Quiet Firing: A Call for Action from Employers

Image Credit: Albert Tercero

To avoid the financial, psychological, and legal costs associated with forcing people out, some companies are intentionally creating an ambivalent or openly hostile work environment to promote attrition. On an individual level, this is hardly a new idea as managers have long used similar tactics to push out underperformers without paying them severance or risking retaliation. But more recently, dominating companies, such as Meta and Tesla, seem to be using quiet firing as a workforce reduction strategy on a wider scale. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Meta, told employees in July 2022 to buckle up for an “intense period” of 18-24 months—if not longer—adding that “I think some of you might just say that this place isn’t for you. And that self-selection is okay with me.” Managers were asked to start identifying weak performers, and Meta fired 60 contractors “at random” using an algorithm. Later that year, Meta disbanded its Responsible Innovation team, which comprised of engineers, ethicists, and academics who tried to keep the downsides of its products in check.

Quiet firing signals, at its core, a lack of even the most rudimentary managerial skills. In many cases, quiet firing is a byproduct of poor hiring and/or training. It’s a hail-Mary to score the winning touchdown after an abysmal first 3 quarters, but unless the systemic issues that caused this problem in the first place are addressed, you might find that it’s the only play you’ve got. The problems can be broad and far reaching but, at the very least, it should signal to upper management that your people leaders are not doing their due diligence when hiring and not providing adequate training and support to their employees.

We’ve heard quiet firing being referred to as a signal of an inadequate workforce. We would argue that it’s a signal of a management epidemic. One that can impact, not only the culture of the organization, but it’s reputation on the street. According to one study, a majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 said no opportunities for advancement (63%) and feeling disrespected at work (57%) were reasons why they quit. At least a third said each of these were major reasons why they left.

People leaders need to roll up their sleeves and have the difficult conversations to ensure they’re hiring the right person for the role and, if an employee stumbles, provide them with the support and coaching they need to learn, grow, and improve. Management is a full-time job and in today’s fast paced, evolving business landscape, it is becoming more and more complex. While it would be easy to blame employees and people leaders for the epidemic we’re facing, in the end it comes down to a lack of resources. Are senior leaders in your organization recognizing the difficulty managers face and affording the time, resources and support they need to be an effective leader and do their day job. I’ll answer this for you, in most cases, the answer is no.

If your organization is filled with managers and not leaders, I’m not going to lie to you, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you, from reviewing your hiring practices, gaining a broader understanding of the employee and leader experience at your organization, reassessing or instituting a robust managerial training program and more. This may sound like it’s a lot of work, and it is. Let’s face it, your employees and leaders are the most expensive and most valuable asset a company has. Initiatives aimed at improving their effectiveness and experience should be expensive and incur a significant amount of resources. Otherwise, it probably won’t work. You need to put into this program what you want to get out of it, and that should be increased retention, productivity, experience and, most importantly, a reduction in reject turnover which is actually the most expensive risk an organization faces.

If you are embarking on a similar strategy, contact us today. We can help!

Job-Hopping. Threat or Opportunity?

A major trend happening in the business world is job-hopping among millennials. Millennials are people who were born between 1981 and 1996. One survey reported that employers expect 45% of their newly hired college grads to remain with the company for under two years, and the study showed that by age 35, about 25% of junior employees will have worked five jobs. The main reason for this job-hopping trend is that millennials are looking for more meaningful and impactful work that will make them feel purposeful. Gallup is reporting that a staggering 87% of employees worldwide are disengaged at work.

As seen during the pandemic, it is more important than ever for people to find jobs that challenge them, allow them to learn, and make an impact. Otherwise, as the Great Resignation proved, employees are prepared to find work elsewhere. In fact, according to Gallup, millennials are the most willing to act on better opportunities; 36% report that they will look for a job with a different organization in the next 12 months.

Employers need to be willing to make a change and invest in their most valuable assets to ensure they feel valued. This goes beyond competitive compensation and benefit packages, firms need to consider a more holistic approach. A recent Gallup report confirms that claim. Organizations that invest in their employees have seen absenteeism down 41%, profitability up by 21%, sales productivity increased by 20%, and overall quality of work increased by 40%.

So how do we solve the job-hopping threat?

Well, what if we stop thinking about job-hopping as a threat, but rather an opportunity.

Job-hopping provides employees with an opportunity to become well-rounded and develop a deep and thorough understanding of all parts of the business. They are exposed to a variety of roles and responsibilities and as such, can provide significant value to the organization.

If employees prefer job-hopping, why not find ways to embrace it? New employees are learning to make significant impacts at a faster pace than ever before and instead of trying to fight against the trend, organizations may want to consider a “join them” mentality instead.

Perhaps introducing a job rotation program aimed at encouraging top performing “job-hoppers” to stay within the organizations while also being able to scratch the proverbial itch to try something new. The program should focus on providing employees with exposure to different departments in the company and providing them with ample opportunities to expand their skill sets to help them continuously learn and grow within the company.

If you’re finding it difficult to retain top millennial talent this may be a strategy to consider. While it is specifically aimed at retaining top talent within the organization, you may very well find that it becomes a solid talent acquisition strategy. The change associated with this transformation will be complex and require significant investment to launch successfully, but how can one argue that an investment in a company’s most valuable assets is not worthwhile?

If you are embarking on a similar strategy, contact us today. We can help!

Future of Work ≠ Return to Office (period)

Image Credit: Albert Tercero

“We have to remember that oftentimes it’s not the change that people reject, they are rejecting the fact that they are losing something.“

Firms such as the Royal Bank of Canada, Osler, Hoskins and Harcourt LLP, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Apple and The Globe and Mail have mandated that employees must return to the office between two to four days a week as of last month. Some firms, while choosing not to mandate workers to return to the office have become far less enthusiastic about employees working from home full time.

It’s clear that employers were hoping that their workers would voluntarily opt to return to the office, especially as, in most parts of the country, life has essentially returned to a pre-pandemic state. However, recent data shows that foot traffic in office buildings in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are still 55% below what it was in early March 2020.

The risks far exceed that of the employer’s real estate costs, the lack of foot traffic in these major metropolitan areas are having a significant impact on local small businesses and the economy. Some firms are also arguing that the lack of in-person collaboration has negatively impacted ideation and innovation, justifying the return to office as a means of restoring the “energy, spontaneity, big ideas and a true sense of belonging” that comes from working together in person.

However, we can’t ignore the many benefits (positive risks) associated with allowing employees to continue working from home.

Employees are able to improve work life balance and wellness by skipping their morning and evening commute. Employers are able to expand their talent pool to areas outside their headquartered location. Similarly, employees are able to seek out job opportunities outside their area of residence, including opportunities in different provinces to help alleviate the talent gap that has plagued businesses outside large, metropolitan areas across Canada for years.

In a recent survey, Mercer found that 61% of employees prefer to work from home. While this means that the majority of employees want to continue working remotely, it also means that 39% of employees prefer to work at the office. Is your organization experiencing a similar split?

Surveying your people to gather feedback about their workplace preferences is step one, it will give you a broad sense of the preferences across your organization, but it’s not the end goal.

What we sometimes fail to realize is that change happens one person at a time. Even large, complex organizational changes such as this one. The change is only successful if the impacted individual changes their behaviour and therefore, by extension, the organizational change is only successful if all the impacted individuals change their behaviour. In other words, it’s the cumulation of many individuals changing their behaviour from their current state to the desired future state that leads to a successful change. It’s important to think about any change in terms of the individual and how you can support each person through that change.

While this may sound obvious, it is constantly overlooked. You can see evidence of that in organizations that have issued explicit, overarching work from office mandates. These firms are failing to recognize that change happens at the individual level. The optimal return to office strategy will never be a one-size fits all approach, because your employees are individuals, each with their own reasons why they prefer to return to the office or not.

Employees who prefer not to return to the office may have a spouse who lost their job during the pandemic and the unnecessary expense to commute to and from work is not something they can afford, they may have moved outside a commuting zone during the pandemic and the time and expense of traveling to and from work multiple times a week is not feasible, or a host of other reasons why the individual you are looking to change is resistant. Until you understand what is causing the resistance at the individual level, you are approaching the change blind. This is a recipe for disaster, one that could translate into significant costs to your business, including, but not limited to, regret turnover, decreased productivity and morale, increases in medical leaves and more.

We also have to remember that oftentimes it’s not the change that people reject, they are rejecting the fact that they are losing something.

The change process and mourning process are very similar, if not identical. People go through a denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance phase in loss and change. We are asking people, in some cases forcing people, to incur a second drastic shift (or loss) in their work lives in as many years.

As leaders, you need to recognize that your employees will have varying levels of comfort surrounding this transition. You need to listen to your employees, validate their emotions and act on the input received. Does it make sense for a technical writer, for instance, to come into the office five days a week? Probably not so let’s not force compliance for the sake of it and really open our minds, and our hearts, to what makes the most sense for the business and the answer is always what makes the most sense for each individual employee.

If you are embarking on your future of work strategy, contact us today. We can help position this change for success by developing a customized and scaled approach that garners the commitment necessary to implement this change successfully across your organization.

The 4-Day Work Week: Is It Just a Dream?

What are the benefits and risks associated with this change?

One of the most popular trends in the global corporate world is the 4-day work week. In Canada, we have yet to adopt this model, though it has been adopted in other countries, including Spain, the UK, New Zealand, Belgium, and Japan. A Bloomberg study reported that 78% of leaders at over 70 UK companies that shifted to four-day schedules said their transition was good or “seamless”. Most (88%) said that four-day schedules are working well.

This concept is getting the attention of senior management as firms try to reduce their turnover rate and stay competitive amidst the aftereffects of the COVID pandemic. Locally, one Toronto company, PRAXIS, a marketing communications agency, announced it will join the 4-Day Week Global trial, along with 59 other North American companies.

Iceland has been piloting the four-day work week since 2015, they have seen significant improvements in overall employee well being following this change. Employees were less likely to suffer from workplace stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout. This has been further substantiated by Gallup, who conducted a poll in March 2020 and found that people working four-day weeks reported lower levels of burnout and higher levels of well-being compared to those working five- or six-day weeks.

However, this is more than just an employee wellness play, there are significant business benefits associated with this change. For example, a New Zealand company, Perpetual Guardian, reported a 20% productivity increase after switching to a four-day work week. Similarly, in Japan, Microsoft reported that implementing a four-day workweek led to a 40% boost in productivity compared to the previous year. Furthermore, one less day of work is one less day the lights are on at the office. Microsoft Japan saw a 23% reduction in electricity consumption and a 59% reduction in paper printing after implementing a four-day workweek.

A recent Gallup report estimated that millennial turnover costs the U.S. economy $30.5 billion annually. According to that same report, millennials rank work-life balance high on their list of priorities when considering employment options. A work schedule that provides employees with an additional non-workday a week may be attractive to your workers.

It’s clear that the 4-day work week has the opportunity to provide both employees and firms with a significant amount of benefits. However, implementation of a change of this magnitude is highly complex and there are risks that must be managed effectively. However, if you have the right tools and support to manage the change, the 4-day work week could be a blessing for your firm and employees.

Are you thinking about implementing a 4-day work week across your organization? Contact us, we can help!

‘Quiet quitting’ is a signal for change

What is the root cause and how can firms address it before it’s too late

Quiet quitting is the new trend wreaking havoc on the corporate world. First, we experienced the Great Resignation, which is far from over in my opinion, and now, employees are actively reducing their level of productivity as a form of protest to their employers who have failed them; failed to provide an acceptable level of work-life balance by continuing to overwork them without regard to the mental and physical health repercussions.

At what point are we going to stop and say, “enough is enough” and start to make real change to improve the lives of employees. They are your most valuable asset and you’ve neglected that fact for too long. If employees are en mass consciously choosing to do the bare minimum, that’s on the employer, not on them. If you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem.

There has always been a myth surrounding productivity and employee engagement. Traditional employers believe that the two are negatively correlated, meaning that we can’t achieve both increased productivity and increased employee engagement. That is not true. In fact, the truth is that the only way to generate sustainable, the key word being sustainable, increases in productivity is through a relentless pursuit of continually improving the employee experience.

Now, I don’t mean stamping “we’ve heard you” across every corporate communication that comes from the CEO. I’m talking about a real focus on the employee experience. Understanding what your employees want and need and delivering it. If you think the investment isn’t worth, I’d ask what investment is worth more than the engagement of your employees. Firms invest in new innovations every day to improve the lives of their customers. Who is ultimately responsible for the customer experience at your organization? You guessed it, your employees. Treat employees with the respect and dignity they deserve, and the returns will be ten-fold, mark my words.

Where to start is often the most difficult task for any change. Here are six areas that have the most significant impact on the level of employee engagement. It’s likely that one or more are areas of opportunity that should be investigated further.

Roles & Responsibilities

A clear articulation of what your employee’s roles and responsibilities are can significantly influence their level of engagement. It prevents feelings of uncertainty and allows them to focus their efforts on what’s expected, rather than spending all their time “putting out fires” for others.

Autonomy

Employees need to have the autonomy to make decisions and be held accountable for the outcomes. Furthermore, the means to which performance is evaluated must be measurable, transparent and objective. Leaders oftentimes use judgement alone to determine the quality of performance, however that creates subjectivity that oftentimes leads to conflict. An employee believes their work was impeccable, only to find out it’s not what their leader expected. Let’s be honest, how many times has that happened to you?

There seems to be this trend toward compartmentalization which has reduced the level of autonomy for employees over the years. Employees no longer have full autonomy to make decisions, fail, try again and improve. Instead, there is this culture of “never fail” that has permeated the corporate landscape which makes innovation and engagement impossible to achieve. Employees who seek remote levels of autonomy are forced to enter the start-up space and that needs to change.

Continuous Improvement

The concept of continuous improvement in terms of how things are done and continuing to educate employees and leaders on topics that are relevant to their work and development goals are crucial to ensure they continue to bring forward new ideas to help the firm and team innovate.

Some organizations might say that they support continuous learning, but is there a package of required learning that employees in different groups are required to complete prior to onboarding (excluding entry level positions)? Are new packages developed as the industry matures for new and existing employees? Do they receive dedicated time away from work to complete these sessions and are they given the opportunity to apply what they learned on the job?

Employees are “ASSETS” not “COSTS”

I’ve talked about this at length already but it’s important to emphasize again.

I have seen time and time again that when an employee leaves an organization, they are often immediately replaced. There is little done to retain the individual; determine whether there are areas within the company that would be a better fit, attempt to understand what went wrong or provide any support for them as they embark on a new journey.

It is my belief that employees hold an immense amount of knowledge that is both unique and highly transferable across organizations. A number of employees I think underestimate how transferrable their knowledge is, which keeps them loyal. But that’s not how you want to retain employees. You want employees to want to be part of your organization and to do that you need to treat them like the assets they are. How is your organization doing this? What is attracting employees to the company – and I don’t mean the bare minimum that all other employers are providing like benefit packages, share ownership plans and the like. If you deliver the bare minimum, why are you so surprised when your employees do the same.

It’s time for a change…

If after reading through this you feel like your organization can use some help. I’m sure you’re not alone and in this era of the Great Resignation and, now, Quiet Quitting, this is likely something that should be tackled sooner rather than later.

This requires dedication of all levels, from senior executives to line managers. However, it’s not impossible if you spend time trying to understand the problem, testing out solutions and remain laser focused on sustainment efforts. Employee experiences, like customers, evolve rapidly and the organization needs to be flexible enough to adjust their approach quickly in order to ensure the employee experience isn’t ever compromised. This is easier said than done, however if you’re committed enough to making a sustainable change for your employees then anything is possible.

Need help improving the engagement of your team? Contact us, we can help!