Category Archives: Well-being

Here’s what’s wrong with the debate on remote work

Posted on by
Reply

Ever since the pandemic, the debate on remote work been both fascinating and frustrating to follow. 
 
Before the pandemic, remote work was practically unheard of. Some organizations allowed it do different degrees, but on the most part it was rare. Then when the pandemic hit everything changed overnight. People weren’t allowed into the office and all of a sudden work that had been considered impossible to do remotely turned out not only to be possible, but actually worked quite well. People realized, that working from home offered a lot of flexibility and now, post-pandemic, most employees don’t want to stop doing it – at least part of the time.
 
Employers, on the other hand, feel differently, which really isn’t very surprising. Research has shown that managers found remote work during the pandemic to be much harder than other employees did. They couldn’t fall back on old management routines but had to come up with new ways of managing their teams when team members were no longer right there in front of them.
 
Now, post-pandemic, organizations have been trying to call their employees back to the office with varying success and some have even abolished the possibility of working remotely altogether. Employers argue that face time is crucial for innovation and development as well as for new recruits, which is true, but getting people to want to come into the office is still challenging. Some organizations set rules for when you have to be in the office, but no matter what they decide, people still aren’t happy. 
 
The on-going debate has been very black and white. Is remote work good or bad? Should people be allowed to do it or not? Yes or no? There are arguments for both sides that are valid, but the debate doesn’t really seem to be going anywhere. That is because it’s missing the point.
 
First of all, one problem is thinking about remote work in terms of how we used to think about work when everyone came into the office. Yes, it is true that innovation suffers if people don’t engage enough with each other. But this isn’t actually a problem of remote work, but rather an issue of leadership. If people work remotely, we need to make sure we create opportunities for collaboration and innovation. This is fully possible. We need to make sure we have routines for including new recruits in the community so that they feel welcomed and become part of the team. It doesn’t happen automatically just because we’re in the same building, but it certainly doesn’t happen if we don’t consciously make it happen when working remotely.  We need new routines for leadership and organization. Just like during the pandemic, we – both managers and employees – need to do things differently to make it work. 
 
The other thing that frustrates me is how organizations go about deciding what their policy for remote work should be. It seems that no matter what they decide, people are unhappy. What strikes me is that most organizations fail to see that remote working practices and policies are a question of organizational culture and any changes made with regards to ways of working should be treated as any organizational change. 
 
In order to get people on board with change you have to involve them in that change. On the one hand, you have to allow them to create their own understanding of why the change is necessary and, on the other, you have to let them be a part of the solution. If they actually feel the need to change and have been involved in developing new solutions and routines, they will naturally also be committed to them. 
 
The same goes for remote working practices. Those of you who grapple with this, have you talked to your employees about it? Have you asked them what their needs are? Have you involved them in thinking about what it is you want to achieve as an organization or as a team and what they best way to go about it is? It’s not just a question of how many days to work on and off site. It’s a question of what needs to be done how to best create solutions to achieve that. 
 
Some say people simply don’t want to come into the office anymore, but this really isn’t true. It’s just that they don’t want come in if they don’t feel like there is any point. People have seen what a positive impact working remotely can have on their lives and their wellbeing. 
 
Experiences change us and we can’t go back to the way it was before the pandemic. We can only move forward. Remote and hybrid work are here to stay in one form or another, and that is not a bad thing. They are an excellent way to provide employees with more flexibility and to create sustainable lifestyles and solutions for work. Office work isn’t a thing of the past either. 
 
We can figure this out, but we need to think about work a bit differently than we’re used to.

Why are there so many bad bosses?

Posted on by
Reply

Well, I can think of a few reasons. First of all, being a boss is hard. Leading a team or an organization takes skill. 

You may have heard the statement that people don’t leave companies, they leave bad bosses. Well that isn’t always true, but what is true is that a bad boss is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that people leave. And as we know, ever since the pandemic, people have been opting out in droves, and work-related mental health issues are at an all-time high. According to The Mental Health at Work Report 2022, three in four employees are experiencing mental health issues at work. 

But first, I want to say that there are a lot of really great bosses out there. For some it comes more naturally, and others have to work harder for it, but they are out there. The problem is just that there are a lot of bad bosses too, and bad bosses, without meaning to or even being aware of it, can really cause a lot of harm. 

So how do people become bosses in the first place? Often it is from being really good at what they do. A person without leadership responsibilities might be excelling at their job and then get awarded for that with a promotion to lead the team. So, a salesperson, for example, who is a wizard at sales is made head of the sales team because they are so darned good at selling. But being a wizard at sales is no guarantee that you are going to be any good at leading a team, or that you even like doing it. Do you see what I mean?

And there is a lot of prestige associated with leadership roles and having people report to you. So, people often accept the raise and the status without maybe thinking about what it really entails. 

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, but people do get leadership training to support them in their role. Yes, this is true, some do some don’t. And leadership training certainly helps. I encourage everyone who is in a leading position to get leadership training. 

But there is also something about our working cultures that doesn’t exactly foster the kind of skills and routines that you need to connect with your people.  In fact, studies have shown that there is a growing sense of disconnection in our workplaces and people are feeling lonelier than ever.

Organizational cultures tend to encourage us to push forward, be competitive and not show emotions. Business is business, right? It isn’t personal.

Wrong.

Business is personal. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it’s highly personal because we (employees) make up the business and we are all people. But because of this norm, we are encouraged to keep our personal lives separate and not show emotions at work, or at least only show the ‘right’ emotions. But, the thing is that what happens in our personal lives deeply affects how we act and perform at work. And vice versa, naturally. Also, when people aren’t allowed to bring their real, whole selves to work, it makes it really hard for them to realize their full potential. 

This is because we are whole human beings and as much as we are encouraged or would like to leave parts of our selves at the door, that’s actually not how it works. 

I just finished a book, HumanForce: The Power of Emotions in the Changing Workplace, and the author, Natalie Boudou, hits the nail on its head again and again. She talks about how we need stronger, more intelligent workplaces and how a strategy of greater emotional intelligence and openness is the key to successful leadership. It turns out that compassion and emotion, traditionally thought of as soft, fluffy bunny issues and words not generally used in conjunction with work, are in fact strategic issues that provide the key to healthy, creative, productive and competitive work places. 

Leaders simply need to be emotionally intelligent. If this doesn’t come naturally to you, and for most people it probably doesn’t, you need to work on it. It’s an acquired skill. And if you are a boss or a leader, you need to want to be around your people and connect with them. If you do, you will have a better sense of what they are going through and a better understanding of their needs, which will help you adapt your leadership style to different people in different situations. If you don’t, you’re not really being a leader. 

P.S. Read the book! You can find it here.

On working in places where practices go against your values, and deciding that you can’t

Posted on by
Reply

People opt out for a number of reasons. Yes, the dream and pull of a new lifestyle that is more sustainable and where you can live and work on your own terms plays in. But truth be told, it is the push of a job that you no longer can or want to do, for whatever reason, that actually makes you take the step. 

In my research I have found that more often than not it is values, or the clash of values, that becomes the tipping point. It can be values regarding anything really, but I’ve found that it often has to do with the ethical treatment of others, both humans and non-humans. 

People come to a point when they realize that they just can’t stand for whatever it is their employer is doing. 

That was the case last time I left a job. Especially with the research I do and everything I stand for regarding sustainable work, ethical and respectful treatment of others, and wellbeing, I just couldn’t continue working for an organization that didn’t seem to care about any of that. 

I’m not going to get into the details right now because there are just too many for a blog post, but I had been mistreated myself and I saw how much suffering there was around me and I realized that if I accept this and just go on as if nothing had happened, it would be hypocritical. I can’t accept crap for myself that I tell others has no place in the organizational sphere. Or any sphere, really. 

So I left. And I’m no alone. A clash of values and a sense of disillusionment are reasons why many people leave. And the fact of the matter of is, values are important and they are just getting more so with every new generation that enters the work force. 

Research has shown that one thing that sets gen z workers apart from previous generations is that values play a much bigger role for them in relation to work and money. They generally want more than to just make money and also have higher expectations on their employers. They have sites where they compare notes and don’t want just any job, but one that is aligned with their values. 

Sometimes older generations will roll their eyes at this but I think they are right to expect more from their employers. I think one reason why so many work places are sites for so much suffering is that we haven’t expected enough. 

So don’t underestimate the importance of values.

Besides, research has also shown that ethical treatment of others – both those inside and outside the organization – is good for business. It’s good for the bottom line. But as I tell my students, using this as an argument to get organizations to act more ethically is really quite problematic. Because what if it turns out that it really isn’t a game changer? What if the bottom line is good enough without treating others well, is it still okay then not too?

You can prioritize people and still be very successful

Posted on by
Reply

I’m working on a book again. It’s another book on opting out, but this time it’s out of an organizational perspective. More specifically, I’m writing about what organizations need to do to create working environments that people won’t long to leave. Because studies have shown that a lot of people do. A lot of people dream about opting out.

The situation isn’t all bad. There are of course organizations that do great things and there are a lot of people who are happy in their jobs, that’s true. But it’s also true that organizations can be places of profound suffering. In the past 30 years or so, mental ill-health has skyrocketed, the main reason being work-related stress. Main factors include constant cost cutting and reorganizations, as well as work that is dehumanizing and where people are disrespected and not valued. Did you know that there is something known as Blue Monday? Apparently, people are more likely to have what is thought to be stress-related heart attacks on Mondays than any other day of the week. 

So, this book that I’m working on right now is part of my personal mission to change working life as we know it. 

While doing research for my new book, I stumbled across another book that made a really big impression on me. It’s a book by Rob Chapman and Raj Sisodia called Everyone Matters: The Extraordinary Power of Caring for Your People Like Family.

Rob Chapman is the CEO of Barry-Wehmiller, a large American industrial company. When he became CEO of the company, he “threw away” traditional management practices like the ones you learn in business school and replaced them with what he calls “a truly human leadership”.

This spoke to me right away because I spend a lot of time telling anyone who will listen that business is personal (contrary to popular belief) simply because it’s about people. And people are personal. Companies love to say that their people are their greatest resource, but honestly, it’s a bit problematic to think of people this way. It’s kind of dehumanizing if you think about. 

Chapman gets this. His thinking is, why do we treat people at work differently than we do people we care about? If we say things at work that we wouldn’t say to our own children, for example, why do we think it’s okay to talk that way to someone else’s child? Chapman’s point is that everyone is someone’s child and everyone should be treated as such. Everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect. 

According to Chapman, fostering a people-centric culture is to truly care about every human being whose life the company touches, be it employees, employees’ families, customers, suppliers, business partners… A people-centric culture is about including everyone (not just the very talented, everyone is needed and everyone wants to contribute), keeping them safe and sending them home fulfilled. It’s about respect, it’s about trust, it’s about listening to people, and it’s about treating everyone the same no matter where in the organization they are. 

This people-centric culture was implemented during a financial upswing and things were going well for company. Then when the financial crisis of 2008 hit it was really put to the test. Companies were laying people off everywhere to survive the sudden loss of business, but not Barry-Wehmiller. They were reluctant to do it because layoffs have a profound negative affect on people’s wellbeing. It’s affects them, their lives, their health and their whole families. Not only that, it also really affects the morale of those who don’t lose their jobs, which also affects business. So, they just really didn’t want to have to do that. 

What did they do instead? Well, they thought about what a family would do in a time of crisis. They wouldn’t kick some of the family members out to cut costs. Instead, they would all come together and pitch in in any way that they could so that everyone could make it through the crisis. And this is what they did. They treated the company like a family.

One thing they did was that they decided that everyone had to take a four-week furlough, including members of management. They had a system where everyone was allowed to take the time off when it suited them best. Also, if someone felt they wanted to or could afford it, they could take over some of someone else’s furlough if someone couldn’t afford taking that much time off without pay. When employees realized they weren’t going to lose their jobs, everyone pitched in and people felt committed to do what they could to save the company. They made it through the recession without letting a single person go and they came out of the recession strong, and also faster than the economy as a whole. Already in 2010, they made record earnings and decided to write every employee a check for the salary that they had given up to save the company. 

By the way, did you know that regular restructuring, downsizing and layoffs is a relatively recent phenomenon? It isn’t something companies started doing systematically until1990’s. I’ll leave you with this quote:

“Rightsizing, de-layering, business reengineering, streamlining… these are some of the other euphemisms for the now-routine business practice of eliminating jobs to improve profit. Downsizing has become a reflex response to business adversity…to preserve financial performance, raise investor confidence, and boost share price. We know of one company that deliberately over-hires when times are good so it can let people go and get a bump in the share price when it wants to… Simon Sinek puts it this way: “In the military, they give medals to those who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that other may gain. In business, we give bonuses to those that are willing to sacrifice others so that they may gain.””

                                                               (Chapman & Sisodia, 2015: 95)

If you want to hear Bob Chapman talk about this in his own words, google him. He’s all over the internet. 

If we all know something has got to give, then why is it so hard to change?

Posted on by
Reply

All the years I’ve been researching, writing and talking about opting out and in, sustainable solutions for work and work place wellbeing, I’ve never come across anyone in the organizational world who doesn’t think all this is of the essence. I’ve been at it for a while now, and the whole time my work has been received as timely and important and with great interest. 

Still, even though there is a lot of consensus regarding this, people continue struggling with the same issues at work and more and more of them dream of opting out. 

Okay, before you say anything, I do know that not everything is the same. The pandemic showed us that we can change when we have to and there are a lot of organizations that now provide their employees with more flexibility regarding where, when and how they work. Also, some organizations have started prioritizing mental health more and now have routines and policies in place to support that. 

Nevertheless, there are a lot of organizations that don’t. Some may talk the talk but not walk it, and some – all too many – don’t even talk it. 

Why is this? Why is it so hard to change?

Well, one of the main problems is that the way we understand work; and what we know to be a ‘good’ way of working or organizing our work has become something of a truth. When things have been in a certain way for as long as we can remember, we tend to think that is the natural way for them to be and it becomes hard to even imagine doing things differently. It is simply the way things are done. 

But let me let you in on a secret. The way we understand work isn’t a truth. It isn’t a law of nature, it has been invented and implemented by us and not even that long ago. It’s actually quite a recent invention. 

The current career ideal was developed as a result of industrialization and the prosperity many nations experienced after World War II. Employees were expected to be loyal to one employer and career advancement involved an upward movement in the organization in a timely fashion, brought about by promotions. As mainly men started working in the industries, some argue that the career wasn’t created for one, but one and a half people: the man with the career and the wife who took care of everything he didn’t have time for because he was so tied up at work. 

Although a lot has changed in society since then, this is ironically still the career ideal today: the timely upward movement and the expectation of complete dedication and devotion to work. Anything else it considered suspect, at least if you want to advance to the upper echelons of corporate hierarchies. 

But guess what, we don’t have to organize work the way we do! There is nothing natural or predetermined about it. We can reinvent why we work, how we work and how much we work. 

The problem is just that in order to change we have to want to change. And not only that, we also have to realize that we need to change. We have to have that lightbulb moment. Until we do, and if it’s going well enough, it’ll just feel easier to continue the way we have.  

So how do we do that? How do we get people and organizations to see the light? Do we have to wait until things get so bad that there will be no choice but to change?  

Why are middle managers so unhappy? (And why is it so hard for me to write about?!)

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been trying to write a blog post about why middle managers are so unhappy for about a month now. I’ve kept the Word file open on my computer and every once in a while I’ll stumble upon it amongst all the other windows that are open on my screen (I’m telling you, I feel like I have a hundred things going on simultaneously at the moment), and it glares accusingly at me, reminding me that in my last blog post I promised you all that I was reviving my blog. And here I am, having not posted a thing since December.

It’s not that I don’t know why middle managers are so unhappy. I do. According to studies, they are the unhappiest group in the organizational world and the main reason is that they are just that – in the middle. They don’t generally make the strategic decisions, but they do have to implement them. They deal with and have to manage expectations from both above and below and are burdened with administrative responsibilities. They reportedly spend about 35% of their total working time in meetings. That’s more than a third!

This leads to a feeling of not having agency, that their hands are tied, which in turn affects wellbeing. I see this again and again in my opting out research. 

So why is this so hard to write about? 

The thing is, I already wrote the blog post, I had a version ready for publication, but when I looked at it I just thought it was boring. And if it bores me to read, I’m pretty sure it will bore you too. 

So, the other night I decided that’s it. I need to get this written. This is part of my book project on what organizations need to do to create work places that people won’t long to leave (because let’s face it, a lot of people dream of opting out), and the crass reality is that I need to produce texts. No words, no book.

I sat down at my computer and started reworking the post. I wrote and rewrote. I reorganized the text, moving sentences back and forth and back again. But no, it didn’t help. It didn’t make the post any more interesting. I just wasn’t feeling it.

And this is the thing, I need to start from me. I need to have a connection to what I’m writing, I need to feel it. I can’t just spew out text on command if I’m not feeling it and think anyone will want to read it. What I had written wasn’t a blog post, it was more of a well-formulated list of why middle manager are so unhappy. 

So today it hit me. I need to write down my experience. It’s ironic, but maybe understandable, that writing, which I love to do, which feels meaningful and provides me with such a sense of accomplishment, can also be so painful and angst-ridden. I was actually watching an Instagram live by an artist I follow, Philippa Stanton (@5ftinf), and she said exactly this (maybe not in those words, but that was the gist). Hearing it made me feel relieved and understood. Maybe it isn’t so weird. After all, writing (or any creative art form) is actually a very personal endeavor. 

But back to middle managers. Why is this important? Well, for one, every once in a while, I see stories and reports of how it’s become increasingly difficult for companies to get people to accept promotions if the result of that promotion is a middle management position. Despite the promise of a raise and a more prestigious job, people are increasingly saying thanks but no thanks. 

Then there is also the issue of people leaving. When I started researching opting out, it was more of an exception than anything else, simply because leaving is hard. But now people are doing it in numbers never before witnessed. 

So what do we do? Well there are a lot of things we can do to help the individual middle manager. But on a whole, we really need to look at organizational working cultures and practices. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, something has got to give. 

What about you? Are you a middle manager? Do you recognize any of this? Or are you in a workplace where you can thrive? Tell me about it, I would love to hear from you!

You can email me at theoptingoutblog@gmail.com. All emails are confidential.

PS. Those of you hoping for a list, here is one from a study published by The Harvard Business Review of reasons given by middle managers on why they are so unhappy (in order of importance):

  1. Bad leadership
  2. They see no career or promotion opportunities
  3. Their work lacks meaning and purpose
  4. They feel that they are treated unfairly compared to others
  5. They don’t feel valued or appreciated
  6. They don’t believe the problem will be addressed if they raise an issue
  7. They’re overworked
  8. They see the organization as inefficient and ineffective
  9. Their distinctiveness in not valued or appreciated

If Finland is the happiest country in the world why do people long to opt out here too?

Posted on by
1

I’m reading Anu Partanen’s book The Nordic Theory of Everything at the moment. It’s really an excellent read; I wish I had read it sooner. Partanen’s book so clearly explains the differences between life in Finland (or the Nordics) and the US and how these two very different social, political and cultural systems come together to create independent or not so independent individuals. 

Now, especially if you’re from the US, you may be guessing that the US system is the one that creates independent individuals, not the Nordic welfare state, but, perhaps surprisingly, it’s not. It’s the Nordic system that does that. 

One of Partanen’s messages is that the Nordic countries are most certainly not socialist, despite popular (American) belief, and that any Nordic person would balk at the idea. On the contrary, the Nordic model of social security and support allows individuals to be independent and to create good lives for themselves, instead of having them depend on for example parents, family members and employers just to be able to afford important, but basic, things like education, health care, day care etc. And yes, if you visit the Nordic countries, you will see that individualism actually does run strong throughout our cultures, for better or worse.

I strongly recommend the book, but that wasn’t actually the point of this blog post. What I want to talk about is how it is possible that opting out experiences can be so similar in both countries despite the differences that rank Finland at the top of so many lists* and the US much further down? How is it that people in a country like Finland long to opt out of their current jobs and lifestyles just as much as Americans do? 

Finland has recently, once again, been declared the world’s happiest country. It kind of makes you wonder, if this is the case, why is it that the opting out stories I have collected in Finland and the US are so remarkably similar? Why is it that people who live in a country with free education, free health care, more reasonable working hours, five weeks of legislated vacation time per year, long maternity leaves, paternity leaves, even longer parental leaves after which they are guaranteed their job back, high quality affordable day care etc. etc. etc., have very similar experiences to those who do not enjoy any of the above? 

How can it be that they also feel exhausted, they feel a lack of control over their lives, and they also have difficulties creating coherent life narratives? How can it be that they also reach a point when something’s got to give, or if not, at least long to leave their current way of living and working?

How come so many of the world’s happiest people don’t seem so happy?

Well, first I want to say, that no system or country is perfect. The happiest country in the world does not necessarily mean absolute happiness at all times. Finland is also ranked one of the most gender equal countries in the world, but that does not mean that the work here is done. Finland has not reached a state of perfect gender equality, nor will it any time soon at the rate we’re going.

I recently read that Finnish mothers are among the most stressed and exhausted in the world. The main problem is (in addition to the all-consuming motherhood ideal of today) that while Finland has among the highest percentage of women working fulltime, women also continue to be mainly responsible for childcare and household chores. While working life has become more equal, home life has been lagging behind, compared to Sweden for example. 

But one factor that has become glaringly obvious to me during all these years of researching opting out and having the privilege of hearing countless people’s opting out and in stories, is that regardless of any national differences, one common denominator is corporate cultures and ideals. They tend to be similar throughout the world thanks to globalization and global organizations, and they also tend to override local practices and sometimes even legislation. 

Let me give you an example. 

It happens, in Finland, that when a man wants to take some legislated paternity leave to get to know his child and to share the load with his partner, his employer may let him know that ‘it is simply not done in this company’. 

Research has also shown that men with low incomes are more likely to take time off to care for their children than are men in high-powered corporate positions. 

So what should we do? We need to work on changing work. We need to create corporate cultures that belong in the 21stcentury. 

* In addition to being ranked the happiest and one of the most gender equal societies, Finland is also considered one of the most stable, best-governed, least corrupt, and best-educated countries in the world.

Remote working: why does it have to be either or?

Posted on by
Reply

When I opted out in 2009 to start working on a PhD, I also started working from home. My university department and colleagues were literally on the other side of the planet, because instead of enrolling at a university closer to home, I of course chose one that was pretty much as far away as you can get. I like to joke about that because it sounds so crazy, but actually it made a lot of sense, and in hindsight I clearly see what a wise choice it was for me in many ways. 

But the point is that I went from a job in consulting where I was expected to be at the office every day, to setting up a home office and always working there. For me personally it was wonderful. I like working at home. I like being alone, I find it easier to concentrate and I don’t get distracted by laundry or unmade beds or other non-job-related things that need fixing. Besides, my kids were quite young at the time and things tended to be so intense after school and daycare, that the quiet of my work day was pure bliss. 

However, in 2009, when I opted out, working from home, or any other place than the office, was not a widespread practice. To be honest, although some organizations have had a remote working policy and made it possible for employees at least some of the time, more organizations haven’t. Face time has been considered essential – you know, if you don’t see your employees how do you know that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing? (For those of you who haven’t realized this yet, seeing them is no guarantee. If they aren’t doing what they are expected to do the problem has little to do with them being there physically or not.)

It wasn’t until this past year when people were forced to stay at home, that many organizations that previously had been reluctant, had to try remote working in earnest. And surprise surprise, they realized that not only was it possible, for some it was better than working in the office. But many have also realized, that having people work in different physical places, puts new expectations on managers and work routines. You cannot lead people in the same way you would if you were all in the same location. This is the reason that the lockdown remote working experience of 2020 has generally been most draining and stressful for managers. They haven’t been able to just fall back on familiar routines.

But this is all fine and good. It is lightbulb moments like these that lead to changed behavior and new practices. However, one thing continues to baffle me. Just as many have previously held that their employees need to be physically present at all times for things to work, now I see debates about how always working remotely really can be a strain and difficult in many ways. I get the feeling it might be a defensive reaction of sorts to all the hype we’ve seen around remote working during the past few months? I mean, it turns a lot of the assumptions we’ve had about working life for a long time on their head. 

But who says working remotely has to mean never coming in to the office at all? Why would it have to be a question of either or? 

Even when employees are presented with the option to work remotely, some will want to continue going to the office every day. A study has shown that few people are like me, and most people prefer a combination of the two. And I think that makes perfect sense. It allows people to come in and meet colleagues, have face-to-face discussions, have in-person meetings…. But it also allows people to work from home or somewhere else when they need to and gain more control over where, when and how they work. My own research has shown that this is something people find extremely important, mainly because it increases quality of life. Simply put, it just makes life easier. 

So yes, having to work remotely all the time is not necessarily a good thing. We have seen that during the pandemic. Although many have reported that they are more productive, they have also reported that they feel tired and miss their colleagues. But that does not mean that we should forget working remotely altogether. Allowing people to have a combination – the best of both worlds – is very doable, as is allowing them to decide what they want their mix to look like. 

And yes, it involves a change of management routines.

What is the new normal anyway?

Posted on by
Reply

Have you noticed how everyone seems to be talking about the new normal? It’s like it’s a new catchphrase that people slip into their conversations when talking about life after corona, or rather during corona since it obviously isn’t over yet. Not even for those of us living in countries where it almost feels like life is going back to ‘normal’.

I put ‘normal’ in quotation marks because what is really normal about the life we lived before corona anyway? Is it normal that mental health is higher than ever before mostly due to workplace stress and insecurity? Is it normal to spend so much time sitting still at your desk that you have chronic neck pain and you have to schedule time to just move? Is it normal to deplete the Earth of its resources in the name of prosperity? Okay, you catch my drift.

Well, what is the new normal then? We are in a situation where we still don’t know what is going to happen and how the next few months/years are going to look. During corona, the situation has constantly changed from one day to the next. There is so much we still don’t know about the virus and we don’t know whether there will be a second wave, or splotches of outbreaks, which seems to be what the experts are talking about at the moment.

Yes, a lot has happened since the outbreak, and we have had to reinvent the way we do countless things. Things that have previously been considered impossible are suddenly a necessity. Working remotely is an example. Other examples include consumer habits; we have cooked our own food more, as opposed to eating out. The staycation has become the new vacation.

And the environment has thanked us. We have seen reports of clear waters and starlit skies in cities where there have been none. However, although many of us, me included, hope for a lasting effect regarding this, a few weeks ago I read that the air in some Chinese cities is actually worse now after the lockdown has been lifted than it was before corona.

In a study conducted by YLE in Finland, about half of those who have been working remotely during the pandemic would like to continue doing so, at least sometimes, as they feel it increased their quality of life. According to a study conducted by KPMG, 64% of office workers and managers in the US have said that their quality of life improved thanks to the disruptive impact of COVID-19 (although it has been harder on managers).

But what does this really mean? Does it mean that we will take all our new insights and improve both the world and our lives?

Unfortunately this won’t happen by itself. It is simply too easy to just slip back into old habits and routines. Besides, I think a lot of people don’t want to change, but are rather just waiting to be able to go back to doing things in the ‘old normal’ way.

But seeing what the alternative could be, which many of us have done these past few months, is what makes change possible. So, I do hope we take what we have learned with us and implement the good stuff, I really do! But we have to do it consciously.

In the meantime, I think it’s a bit early to be talking about a new normal. Unless of course the new normal is that there is no normal. Yes, maybe that’s it. I mean what is normal anyway?

Ode to my Maple

Posted on by
Reply

There are so many things I could write about today that are related to my work and research. I mean, we are certainly living in extraordinary times. People and organizations have been forced to reinvent working routines and solutions in ways they never even considered before. For me this is, of course, fascinating because organizations that have, for example, said that working offsite is impossible or impractical have had to try it and now realize that maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all. For someone like me who has seen how one size fits all really isn’t the best solution – not everything works for everyone nor for all types of work – this is of course satisfying to see. Hopefully we’ll take some of the things we’ve learned during this pandemic with us and see more individualized solutions in the future.

And then there’s my book on men opting out, I could write about that. I could let you know that I have now basically completely the first draft of the manuscript, which is absolutely mind-blowing for me. It is something I have been working on for so long and now it is finally coming together. But I don’t feel like writing about that either. I want to write about the maple tree that stands in my garden.

These weeks of social distancing have, for me, meant slowing down. In a way it feels crazy that it’s only been a few weeks, it feels more like months. A lot has happened. I’m definitely one of the lucky ones. I live in a house with a garden, close to a forest where it is safe to be. I have work that I can do from home and I have teenagers who have managed their distance schooling very well. So apart from the anxiety of following all the horrendous news from around the world and worrying about the safety and health of loved ones, this social distancing thing really hasn’t been that bad for me.

One of the wonderful things I have experienced, thanks to the lockdown, is the spring. I am at home more than I’ve ever been before and I go out into the garden to just get out of the house and get some fresh air. I don’t have anywhere else to be so I take time taking everything in and I just love it. I have witnessed all the birds and flowers and trees come alive after the winter: cranes circling in big flocks over our house; more tiny spring flower than I have ever known existed, and the buds of our maple bursting open before my eyes.

I have always loved my maple. I can see some of its branches from my bedroom window and I often just lie there in my bed looking it at it as I contemplate whatever it is I’m thinking about at that particular time. I love it all year around; all the colors in the fall, the bare branches against the sky that are sometimes covered in snow or frost in the winder, the buds and the delicate, yellow flowers that bloom in spring, and the big leafy leaves that provide shade in the summer. This spring I noticed how beautiful the big, velvety, brown buds were for the first time; it felt weird that I hadn’t really noticed them before. On one particularly warm and sunny day last week, as I was standing under the tree admiring the millions of buds, they started bursting open before my eyes.

Because there are no airplanes in the sky at the moment and hardly any cars on the road, our garden is quiet. And as I was standing there, I could hear the tiny snapping sounds of the bud bursts, click click click click all around me in the air.

It was amazing. I feel honored to have been included in this beautiful event. Thank you, Maple!