How The Great Resignation Changed the Working Landscape

Ryan G. de Guzman

theexacademy.com

The wake of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a record 4.4 million employees in the United States
leaving their jobs en masse. The same trend is happening across Europe, Asia Pacific, and Australia. By
the end 2021, close to 47 million workers have called it quits and resigned. Labor economists,
employment experts, and businesses knew the numbers weren’t just a temporary spike. The Great
Resignation is really happening. And it is going to change not just the economy, but the structure of
employee experience as well.

The Rise of Hybrid Working

Employees realize the physical office can be a breeding ground for contagion. This pushed them out of
their cubicles to go to companies that will allow them to work from their home. Other businesses
followed suit. Gallup predicted that 2022 will see 37% of office desks still empty. While a study on tech
companies suggests that one in three employees will leave their companies for lack of work-from-home
options.

Evidently, a hybrid structure, where employees can opt to work both from home and office, is no longer
the exception. It has become norm to adapt to the changing needs of the employee.
Talking About Your Mental Health Is No Longer A Taboo

It is not only safety concerns, but also the backlogs of emotional strain that drove people away from
their work. Currently, employees are still reeling from the effects of the pandemic. A study by
technology giant Oracle says that 70% of people have had more stress and anxiety at work during the
onslaught of COVID-19 than any other previous years. And this elevated stress and anxiety has
negatively impacted the mental health of 78% of the global workforce. This calls for the taboo of
opening about your emotional and mental state at work to be lifted.

And companies are willing to listen. A study by TalentLMS suggests that 71% of HR managers are willing
to invest in mental health and well-being training if given a higher budget, while 77% of them are likely
to focus on life skills training this year.

The “don’t bring your baggage here” rule is ready to become a thing of the past. Employees need a
support system and companies are willing to provide that.

There is an Increased Focus on Employee Experience

Office burnout can affect motivation, creativity, and productivity. Companies are beginning to realize
this and using their resources to improve employee experience within the company.

The Great Resignation has shown that workers will choose their mental well-being, self-fulfillment, and
overall happiness over the incentive of increase in paycheck. To preserve their talent pool, businesses
change management strategies to take into account employees’ needs, sense of purpose, and morale.
This includes building an office culture where employees are treated as actual human beings rather than
just pencil-movers and number crunchers. This results to an improvement of quality of work, increased
engagement and productivity, and lowered absenteeism rates.

Last year’s mass exodus of workers didn’t just put a lot of employees out of work. It also reshaped how
companies should manage theirs. Gone is the time when companies’ only driving incentive is the
paycheck. They are now ensuring that their missions and visions are in line with their workers’ values.
This will produce employees that not only need to be in the company, but actually wants to be there.
Is It Time to Go Back To The Office?

Ryan G. de Guzman

theexacademy.com

The COVID-19 pandemic and the Great Resignation significantly changed how companies approach the
idea of work. They opened possibilities for normalizing business models previously held only by a few
enterprises - remote working is one of them.

But as countries are rolling back their restrictions, some companies are now calling their employees back
to the office. The most vocal business leader among them is streaming service Netflix who stated that
they don’t “see any positives” to working from home. “Not being able to get together in person,
particularly internationally, is a pure negative.”

Multinational investment bank Goldman Sachs is on the same boat, saying that they “certainly would
expect a lot of Goldman Sachs employees back in full by the end of the year.”

This resulted to the disappointment and even apprehension of employees who already adapted on
working from their home offices. A study found out that post-pandemic, 32% of employees say they
never want to return to their office desks. And it is understandable. These are mostly people with young
kids, or who reside in the suburbs, or those who has to go through very long commute.

Meanwhile, 21% disagrees and wants to be back their cubicles ASAP. Naturally, this percentage are
people who are single, and lives in the cities where going to the office means a ten to fifteen-minute
walk.

Now, the elephant in the room trumpets: Should employees go back to the office? Or should companies
give in to the new norm of hybrid setup?
It depends on which metric these companies prize the most. Remote working has its own perks and
pitfalls. Here are some of them:

Working from home increases productivity…

A two-year research done by Stanford University involving 16,000 employees definitively shows that
working from home boosts productivity by 13%. This increase in performance was due to less chances in
tardiness, more focus brought by a quieter and more convenient working environment, and less water
cooler talks.

…but also results to unmonitored performance and frequent breaks

A work from home set up removes the element of oversight from the management, which can result to
a lot of distractions like the TV, social media, and constant trips to the fridge to take a nibble. This can be
an issue for collaborative work arrangements which requires everybody to be on their toes and on the
same page every time.

Less commute means less stress…

The average commuter spends 100 hours on the road in addition to 41 hours getting stuck in traffic each
year. In developing countries, this number can double up. But the waste of time isn’t the biggest issue
here, but the serious effects taking toll to the worker’s physical and mental health that is more alarming.

Constant commuting raises blood sugar and cholesterol levels, increases the risk of depression and
anxiety levels, and spikes the blood pressure, all while your happiness and life satisfaction deteriorates.

…however, a home office burns you out as well

A work-from-home structure has one hidden side-effect: it blurs the line between your office and home-
life. This can lead to working for longer hours resulting to burnout. Working alone remotely also
provides a feeling of loneliness due to the social isolation, a perk not found in working on an office set
up.

Remote work provides location independence…

This is a huge advantage for job seekers in rural areas and small towns where they may not be many
available opportunities locally. Also, finding a lucrative job in another city no longer requires transferring
to the new location.

…although it can result to office equipment and security concerns

Work setups can be demanding at times. Some companies will require that you have a high-end
laptop/desktop, a high-speed internet connection, a fax machine, and a printer and/or scanner. And this
can be costly.

Not to mention, sending highly confidential and/or sensitive information via the Internet can be a
security concern, which won’t be an issue if accessed in the workplace via an Intranet system.

Remote working has the opportunity for improved inclusivity…

Since remote working is no longer bound by location, companies can now embrace inclusivity and
diversity. They can now hire workers from various geographical locations, cultures, and socioeconomic
upbringings. Due to a variety of perspectives, creativity, and skills, such move can foster productivity,
growth, and profitability.

… but also a bane for community and teamwork

Carlos Eduardo Seo, Senior Software Engineer for tech company Linaro said it best in his LinkedIn blog: a
work-from-home business model isn’t good for collaboration. “Ideas flow much faster and intensely
when people are banging their heads together at the office. So for creative and knowledge workers,
WFH 5 days a week is not a good idea,” he added.
Is Shortened Workweek the New Salary Increase?

Ryan G. de Guzman

theexacademy.com

In the morning of April on 1856, a group of stonemasons from Melbourne – fed up with working for very
long hours under extreme working conditions – walked out in protest to demand reduction of working
hours.

Normally, this would go unnoticed. But the strong show of force compelled their employers to go to the
negotiating table. After a series of arbitrations, it was agreed that the stonemasons would work for no
more than eight hours, five days a week. The world would follow suit decades later. This would become
the norm for the next century and a half. Nobody looked back and asked “Is this the ideal
arrangement?”

Nobody until the COVID-19 pandemic happened.

The global event uncovered the inefficiencies of long working hours and the toll it gives to the modern
worker. Coupled with wage stagnation, health and safety concerns, and increasing job dissatisfaction, it
led to many re-evaluating their relationships with work, career options, and long-term goals. This
culminated to the biggest employment strike the world has ever seen - the Great Resignation.

In order to adapt to this unprecedented flux in the working landscape and put a stop to the employment
bleed, companies are trading salary increase – which was the biggest incentive over many years – for
shortened work hours. And this is unfolding on a global scale.
Major companies like Unilever in New Zealand and Shopify in Canada both started their 32-hour
workweek trial with no reduced salary in 2020.

Last year, Spain kickstarted its own 32-hour work week experiment all while still maintaining the current
workers’ pay. The government shelled out $60 million to fund companies that wanted to take part in
this project that will last for three years. Private companies including a restaurant chain, a software
company, and a telecom giant were quick to adopt as well.

Also, on February this year Belgian employees secured their right to choose whether to work four or five
days without incurring loss of salary, finally relaxing what used to be a rigid labor market and giving
workers the opportunity to merge their family and working lives in a healthier way.

Meanwhile, around seventy companies in the United Kingdom including camera manufacturer Canon
have signed up for a six-month pilot program to study the effects of a shortened workweek to the well-
being and productivity of the employees as well as its impact to the economy and to the environment.

Scotland and Wales are soon to join the expanding movement.

The bigger companies in Japan are setting off on the same path as well. Microsoft started with their 32-
hour trial last 2019, while Toshiba and Panasonic are following suit in 2020 and 2022, respectively. This
was in accordance to the government’s plan to improve the quality work-family life balance among the
nation’s workers. A large percentage of the country’s manpower is overworked, sometimes leading to
illness and hospitalization.

This is not without any precedent, however. In 1998, France adopted a law which mandated all private
companies with more than 20 employees to reduce their workweek to 35 hours. It has mixed results,
since the set up cannot apply to companies that cannot increase productivity through flexible work time
such as restaurants and trucking businesses.

Many considered the idea counterintuitive. We are conditioned to think that more working hours means
increased productivity, which equates to profit gains and happier investors. Shortening the workweek
would result in an inversed effect. So why is the world stepping back to the 1856 scenario? Is it really
worth it?

One country suggests it certainly is.

Last year, researchers in Iceland’s national government conducted two trials involving 2,500 employees,
more than 1% of the country’s population, and subjected them to a shorter work week. It was
considered an overwhelming success.

The employees worked for fewer hours each day, get paid the same, and still be able to maintain
productivity, and some even improved their outputs. This result isn’t limited to a single industry, either.
A wide range of workplaces took part, such as offices, preschools, hospitals, and social service providers.

Given, a higher salary results to better financial security and gratification of an employee. But a
shortened work week enhances something else – a person’s well-being. Since they don’t have to stay
late at the office, these employees can have more time to spend with family, pursue a hobby, engage in
further education, workout, or just relax entirely.
Considering the economic aspect, it still makes sense to choose shorter work hours. If we look at the
inflation, wages are steadily declining. Employees realize that the compensation they are being offered
with will be worth less and less when it comes to purchasing power.

There are companies with enough resources compete for talent through increase in compensation
alone, but others can’t offer the same. So instead of winning the war in talent acquisition via wage hikes,
these companies are instead opting to reduce the working hours while maintaining the pay scale.

Is this something your organization would consider, or maybe is already debating or implementing? Let
us know - we'd love to share your thoughts with the EX Academy community.