax break, so the people who suffering with commuting for the tax break get to enjoy some of the riches.
When you give disingenuous reasons for major initiatives, employees will find out and lose trust in your organization’s leadership. What true motivations behind major company initiatives have your executives taken a chance and been candid about?
