Do you believe in paradoxes?
Well, maybe you shouldn’t. “Paradoxes typically arise from false assumptions, which then lead to inconsistencies between observed and expected behaviours“. That is according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. If that statement is true, then identifying a paradox must be a first step towards realizing that one of our assumptions is inaccurate. Or perhaps that presumably inconsistent observed and expected behaviours are actually not that inconsistent. In this blog article we will see how to use Coremoting for deconstructing workplace paradoxes.
In the workplace world, year after year, a new presumed paradox arises. Yet, if we delve into the underlying assumptions, a pattern of misconstrued contradictions is revealed: “Flexible vs in-person”, “employee perceived productivity vs employer perceived productivity”, “employee connection vs office presence”. The contradictions are misconstrued because the underlying assumptions are false.
Coremoting has been designed from the beginning with the aim of resolving all the workplace paradoxes. Let’s desonstruct them one by one:
How Coremoting is deconstructing the “Hybrid Work Paradox”
In 2021, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella identified the “Hybrid Work Paradox“. According to this paradox: “…the vast majority of employees say they want more flexible remote work options, but at the same time also say they want more in-person collaboration, post-pandemic”.
Why does this paradox appear to exist? Because of the underlying assumption that flexibility cannot go hand-in-hand with in-person collaboration. Digging a bit deeper, we realize that flexibility is largely associated with working-from-home (WFH). And WFH has been associated with working alone, or at the very least with working without other colleagues present. Flipping the coin, we realize that in-person collaboration is again largely associated with concurrent presence in the office. And presence in the office is in itself largely associated with office attendance.
It is 2024 and the assumption that flexibility is the cause that in-person time is reduced is falsely based on measuring office attendance. Employees want more flexibility AND more in-person time. They just don’t want more in-office. It is the responsibility of the organization to provide the means, tools and spaces that will allow this dual desire to thrive. Remove flexibility and you get more in-office, not more in-person. Offer flexibility without the enabling tools and you obviously get less in-person.
Coremoting resolves this paradox by allowing employees to host colleagues at home. Thus flexibility and in-person are combined in a mutually acceptable way for all. Those prefering or needing to stay at home get more in-person by becoming hosts for their guest colleagues. Those wanting in-person but prefer not to stay at home (hashtag: “loneliness”) or go to the office (hashtag: “commuting”), now have more options to choose from: All the available spaces offered by hosting colleagues around the city. Each Coremoting session adds one more in-person session without increasing the in-office presence.
How Coremoting is Deconstructing the “Productivity Paradox”
In 2022 a new paradox emerged, the “Productivity Paradox“. According to the productivity paradox, as Matthew Boyle, Senior Work Shift Reporter at Bloomberg News put it: “Working from home improves productivity. Working from home impairs productivity”.
Can these two mutually exclusive clauses be simultaneously accurate? Well, actually they can! The reason may be found in an unexpected domain: Einstein’s theory of special relativity. It is all a matter of where the observer is standing. In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set of objects or events are being measured. So if we measure productivity from inside the remote worker’s home, we may get a different result compared to when we measure productivity from outside (aka “the office”). An employee at home may be putting in less time but getting more output per the time actually working.
Actually, how is productivity measured? Typically by dividing output with input. In certain industries there are specific KPIs against goals and a certain sense of comparative productivity can be achieved. Such examples are call centers and product deliveries. The input is the number of call one makes or the amount of time it took to deliver an item and the output is the number of sales or the number of items delivered.
In other industries, where the input is not easily measurable, there is a perceived notion that the amount of hours in the office is a visible and measurable input, but it is actually not the input against which productivity should be measured.
If productivity is measured as a ratio between the output volume and the volume of inputs, and the input is “time” then for the inside observer, i.e. the employee working from home, the actual time is the time spent on a task regardless of when this time was spent during the day. But for the outside observer the “time” is the traditional 9-5 time. Thus, the outside observer always divides by a constant (e.g. 8h) whereas the employee WFH actually devides by the actual productive time which, typically, will be less than 8h when working from home. Paradoxically, the same employee, when in the office will also divide by 8h, thus feeling “unproductive” when in the office. It is therefore evident that the employer perceived productivity of those working from the office may appear higher than that of those working from home.
In such industries, productivity must be measured solely based on output. Employees may perform twice as good in half the time by feeling concentrated and comfortable in an environment of their choice (#home) although they may appear to have a similar performance by putting in a multiple amount of hours in a time consuming (#commuting) and distractive environment (#office).
Coremoting resolves the productivity paradox as employees working from home with their guest(s) dedicate a pre-agreed time for work related activities. And even the time they do not spend directly on productive items they spend it sosializing with colleagues, which is exactly the same that happens in the office. Thus, the perceived working time (the perceived input) is directly comparable to the one spent in the office but with zero commuting for the host and minimal for the guest. If the input is “time”, then by spending time with colleagues at home the relative observer will perceive the same amount of time both from the inside and from the outside. The common divider (input) will thus allow for a consistent measurment of productivity, thus resolving the paradox.
How Coremoting is Deconstructing the “Paradox of connection”
And now, in 2024, we have yet a third paradox, the “Paradox of Connection“. According to Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, “…while employees yearn for connection, forced mandates to return to the office often breed resentment rather than fostering desired connection”.
The assumption here is, again, that employees working from home or remotely are working alone. Thus, any communication between remotely working employees can only take place through videoconferencing tools, which hinders connection. Accordingly, merely by being in the office, employees are assumed to be “connecting”, just because they may be running into each other in the corridors or because they may be sharing a -usually- noisy space. But employee connection is a human connection. And humans only connect with those they feel close to, share common interests or characteristics, or sense some sort of compatibility. Forced mandates oblige employees to be colocated with colleagues that do not necessarily fit in the above description. And even if they accidentally do, the timing and environment of the office may not be the appropriate one to forge the number of connections and the quality of connections the employees yearn for.
Coremoting solves the paradox of connection by connecting colleagues through its smart matching algorithm, where it is the emloyees that set the matching criteria. Thus, employees will be matched to work together with colleagues that share at least some of the characteristics they are proactively looking for. Coremoting enables such connections with selectable scoring parameters while matching hosts and guests.
Let´s provide some examples:
- Employees living in a particular suburb may choose to connect only with colleagues living within a certain distance, thus increasing the possibility to be matched with neighboring colleagues who may share similar tastes in nearby stores and restaurants, schools or gyms. Coremoting enables such connections with the selectable “Distance” scoring parameter while matching hosts and guests.
- New employees may choose to connect with colleagues from specific departments, in an effort to accelerate their onboarding, understanding and integrating in the new organization, without relying solely on their manager´s or HR´s role. Coremoting enables such connections with the selectable “Unit” scoring while matching hosts and guests.
- Single parents may choose to connect with other single parents, sharing their experience and situation with others living in a similar situation and having common problems, issues and goals. Coremoting enables such connections with the selectable “child friendly” scoring while matching hosts and guests.
- Employees with disabilities often have more negative experiences at work when compared with employees without disabilities and may want to connect with other colleagues with disabilities to feel more included and to share their experiences. Coremoting enables such connections with the selectable “Accessibility” scoring while matching hosts and guests.
The above mentioned selectable scoring parameters are just some of the available ones, they are all optional and can be combined to create connection layers of employees otherwise invisible to or impossible within the organization.
Conclusion
Workplace paradoxes exist because our understanding of the new hybrid world of work is still incomplete and developing. There is no magic wand to solve all the problems and paradoxes of the flexible workplace. But there is a common denominator: Caring. A caring employer is constantly looking for ways and tools to enable solutions around the specific circumstances. By keeping an open mind and by having open eyes towards the future and open ears while searching for solutions, it is almost certain that solutions, such as Coremoting, will start registering in the radar of the modern organization as ways to complement and enhance the workplace experience.
Deconstructing workplace paradoxes with Coremoting has never been easier. Let’s do it together.