A Terrible Idea That 90% Of Leaders Will Likely Do To Entice Employees Back To The Office

I've become fairly outspoken against the idea of forcing employees back to the office.

I've begun to amass a set of articles explaining why it makes no sense.

I've looked at the trends, the true data, the science, and looked at the reasoning behind pushing these mandates.

On one end, you have organizational Leaders looking completely incompetent because they are making half-hearted threats to get employees back, unsuccessfully.

On another end, you have organizations that are pulling the trigger leading to losing 45% of their workforce in the process.

Even when some Leaders make ACTUAL valid points in their arguments to return to the office, such as Bloomberg has, their ideas are still completely misguided and are completely dismissing the huge realities of the situation!

No matter which way I see Leaders trying to frame this or accomplish it, it makes no sense and only creates larger problems.

It seems that Leaders are still not satisfied with the very clear data, and will attempt other ways to get people back into the office.

I was recently reading that 90% of CEOs are saying that they are likely to give raises and promotions to those who actually show up.

Really?

That's the plan?

Let's jump into why this is a terrible idea, and we will look at the top 3 reasons these mandates "claim" are the reasons to return to the office in the process (disregarding the fact that these theories make no sense already based on the reality we find ourselves in).

We'll see why doing this will negatively impact all 3 supposed reasons to return to the office.

Hindering Productivity

The first problem is that giving raises and promotions based on those who show up will actively be working against Productivity.

In corporate environments, when there are ways to "game the system", you can be sure that people will do everything in their power to break the game.

When you tell people they will likely get raises and promotions based on being in the office, you will find more people will be in the office.

However, studies time and time again show that "Time In Office" does not directly correlate to actual "Productivity".

The reason is simple, we are most Productive in states of Flow.

Flow is not something you can maintain throughout an 8, 10, or even 12 hour workday - it's literally impossible.

When people are actually trained in Flow and have figured out how to get into it consistently (which is few people), they often will find it difficult to get over 6 hours of Flow in an average workday.

The rest of the time, they need recovery.

Sometimes recovery "can" have productive results, albeit significantly less than during Flow (a fraction of a fraction).

However, when people stay in offices for longer hours, they typically aren't recovering.

The longer they are in office, the less recovery they get, leading to worse Productivity and worsening Dis-Stress.

Over time, this will also literally prevent them from getting into Flow States.

This decimates true Productivity in the long term.

So giving raises and promotions to those who stay in office more will incentivize employees to have long, unproductive hours.

You could take an alternate approach as well, and simply track the number of days in the office, but again this will get gamified.

Inevitably, people held to these standards "show up", but aren't necessarily working hard (if they work at all).

In either case, you're going to have a lot of employees who are not focused on Productivity, and instead just focusing on what is being measured, which in this case is a flawed vanity metric.

Hindering Serendipity Of Ideas

Another reason I've heard often is that returning to work will bring a "Serendipity of Ideas".

I have already talked about how this is a myth already when it comes to actual Innovation, but let's talk more specifically about how this is negatively impacted by this flawed incentive.

Typically, the people who are most prone to creating real Innovation are the ones who think differently, are willing to challenge the status quo, can be "difficult" under "normal" behavior, and may be called a "Rebel".

Employees who are actually like this will see a policy like this and think it is ridiculous.

Why should "time in office" be more important than "quality and quantity of results"?

It makes no sense to the "Rebel" that being in an office should dictate who gets raises and who gets promotions.

They also won't tolerate it for long and will quickly go looking for organizations that actually appreciate the quality and productivity they accomplish.

However, do you know who "will" run back to the office?

The "Yes, Sir!" people, and the "Gamifiers".

Neither of these types of people is the one who creates a "Serendipity of Ideas".

Your "Yes, Sir!" people are the ones who are always looking to be told what to do, and they will listen.

However, they aren't the types of people to speak up about new ideas or anything Innovative, they are too focused on doing what they are told.

As Leaders, they also typically require a lot of "hand-holding" and it will take a lot of effort to get them to make decisions on their own (if they ever do at all).

Not only does this hinder Innovation, but it also hinders Productivity!

Along with this, your "Yes, Sir!" people tend to be extremely hesitant to accept or even attempt anything "outside the norm."

Often, they will end up squashing innovative ideas from their teams long before they reach the highest levels of the organization.

As for your "Gamifiers", they are only looking out for themselves.

Once you start demanding innovative ideas from them, they will be halfway out the door to another organization before you realize that they were simply using and abusing your system to jump up the totem pole more quickly.

All the while your potential "Innovators" will simply get more frustrated by not being seen nor heard.

They will either leave the organization in that frustration (if you're lucky), or they will REALLY become Rebellious and start to become Actively Disengaged, working against the company intentionally.

None of this helps create a "Serendipity of Ideas".

Hindering Wellbeing

Wellbeing is another popular reason stated for returning to the office.

However, when you incentivize raises and promotions based on being in the office, you will not achieve this goal.

For one, we go back to the idea that people will be in the office longer if you do this.

Already we have seen longer hours are extremely detrimental to people's wellbeing.

This is nothing new and it's been a gigantic problem Leaders have refused to solve for over a decade now.

In fact, being "Out" of the office has dramatically improved wellbeing, and forcing people back into the same environment against their desire will actually make wellbeing worse than it was before.

Along with this, by not incentivizing "quality" work, you're going to damage the wellbeing of people who actually do try to do high-quality work.

There are employees who will literally put their heart and soul into accomplishing the goals of an organization.

But when they get passed up for someone who was "actually at the office" or "working longer", it becomes a huge detriment to their wellbeing.

They will think, "Why did I put all that hard work and effort if 'this' is all I get from it?"

This tells your employees that their hard work doesn't mean anything, that their hard work is worthless.

No one likes to feel like their hard efforts are meaningless and worthless.

It will only be made worse because their hard efforts will be passed up based on a meaningless vanity metric by people who are significantly less deserving.

If the "Gamifiers" have really embedded themselves in your organization (which is extremely common), they may also end up "stealing" the credit of these individuals making it that much worse for people's wellbeing.

Final Thoughts

So, it makes no sense at all to incentivize people simply being in the office, and it is significantly worse to consider promotions based on this.

It is completely a vanity metric that has no real bearing on the success of ANY organization.

In fact, it will actively hinder every supposed "reason" given to get people back in the office!

This incentive will negatively impact productivity.

It will deter the individuals who actually could create a "Serendipity of Ideas".

Plus, it will make wellbeing worse.

This is a terrible combination, especially when we already take into account that 80% of the workforce is in Burnout (with more in high levels of Dis-Stress).

If 90% of Leaders are considering this, then they are blind to reality.

If you actually want to be a Legendary Leader, how about you actually focus on how to accomplish these "supposed" goals you have (which being In-Office is clearly not accomplishing)?

Want to improve Productivity?

Why don't you create and look at metrics that actually show this?

How about you create Group Flow States in your organization, where individuals are 5X more productive on their own, and significantly more as a group?

Want to create Innovation or "Serendipity of Ideas"?

Why don't you study how this actually occurs?

Again, how about you create Group Flow States in your organization, where Creativity skyrockets?

What about getting employees to look at how other industries work to see what can be gained from them?

Want to improve wellbeing?

Let's actually fix the biggest issue - Burnout!

How do you decrease the Stress in your organization?

More importantly, why don't you develop your own Neurocardiology so that you can actively help members of your organization decrease their Stress physiologically?

The goals that are being discussed - Productivity, Innovation, and Wellbeing - are great goals, but let's actually look at the reality of accomplishing these!