By Phil Harwood

Employers today are increasingly hiring people who are unprepared for the workforce. This has always been an issue to some. There was always a small percentage of people entering the workforce who were not ready to do so. But that percentage has grown in recent years and may even be more than 50% today. I’d love to hear what you think about this percentage. 

Want to have this blog in podcast form?  Check it out here.

I’m going to sidestep the “why” question in this blog because I want to get to the “what” question. But I will briefly say that there are three trends that aren’t helping these matters: (1) a  trend toward having out-of-wedlock children, (2) a trend toward absent parenting and divorce, and (3) a trend away from schools teaching basic skills (reading, writing, mathematics, critical thinking, public speaking, etc.). There are some innovative things happening in education but a child with an unstable home or an absent father faces a tough road ahead. 

As employers, I think it is safe to say that we expect to provide some level of remedial education during our onboarding and training. We just didn’t expect to have to do so much of it. But here we are. Now what?

One of the areas we need to address as employers is what the word “work” means. This word has many different meanings. In fact, there is a great debate occurring right now in our society about the meaning of this word. Let me give you three scenarios to illustrate.

Scenario #1

Julie texts Amy while Amy is sitting at her desk at work. Julie is a personal friend and wants to ask Amy a quick question. Amy sees the alert on her phone and responds to it. This exchange only took a minute but it interrupted Amy’s actual work. Is this acceptable behavior while at work?

What if one text turns into a series of back-and-forth texts, which it often does. A quick, single interruption is more likely to be a bunch of interruptions over the course of the day. In addition, Amy has other friends who like to text too and she’s on several dating apps. She may have a dozen texting conversations going on at one time on any particular day. Is this acceptable behavior while at work?

Scenario #2

Bob is a salesperson. During the pandemic, he was forced to work from home when his company mandated that every employee who does not need to physically be in the office work remotely. Bob has been working from home for two years now. At first, he resented it but he has come to love the flexibility it affords him. 

Bob is now being required to report back to his office every day for work. Bob knows that there are many employers who are looking for virtual arrangements and is considering making a move to another company to avoid having to sit in traffic to get to his office each morning, which he can’t imagine ever doing again. What would your advice to Bob be? 

Scenario #3

Joe’s phone rings while he’s on a job site. Joe looks at his phone and sees that his cousin, Pete, is calling. Joe answers the phone and Pete explains that he is calling to discuss an important family situation. Joe tells Pete that he’s working right now and can’t talk. Joe asks Pete if he is available to chat on Joe’s lunch break, which he is. Did Joe do the right thing here? Was it acceptable for Joe to answer his phone in the first place while he was working? 

Analysis

In each of these scenarios, I posed a policy question. Companies need to establish policies and there are good arguments on both sides of policy debates. But the deeper question is not about policy. The deeper question is, “What is work?” 

For some employees, “work” means punching in before a certain time and punching out not before a certain time. Work is all about not being late and not leaving early. What actually gets accomplished during the day is almost irrelevant. Work is about getting paid. Once the employee is punched in, they are on the clock and getting paid because they are “at work” and deserve to be paid. 

Employers promote this “at work” mentality when they define work in terms of when, where, and how actual work tasks are done. Employers like Bob’s, who mandate working from an office they haven’t worked in for two years are part of the “at work” crowd. 

For other employers, “work” means obtaining a result, achieving a goal, or maintaining a quality standard. The focus is not on when, where, or how, unless those elements are required to achieve the goal. The idea of being “at work” is replaced with a focus on “working” toward some objective outcome. A person who is clocked in may be “at work” but if the person is not “working” while at work is this person contributing toward the goal? 

Bob has been a great salesperson for the last two years with only stepping foot into the office for a weekly meeting. Should Bob be forced to report to this old office every day from now on? 

Joe, on the other hand, is a service inspector. His work is in the field, and it is critical that he is at the shop every morning by 6:00 am so he can interact with the field service technicians each morning. Should Joe be given the freedom to report to the shop by 6:00 am whenever he feels like it because that’s the trendy thing to do? 

Conclusion

Once there is a clear definition of what “work” is and isn’t, many of the policy debates become unnecessary. Employers who spend their time and energy on policies that they then need to enforce, without first addressing the deeper question, are going to be frustrated with the constant babysitting, micro-management, and discipline that is inherent in that approach. 

What is work? Do your people know what it is? 

Now go forth.