公司的首席執(zhí)行官們,比如亞馬遜(Amazon)的安迪·賈西是從哪里得到的數(shù)據(jù),支持他們制定重返辦公室政策?很可惜,許多首席執(zhí)行官的數(shù)據(jù)來自同一個地方:由具有相同心態(tài)的首席執(zhí)行官們組成的一個“回音室”,他們根據(jù)自己的感覺和直覺作出這些關鍵決策。這些首席執(zhí)行官們相信口頭消息和自己的直覺而不是數(shù)據(jù),這可能讓他們的公司陷入災難。
在亞馬遜最近舉行的一次內(nèi)部爐邊談話中,賈西為自己做出的自上而下的強制重返辦公室規(guī)定辯護。亞馬遜要求從團隊自行決定工作方式的靈活政策轉變?yōu)槊恐苡腥鞆娭片F(xiàn)場辦公,這是一個巨大的政策轉變。此次爐邊談話由媒體Business Insider最先曝光,后來得到了亞馬遜的證實。亞馬遜稱,員工一直都清楚辦公政策會隨著新冠疫情的變化而變化,但這次調(diào)整沒有避免反對的聲音。
在被問到支持這一決定的數(shù)據(jù)時,賈西卻沒有給出合理的回答。他表示,他“在過去18個月與60位至80位其他公司的首席執(zhí)行官進行過交流”,并且“幾乎所有首席執(zhí)行官”都更支持現(xiàn)場辦公。賈西承認,這是“主觀判斷”,沒有廣泛的數(shù)據(jù)支持,而且他將這個決策與過去另外一個沒有數(shù)據(jù)支持的重要決策進行了對比,那就是亞馬遜云科技(Amazon Web Services)的成立。
看數(shù)據(jù)還是靠感覺?
這種比較是否恰當?亞馬遜啟動云科技業(yè)務在內(nèi)部和外部都遭到了質疑,因為這種商業(yè)模式并未得到驗證。換言之,亞馬遜違背常規(guī),并承擔了巨大風險,該業(yè)務一旦成功可能潛力無限。相比之下,自上而下的每周三天強制重返辦公室的規(guī)定,并不是一種“未得到驗證的商業(yè)模式”。有許多有關這種模式的證據(jù),它們遠比那些志同道合的首席執(zhí)行官們組成的回音室更加可靠。然而,賈西拒絕拿出證據(jù),而是相信自己的感覺,以及其他首席執(zhí)行官們的驗證。
賈西要堅決執(zhí)行這項嚴格的政策。他對員工表示,如果你們不到辦公室現(xiàn)場辦公,“這對你們來說很可能行不通”。亞馬遜正在跟蹤員工的打卡數(shù)據(jù),在8月初,亞馬遜向部分員工發(fā)送的一條信息稱“我們之所以聯(lián)系你,是因為你的辦公樓已經(jīng)做好準備,但你并沒有按照我們的預期每周至少三天在辦公室與同事現(xiàn)場辦公。”亞馬遜稱,會與管理者分享匯總的匿名打卡數(shù)據(jù),以整體了解有多少員工來到現(xiàn)場辦公,但公司不會向管理者提供個別員工的打卡數(shù)據(jù)。
當然,并非只有賈西這一位首席執(zhí)行官,不依靠數(shù)據(jù)而是相信自己的直覺,自上而下地作出了嚴格的重返辦公室規(guī)定。例如星巴克(Starbucks)的首席執(zhí)行官霍華德·舒爾茨在今年1月發(fā)布的指示,要求公司員工每周三天現(xiàn)場辦公。舒爾茨表示,出臺這個政策的原因是員工進入辦公樓的打卡數(shù)據(jù)顯示,公司鼓勵員工每周到辦公室一天至兩天,但員工并沒有遵守公司的指導方針,這令他非常不滿。他因為對員工打卡數(shù)據(jù)感到不滿,就根據(jù)這種感受作出重返辦公室這樣一個重要的政策決定,這是糟糕至極的做法!
我每周與5位至10位公司領導者討論重返辦公室政策的最佳實踐,在討論過程中,我聽過許多類似的故事。大多數(shù)的首席執(zhí)行官告訴我,他們的重返辦公室政策,主要是基于與其他公司領導者討論的他們直覺認為最合適的辦公方式。這是一種教科書式的確認偏見示例,這種認知偏見是指我們會尋找能夠確認我們的信念的信息,卻忽視其他信息。
確認偏見與重返辦公室政策
賈西或其他領導者為什么不與Atlassian的首席執(zhí)行官或首席人力資源官探討他們著名的遠程辦公模式的效果?因為他們從對方那里獲得的數(shù)據(jù)與他們的觀念相沖突。
但首席執(zhí)行官們由回音室驅動作出的重返辦公室決策,會造成令他們意想不到的負面后果。今年5月,數(shù)百名亞馬遜員工在公司的第一個重返辦公室日,在午餐時間舉著寫有“不要重返辦公室”的標語,走出公司的西雅圖總部表達抗議。亞馬遜最近宣布強制重返辦公室政策后,很快有超過30,000名員工加入了一個名為“遠程辦公倡議”的新Slack頻道,并組織了一次請愿。亞馬遜員工在請愿中表示,研究顯示遠程辦公可以改善工作效率、招聘、工作/生活平衡、包容性和減少公司支出。
盡管亞馬遜的股價在新冠疫情期間的遠程辦公期間翻了一番,但安迪·賈西的主觀判斷不認同這種數(shù)據(jù)驅動的做法,他更愿意相信首席執(zhí)行官們組成的回音室。股票的表現(xiàn)和領導者的不滿情緒之間的不一致,顯示出人們對重返辦公室的理解和現(xiàn)實之間的差距。
我們知道,在回音室效應下作出重返辦公室政策造成的危害,在亞馬遜等研究案例中并不明顯。Envoy通過采訪1,000多位每周至少現(xiàn)場辦公一天的美國公司高管和管理者發(fā)現(xiàn),有多達80%的老板表示,對最初的重返辦公室決策感到后悔。
領導者稱,如果他們對員工實際出現(xiàn)在辦公室和使用辦公便利設施的頻率有更多的了解,他們可能就會作出截然不同的決策。有人困惑不已,希望確認他們的現(xiàn)場辦公政策是否有效。有人發(fā)現(xiàn),如果不能了解團隊未來對現(xiàn)場辦公的態(tài)度,就很難進行長期房地產(chǎn)交易。Envoy的首席執(zhí)行官及創(chuàng)始人拉里·加德亞說:“許多公司意識到,他們本來可以更慎重,而不是根據(jù)高管的意見就作出大膽的、充滿爭議的重要決策,卻不參考員工的數(shù)據(jù)。”
或者能夠參考另外一個數(shù)據(jù),即Unispace的《永遠回歸》(Returning for Good)報告。Unispace發(fā)現(xiàn),在執(zhí)行重返辦公室規(guī)定的公司里,高達42%的公司發(fā)現(xiàn)辭職人數(shù)超出他們的預期。此外,其中約29%的公司在招聘新員工時面臨困難。因此,雖然老板知道讓員工重返辦公室會引起動蕩,但他們并沒有看到未來可能出現(xiàn)的嚴重問題。
Unispace還提出了另外一點:關鍵在于選擇。他們的研究顯示,一般情況下,員工表示在辦公室辦公令他們感到開心(31%)、有動力(30%)和興奮(27%)。但如果重返辦公室不是一種靈活的選擇,這些積極的情緒將會減少,有這三種積極情緒的員工比例分別下降到27%、26%和22%。因此,如果員工重返辦公室是他們的自主選擇而不是因為公司的強制規(guī)定,他們就會更愿意重返辦公室。我曾經(jīng)幫助20多家機構制定它們的重返辦公室政策。在從這些機構收集數(shù)據(jù)時,我也發(fā)現(xiàn)了靈活選擇的好處。
是否所有重返辦公室決策都沒有使用數(shù)據(jù)?
并非所有首席執(zhí)行官在決定重返辦公室的政策時,都只信任他們的直覺和回音室。事實上,有些首席執(zhí)行官確實會使用數(shù)據(jù)(意外吧)。比如,賽富時(Salesforce)的首席執(zhí)行官馬克·貝尼奧夫曾經(jīng)表示:“對于新入職的員工,我們根據(jù)經(jīng)驗可以判斷,他們在辦公室里與同事接觸,參加入職培訓和接受其他培訓,在這種環(huán)境下他們的表現(xiàn)更好。如果他們居家辦公,不經(jīng)過這些流程,我們就認為他們不可能取得同樣的成功?!?/p>
貝尼奧夫的觀點有數(shù)據(jù)支持。哈佛大學(Harvard University)的一篇工作論文研究了一家《財富》美國500強公司的軟件工程師。這家公司的總部有兩棟建筑,跨越了多個街區(qū)。研究的主要課題是物理接近對反饋、編程產(chǎn)出和員工保留的影響。
研究結果如何?與團隊成員在同一棟建筑里辦公的工程師,比與團隊成員不在一起辦公的工程師,獲得的在線反饋多22%。然而,隨著新冠疫情導致辦公室關閉,這種優(yōu)勢幾乎徹底消失,在反饋方面的優(yōu)勢減少到只有8%。有趣的是,在同一個地點辦公似乎讓編程產(chǎn)出減少了24%。高級工程師的表現(xiàn)更加明顯,編程產(chǎn)出減少30%,這主要是因為他們花費更多時間為其他人提供反饋。因此,雖然近距離接觸有助于溝通,但這可能要以降低工作效率為代價,尤其是團隊中經(jīng)驗更豐富的成員。然而,研究發(fā)現(xiàn),從長遠來看,物理接近對初級員工的成功大有裨益。因此賽富時的決定非常合理。
廣義而言,賽富時采用的是一種差異化的混合辦公模式,公司并非簡單地根據(jù)不同工作年限規(guī)定員工的現(xiàn)場辦公時間,而是根據(jù)員工的不同職位作出規(guī)定。工程師每個季度只需要在辦公室辦公10天,而行政人員則需要每周三天現(xiàn)場辦公。銷售和營銷團隊除了需要外出完成交易外,還需要每周四天現(xiàn)場辦公。貝尼奧夫甚至不會把公司的安排視為一種強制規(guī)定。他說:“我不想強迫任何人。我們不想失去我們的優(yōu)秀人才?!彼孢^于強烈地推動重返辦公室,會造成人才流失。
相反,貝尼奧夫希望將辦公室打造成員工們愿意來的地方。他會允許員工與他們的上司談判完全遠程辦公的安排。但貝尼奧夫也明確地指出,有些崗位始終需要面對面的交流。
雖然賽富時的重返辦公室策略并不完美,但它卻比大多數(shù)公司的策略更合理。它具備了真正有效的重返辦公室策略的三個要素之一:根據(jù)公司的需求量身定制重返辦公室策略。畢竟,正如貝尼奧夫所言,不同崗位對在辦公室現(xiàn)場辦公有不同要求。工程師可能每個季度只需要有10天到辦公室辦公,例如在項目開始和結束時。行政人員的工作涉及辦公室管理,他們需要履行的辦公職責包括幫助同事使用復印機,或者接待訪客等,因此應該確保始終有行政人員能夠滿足這些需求。會計師可以月底到辦公室辦公兩天處理賬目,并在每個季度末現(xiàn)場辦公一周。
像絕大多數(shù)大公司的做法一樣,強制規(guī)定每周現(xiàn)場辦公的天數(shù),是一種懶惰和盲從的表現(xiàn)。公司領導者和人力資源部門沒有全面考慮哪些人需要現(xiàn)場辦公,以及現(xiàn)場辦公的目的是什么。如果公司沒有合理的理由,卻要求員工到辦公室做他們在家也可以完成的任務,員工就會有頗多怨言。
數(shù)據(jù)驅動的重返辦公室政策
很可惜,賽富時缺少了數(shù)據(jù)驅動的重返辦公室政策應該具備的另外兩個關鍵要素:評估員工意見和獲得員工支持。有一些類似的工具能夠一石二鳥,同時解決這兩個問題。
首先,你需要調(diào)查員工對重返辦公室的意見,開展調(diào)查的理想時機是在制定重返辦公室政策之前,但如果政策已經(jīng)開始執(zhí)行,就也可以在事后展開調(diào)查。在我指導制定重返辦公室政策的所有公司,無論是在流程開始時,還是在政策發(fā)布后希望對其進行完善,我們首先都會充分調(diào)查員工對遠程辦公和重返辦公室的意見。調(diào)查的問題涉及員工對重返辦公室的偏好,支持不同版本重返辦公室政策的意向,如果公司制定不同版本的政策,員工是否就會向其他人推薦在他們的公司工作,員工居家辦公和在辦公室辦公時執(zhí)行獨立任務和合作任務的效率,以及與健康、幸福、士氣、壓力等有關的類似問題。關于這項調(diào)查,可以參閱我的暢銷書《重返辦公室:領導混合和遠程團隊》(Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams)的附錄。
接下來,你需要組織焦點小組討論會。從不同部門選擇員工代表,包括基層員工和不同層級的管理者。一定要避免將管理者與基層員工安排在同一個焦點小組,因為如果有管理者出席會議,許多員工可能就不愿意完全敞開心扉。
焦點小組討論會能夠提供寶貴的定性數(shù)據(jù),有助于深入了解調(diào)查結果背后的“原因”。你可以結合這些調(diào)查結果,探索一次調(diào)查可能無法充分體現(xiàn)的細微問題,比如工作-生活平衡、居家辦公室的設置以及團隊動態(tài)等。例如,為什么一些員工更喜歡混合辦公而不是完全遠程辦公?是因為辦公室便利設施、團隊成員之間的友情,還是其他原因?理想情況下, 應該由一個中立團隊組織這類討論會,以鼓勵坦誠對話,并在獲得參與者的同意后,將討論內(nèi)容記錄下來,用于后續(xù)分析。
收集到大量數(shù)據(jù)之后,下一步是進行匯總。將從焦點小組討論會中得到的定性見解與調(diào)查中的定性指標相結合。這種雙重方式不僅能夠從更全面的角度出發(fā)制定重返辦公室策略,還可以保證這種策略能夠深入理解員工的需求和偏好。
形成一個封閉的循環(huán)是關鍵。與員工分享你根據(jù)這些討論將要采取的可行措施。即使員工并不完全認同最終決策,這個透明的過程也可以讓員工感覺公司聽取和征求了他們的意見。
結果會怎樣?重返辦公室計劃的支持率大幅提高,執(zhí)行的阻力減少,因為員工感覺決定公司未來的過程真正考慮了他們的意見。因此,與亞馬遜的情況不同,不會有員工向媒體曝光公司內(nèi)部會議記錄,讓媒體干涉公司的運營。也不會有員工走上街頭,公開表示抗議或簽署大規(guī)模請愿書。我的所有客戶都沒有遇到過這些情況,因為員工感覺他們的意見得到了傾聽,自己受到了尊重,而且重返辦公室政策是基于各團隊和崗位的需求量身定制。
亞馬遜暴露出回音室驅動的重返辦公室政策的缺點,尤其是員工的抵觸和士氣低下。相比之下,更細微的數(shù)據(jù)驅動的重返辦公室政策,會提供一種平衡的、具有同理心的策略。尼克·布盧姆和其他學者對首席執(zhí)行官未來計劃的研究顯示,未來遠程辦公將會增多而不是減少,因此許多領導者似乎已經(jīng)意識到他們當初的重返辦公室政策是錯誤的。事實上,Envoy發(fā)現(xiàn),超過80%的老板對最初的重返辦公室計劃感到后悔,并表示他們寧愿收集更多的信息,并作出數(shù)據(jù)驅動的決策。如果公司能夠走出首席執(zhí)行官回音室,與員工進行有意義的對話,就可以解決重返辦公室這個復雜的問題。(財富中文網(wǎng))
格列布·齊珀斯基博士(Gleb Tsipursky,又稱“辦公室耳語者”)幫助科技和金融行業(yè)的高管在混合工作中推動合作、創(chuàng)新和留住人才。他擔任精品未來工作咨詢公司Disaster Avoidance Experts的首席執(zhí)行官。他是七本書的暢銷書作者,包括《永不與直覺同行》(Never Go With Your Gut)和《領導混合和遠程團隊》(Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams)。他的專業(yè)知識來自于20多年來為從美國家庭人壽保險公司(Aflac)到施樂(Xerox)的《財富》美國500強公司提供咨詢,以及在北卡羅來納大學教堂山分校(UNC–Chapel Hill)和俄亥俄州立大學(Ohio State University)擔任行為科學家超過15年的學術生涯。
Fortune.com上發(fā)表的評論文章中表達的觀點,僅代表作者本人的觀點,不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
譯者:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
公司的首席執(zhí)行官們,比如亞馬遜(Amazon)的安迪·賈西是從哪里得到的數(shù)據(jù),支持他們制定重返辦公室政策?很可惜,許多首席執(zhí)行官的數(shù)據(jù)來自同一個地方:由具有相同心態(tài)的首席執(zhí)行官們組成的一個“回音室”,他們根據(jù)自己的感覺和直覺作出這些關鍵決策。這些首席執(zhí)行官們相信口頭消息和自己的直覺而不是數(shù)據(jù),這可能讓他們的公司陷入災難。
在亞馬遜最近舉行的一次內(nèi)部爐邊談話中,賈西為自己做出的自上而下的強制重返辦公室規(guī)定辯護。亞馬遜要求從團隊自行決定工作方式的靈活政策轉變?yōu)槊恐苡腥鞆娭片F(xiàn)場辦公,這是一個巨大的政策轉變。此次爐邊談話由媒體Business Insider最先曝光,后來得到了亞馬遜的證實。亞馬遜稱,員工一直都清楚辦公政策會隨著新冠疫情的變化而變化,但這次調(diào)整沒有避免反對的聲音。
在被問到支持這一決定的數(shù)據(jù)時,賈西卻沒有給出合理的回答。他表示,他“在過去18個月與60位至80位其他公司的首席執(zhí)行官進行過交流”,并且“幾乎所有首席執(zhí)行官”都更支持現(xiàn)場辦公。賈西承認,這是“主觀判斷”,沒有廣泛的數(shù)據(jù)支持,而且他將這個決策與過去另外一個沒有數(shù)據(jù)支持的重要決策進行了對比,那就是亞馬遜云科技(Amazon Web Services)的成立。
看數(shù)據(jù)還是靠感覺?
這種比較是否恰當?亞馬遜啟動云科技業(yè)務在內(nèi)部和外部都遭到了質疑,因為這種商業(yè)模式并未得到驗證。換言之,亞馬遜違背常規(guī),并承擔了巨大風險,該業(yè)務一旦成功可能潛力無限。相比之下,自上而下的每周三天強制重返辦公室的規(guī)定,并不是一種“未得到驗證的商業(yè)模式”。有許多有關這種模式的證據(jù),它們遠比那些志同道合的首席執(zhí)行官們組成的回音室更加可靠。然而,賈西拒絕拿出證據(jù),而是相信自己的感覺,以及其他首席執(zhí)行官們的驗證。
賈西要堅決執(zhí)行這項嚴格的政策。他對員工表示,如果你們不到辦公室現(xiàn)場辦公,“這對你們來說很可能行不通”。亞馬遜正在跟蹤員工的打卡數(shù)據(jù),在8月初,亞馬遜向部分員工發(fā)送的一條信息稱“我們之所以聯(lián)系你,是因為你的辦公樓已經(jīng)做好準備,但你并沒有按照我們的預期每周至少三天在辦公室與同事現(xiàn)場辦公?!眮嗰R遜稱,會與管理者分享匯總的匿名打卡數(shù)據(jù),以整體了解有多少員工來到現(xiàn)場辦公,但公司不會向管理者提供個別員工的打卡數(shù)據(jù)。
當然,并非只有賈西這一位首席執(zhí)行官,不依靠數(shù)據(jù)而是相信自己的直覺,自上而下地作出了嚴格的重返辦公室規(guī)定。例如星巴克(Starbucks)的首席執(zhí)行官霍華德·舒爾茨在今年1月發(fā)布的指示,要求公司員工每周三天現(xiàn)場辦公。舒爾茨表示,出臺這個政策的原因是員工進入辦公樓的打卡數(shù)據(jù)顯示,公司鼓勵員工每周到辦公室一天至兩天,但員工并沒有遵守公司的指導方針,這令他非常不滿。他因為對員工打卡數(shù)據(jù)感到不滿,就根據(jù)這種感受作出重返辦公室這樣一個重要的政策決定,這是糟糕至極的做法!
我每周與5位至10位公司領導者討論重返辦公室政策的最佳實踐,在討論過程中,我聽過許多類似的故事。大多數(shù)的首席執(zhí)行官告訴我,他們的重返辦公室政策,主要是基于與其他公司領導者討論的他們直覺認為最合適的辦公方式。這是一種教科書式的確認偏見示例,這種認知偏見是指我們會尋找能夠確認我們的信念的信息,卻忽視其他信息。
確認偏見與重返辦公室政策
賈西或其他領導者為什么不與Atlassian的首席執(zhí)行官或首席人力資源官探討他們著名的遠程辦公模式的效果?因為他們從對方那里獲得的數(shù)據(jù)與他們的觀念相沖突。
但首席執(zhí)行官們由回音室驅動作出的重返辦公室決策,會造成令他們意想不到的負面后果。今年5月,數(shù)百名亞馬遜員工在公司的第一個重返辦公室日,在午餐時間舉著寫有“不要重返辦公室”的標語,走出公司的西雅圖總部表達抗議。亞馬遜最近宣布強制重返辦公室政策后,很快有超過30,000名員工加入了一個名為“遠程辦公倡議”的新Slack頻道,并組織了一次請愿。亞馬遜員工在請愿中表示,研究顯示遠程辦公可以改善工作效率、招聘、工作/生活平衡、包容性和減少公司支出。
盡管亞馬遜的股價在新冠疫情期間的遠程辦公期間翻了一番,但安迪·賈西的主觀判斷不認同這種數(shù)據(jù)驅動的做法,他更愿意相信首席執(zhí)行官們組成的回音室。股票的表現(xiàn)和領導者的不滿情緒之間的不一致,顯示出人們對重返辦公室的理解和現(xiàn)實之間的差距。
我們知道,在回音室效應下作出重返辦公室政策造成的危害,在亞馬遜等研究案例中并不明顯。Envoy通過采訪1,000多位每周至少現(xiàn)場辦公一天的美國公司高管和管理者發(fā)現(xiàn),有多達80%的老板表示,對最初的重返辦公室決策感到后悔。
領導者稱,如果他們對員工實際出現(xiàn)在辦公室和使用辦公便利設施的頻率有更多的了解,他們可能就會作出截然不同的決策。有人困惑不已,希望確認他們的現(xiàn)場辦公政策是否有效。有人發(fā)現(xiàn),如果不能了解團隊未來對現(xiàn)場辦公的態(tài)度,就很難進行長期房地產(chǎn)交易。Envoy的首席執(zhí)行官及創(chuàng)始人拉里·加德亞說:“許多公司意識到,他們本來可以更慎重,而不是根據(jù)高管的意見就作出大膽的、充滿爭議的重要決策,卻不參考員工的數(shù)據(jù)?!?/p>
或者能夠參考另外一個數(shù)據(jù),即Unispace的《永遠回歸》(Returning for Good)報告。Unispace發(fā)現(xiàn),在執(zhí)行重返辦公室規(guī)定的公司里,高達42%的公司發(fā)現(xiàn)辭職人數(shù)超出他們的預期。此外,其中約29%的公司在招聘新員工時面臨困難。因此,雖然老板知道讓員工重返辦公室會引起動蕩,但他們并沒有看到未來可能出現(xiàn)的嚴重問題。
Unispace還提出了另外一點:關鍵在于選擇。他們的研究顯示,一般情況下,員工表示在辦公室辦公令他們感到開心(31%)、有動力(30%)和興奮(27%)。但如果重返辦公室不是一種靈活的選擇,這些積極的情緒將會減少,有這三種積極情緒的員工比例分別下降到27%、26%和22%。因此,如果員工重返辦公室是他們的自主選擇而不是因為公司的強制規(guī)定,他們就會更愿意重返辦公室。我曾經(jīng)幫助20多家機構制定它們的重返辦公室政策。在從這些機構收集數(shù)據(jù)時,我也發(fā)現(xiàn)了靈活選擇的好處。
是否所有重返辦公室決策都沒有使用數(shù)據(jù)?
并非所有首席執(zhí)行官在決定重返辦公室的政策時,都只信任他們的直覺和回音室。事實上,有些首席執(zhí)行官確實會使用數(shù)據(jù)(意外吧)。比如,賽富時(Salesforce)的首席執(zhí)行官馬克·貝尼奧夫曾經(jīng)表示:“對于新入職的員工,我們根據(jù)經(jīng)驗可以判斷,他們在辦公室里與同事接觸,參加入職培訓和接受其他培訓,在這種環(huán)境下他們的表現(xiàn)更好。如果他們居家辦公,不經(jīng)過這些流程,我們就認為他們不可能取得同樣的成功。”
貝尼奧夫的觀點有數(shù)據(jù)支持。哈佛大學(Harvard University)的一篇工作論文研究了一家《財富》美國500強公司的軟件工程師。這家公司的總部有兩棟建筑,跨越了多個街區(qū)。研究的主要課題是物理接近對反饋、編程產(chǎn)出和員工保留的影響。
研究結果如何?與團隊成員在同一棟建筑里辦公的工程師,比與團隊成員不在一起辦公的工程師,獲得的在線反饋多22%。然而,隨著新冠疫情導致辦公室關閉,這種優(yōu)勢幾乎徹底消失,在反饋方面的優(yōu)勢減少到只有8%。有趣的是,在同一個地點辦公似乎讓編程產(chǎn)出減少了24%。高級工程師的表現(xiàn)更加明顯,編程產(chǎn)出減少30%,這主要是因為他們花費更多時間為其他人提供反饋。因此,雖然近距離接觸有助于溝通,但這可能要以降低工作效率為代價,尤其是團隊中經(jīng)驗更豐富的成員。然而,研究發(fā)現(xiàn),從長遠來看,物理接近對初級員工的成功大有裨益。因此賽富時的決定非常合理。
廣義而言,賽富時采用的是一種差異化的混合辦公模式,公司并非簡單地根據(jù)不同工作年限規(guī)定員工的現(xiàn)場辦公時間,而是根據(jù)員工的不同職位作出規(guī)定。工程師每個季度只需要在辦公室辦公10天,而行政人員則需要每周三天現(xiàn)場辦公。銷售和營銷團隊除了需要外出完成交易外,還需要每周四天現(xiàn)場辦公。貝尼奧夫甚至不會把公司的安排視為一種強制規(guī)定。他說:“我不想強迫任何人。我們不想失去我們的優(yōu)秀人才?!彼孢^于強烈地推動重返辦公室,會造成人才流失。
相反,貝尼奧夫希望將辦公室打造成員工們愿意來的地方。他會允許員工與他們的上司談判完全遠程辦公的安排。但貝尼奧夫也明確地指出,有些崗位始終需要面對面的交流。
雖然賽富時的重返辦公室策略并不完美,但它卻比大多數(shù)公司的策略更合理。它具備了真正有效的重返辦公室策略的三個要素之一:根據(jù)公司的需求量身定制重返辦公室策略。畢竟,正如貝尼奧夫所言,不同崗位對在辦公室現(xiàn)場辦公有不同要求。工程師可能每個季度只需要有10天到辦公室辦公,例如在項目開始和結束時。行政人員的工作涉及辦公室管理,他們需要履行的辦公職責包括幫助同事使用復印機,或者接待訪客等,因此應該確保始終有行政人員能夠滿足這些需求。會計師可以月底到辦公室辦公兩天處理賬目,并在每個季度末現(xiàn)場辦公一周。
像絕大多數(shù)大公司的做法一樣,強制規(guī)定每周現(xiàn)場辦公的天數(shù),是一種懶惰和盲從的表現(xiàn)。公司領導者和人力資源部門沒有全面考慮哪些人需要現(xiàn)場辦公,以及現(xiàn)場辦公的目的是什么。如果公司沒有合理的理由,卻要求員工到辦公室做他們在家也可以完成的任務,員工就會有頗多怨言。
數(shù)據(jù)驅動的重返辦公室政策
很可惜,賽富時缺少了數(shù)據(jù)驅動的重返辦公室政策應該具備的另外兩個關鍵要素:評估員工意見和獲得員工支持。有一些類似的工具能夠一石二鳥,同時解決這兩個問題。
首先,你需要調(diào)查員工對重返辦公室的意見,開展調(diào)查的理想時機是在制定重返辦公室政策之前,但如果政策已經(jīng)開始執(zhí)行,就也可以在事后展開調(diào)查。在我指導制定重返辦公室政策的所有公司,無論是在流程開始時,還是在政策發(fā)布后希望對其進行完善,我們首先都會充分調(diào)查員工對遠程辦公和重返辦公室的意見。調(diào)查的問題涉及員工對重返辦公室的偏好,支持不同版本重返辦公室政策的意向,如果公司制定不同版本的政策,員工是否就會向其他人推薦在他們的公司工作,員工居家辦公和在辦公室辦公時執(zhí)行獨立任務和合作任務的效率,以及與健康、幸福、士氣、壓力等有關的類似問題。關于這項調(diào)查,可以參閱我的暢銷書《重返辦公室:領導混合和遠程團隊》(Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams)的附錄。
接下來,你需要組織焦點小組討論會。從不同部門選擇員工代表,包括基層員工和不同層級的管理者。一定要避免將管理者與基層員工安排在同一個焦點小組,因為如果有管理者出席會議,許多員工可能就不愿意完全敞開心扉。
焦點小組討論會能夠提供寶貴的定性數(shù)據(jù),有助于深入了解調(diào)查結果背后的“原因”。你可以結合這些調(diào)查結果,探索一次調(diào)查可能無法充分體現(xiàn)的細微問題,比如工作-生活平衡、居家辦公室的設置以及團隊動態(tài)等。例如,為什么一些員工更喜歡混合辦公而不是完全遠程辦公?是因為辦公室便利設施、團隊成員之間的友情,還是其他原因?理想情況下, 應該由一個中立團隊組織這類討論會,以鼓勵坦誠對話,并在獲得參與者的同意后,將討論內(nèi)容記錄下來,用于后續(xù)分析。
收集到大量數(shù)據(jù)之后,下一步是進行匯總。將從焦點小組討論會中得到的定性見解與調(diào)查中的定性指標相結合。這種雙重方式不僅能夠從更全面的角度出發(fā)制定重返辦公室策略,還可以保證這種策略能夠深入理解員工的需求和偏好。
形成一個封閉的循環(huán)是關鍵。與員工分享你根據(jù)這些討論將要采取的可行措施。即使員工并不完全認同最終決策,這個透明的過程也可以讓員工感覺公司聽取和征求了他們的意見。
結果會怎樣?重返辦公室計劃的支持率大幅提高,執(zhí)行的阻力減少,因為員工感覺決定公司未來的過程真正考慮了他們的意見。因此,與亞馬遜的情況不同,不會有員工向媒體曝光公司內(nèi)部會議記錄,讓媒體干涉公司的運營。也不會有員工走上街頭,公開表示抗議或簽署大規(guī)模請愿書。我的所有客戶都沒有遇到過這些情況,因為員工感覺他們的意見得到了傾聽,自己受到了尊重,而且重返辦公室政策是基于各團隊和崗位的需求量身定制。
亞馬遜暴露出回音室驅動的重返辦公室政策的缺點,尤其是員工的抵觸和士氣低下。相比之下,更細微的數(shù)據(jù)驅動的重返辦公室政策,會提供一種平衡的、具有同理心的策略。尼克·布盧姆和其他學者對首席執(zhí)行官未來計劃的研究顯示,未來遠程辦公將會增多而不是減少,因此許多領導者似乎已經(jīng)意識到他們當初的重返辦公室政策是錯誤的。事實上,Envoy發(fā)現(xiàn),超過80%的老板對最初的重返辦公室計劃感到后悔,并表示他們寧愿收集更多的信息,并作出數(shù)據(jù)驅動的決策。如果公司能夠走出首席執(zhí)行官回音室,與員工進行有意義的對話,就可以解決重返辦公室這個復雜的問題。(財富中文網(wǎng))
格列布·齊珀斯基博士(Gleb Tsipursky,又稱“辦公室耳語者”)幫助科技和金融行業(yè)的高管在混合工作中推動合作、創(chuàng)新和留住人才。他擔任精品未來工作咨詢公司Disaster Avoidance Experts的首席執(zhí)行官。他是七本書的暢銷書作者,包括《永不與直覺同行》(Never Go With Your Gut)和《領導混合和遠程團隊》(Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams)。他的專業(yè)知識來自于20多年來為從美國家庭人壽保險公司(Aflac)到施樂(Xerox)的《財富》美國500強公司提供咨詢,以及在北卡羅來納大學教堂山分校(UNC–Chapel Hill)和俄亥俄州立大學(Ohio State University)擔任行為科學家超過15年的學術生涯。
Fortune.com上發(fā)表的評論文章中表達的觀點,僅代表作者本人的觀點,不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
譯者:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
Where are CEOs like Amazon’s Andy Jassy getting the data to inform their return-to-office policies? Unfortunately, too many are getting their data from the same place: an echo chamber of like-minded CEOs who use their feelings and intuitions to make these pivotal decisions. By relying on word of mouth and following their gut, rather than the data, these CEOs could be leading their companies into catastrophe.
During a recent internal fireside chat that was first reported by Insider and then confirmed by Amazon, Jassy defended his top-down return-to-office mandate–a drastic shift from a flexible policy of teams deciding what to do on their own to an obligation to come to the office three days a week. The company said employees knew all along that office policies would evolve with the pandemic–but it didn’t avert a backlash.
When asked for data to support the move, Jassy lacked a good answer. He said that he spoke to “60 to 80 CEOs of other companies over the last 18 months,” and “virtually all of them” preferred in-office work. He admitted it was a “judgment call” that wasn’t widely supported by data and compared it to another major decision that wasn’t supported by data in the past: the launch of the Amazon Web Services cloud unit.
Data over feelings
Is that an apt comparison? There were doubts internally and externally about the launch of AWS because it was an unproven business model. In other words, Amazon was going against the grain and taking a large risk with a huge potential upside if it worked. By contrast, a top-down RTO mandate of three days a week is not at all an “unproven business model.” There’s plenty of evidence around that model, much stronger than the echo chamber of like-minded CEOs. However, Jassy refused to lay out the evidence and relied instead on how he felt–and the validating echo chamber of other CEOs.
Doubling down on the rigid policy, Jassy told staff that “it’s probably not going to work out for you” if you don’t come to the office. Amazon is tracking badge swipe data, and in early August sent a message to some employees, saying “We are reaching out as you are not currently meeting our expectation of joining your colleagues in the office at least three days a week, even though your assigned building is ready.” Amazon says it shares aggregated and anonymized badge-swipe data with managers to provide an overall view of how many members of a team are coming into the office, but doesn’t give managers data about badge swipes by individual employees.
Of course, Jassy is far from the only CEO to launch a rigid, top-down RTO mandate without relying on data and instead focusing on feelings. Consider Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s directive for corporate staff to come to the office three days a week this January. According to Schultz, this policy stemmed from his annoyance that corporate employees hadn’t been following a guideline encouraging them to come into the office one or two days a week, as tracked by badge swipes into the building. What a terrible way to make a major RTO policy decision–based on feelings of annoyance about employee badge swipes!
In my discussions with five to 10 corporate leaders each week about best practices for RTO policies, I hear many similar stories. Most CEOs tell me they decided on their RTO approach based primarily on discussing their intuitions about what works best with other corporate leaders. That’s a textbook example of confirmation bias–a cognitive bias where we look for information that confirms our beliefs, and ignore information that doesn’t.
Confirmation bias and RTO
Why didn’t Jassy–or these other leaders–talk to the CEO or CHRO of Atlassian about how well their famous remote model works? Because they would have provided data that contradicts these beliefs.
Yet CEOs keep getting surprised by the negative consequences of their echo-chamber-driven RTO decisions. In May, hundreds of Amazon employees walked out on their first RTO day from the company’s Seattle headquarters during the lunch hour, with signs like “Hell no, RTO!” Following the latest announcement, more than 30,000 employees joined a new Slack channel called “remote advocacy” shortly after the announcement and organized a petition. In the petition, Amazon employees argued, based on research, that remote work improved productivity, recruitment, work/life balance, inclusion efforts, and reduced corporate expenses.
Andy Jassy’s judgment call rejected this data-driven approach, preferring instead to rely on the CEO echo chamber. That’s despite Amazon’s stock performance, which doubled during the pandemic’s remote work era. The dissonance between stock performance and the leadership’s discontent shows the gap between perceptions and reality around RTO.
We know that the perils of echo-chamber-driven approaches to RTO are not simply evident from case studies like with Amazon. A whopping 80% of bosses reported that they regret their initial return-to-office decisions, according to new research from Envoy, which interviewed more than 1,000 U.S. company executives and workplace managers who work in person at least one day per week.
Leaders said they’d do things differently if they knew more about how often employees actually show up at the office and use the amenities. Some are scratching their heads trying to figure out if their in-office policies are even working. Others are finding it tough to lock in long-term property deals without a clue about how their teams will feel about coming into the office down the road. Larry Gadea, Envoy’s CEO and founder, said “many companies are realizing they could have been a lot more measured in their approach, rather than making big, bold, very controversial decisions based on executives’ opinions rather than employee data.”
Or consider another data point, Unispace’s Returning for Good report. Unispace discovered that a surprising 42% of firms with back-to-office rules saw more people quitting than they’d expected. Additionally, about 29% of these companies are having a hard time hiring new talent. So, while bosses knew pushing folks back into the office would shake things up, they didn’t see the big headaches coming.
Unispace adds a twist: it’s all about options. Their study shows that generally, employees say they’re happy (31%), motivated (30%), and excited (27%) to be back at the desk. But those good vibes dip when going back isn’t optional–dropping to 27%, 26%, and 22% respectively. So, people are more into the office comeback when it’s their call, not a mandate. That benefit of optionality is the same thing I find when gathering data from more than two dozen organizations that I helped figure out their approach to RTO.
Do all RTOs fail to use data?
Far from all CEOs rely on intuition and the echo chamber in the return to office. In fact, (surprise, surprise) some actually use data. For example, Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, said that “for our new employees who are coming in, we know empirically that they do better if they’re in the office, meeting people, being onboarded, being trained. If they are at home and not going through that process, we don’t think they’re as successful.”
Benioff’s comments are supported by the data. A Harvard University working paper studied software engineers at a Fortune 500 company with a main campus spread across two buildings separated by several blocks. The research focused on the impact of physical proximity on feedback, coding output, and retention.
The findings? Engineers who shared a building with all their teammates received 22% more online feedback compared to those who were further apart. However, once the pandemic closed offices, this edge mostly vanished, shrinking to just an 8% advantage in feedback. Interestingly, being in the same location seemed to cut programming output by 24%. This dip was even more pronounced for senior engineers, who saw a 39% drop, largely because they spent more time giving feedback to others. So, while close quarters can boost communication, they may also come with a cost to productivity–especially for the more experienced folks on the team. However, the study found that proximity helped junior folks succeed in the long run. And that’s a fair call for Salesforce to make.
More broadly, Salesforce is adopting a differentiated approach to hybrid work, with different amounts of in-office time not simply for staff with different tenure at the company, but also for different roles. Engineers are looking at just 10 days in the office per quarter, while admin folks need to show up three days a week. Sales and marketing teams need to be in the office four days a week unless they’re out hustling deals. Benioff, won’t even label their setup as a mandate. “I don’t want to force anybody,” he said, warning that pushing the issue too strongly would lead to an outflow of talent. “We don’t want to lose our stars.”
Instead of mandates, Benioff aims to make the office a place people want to be. He’s keeping the door open for employees to negotiate full remote status with their bosses. But he also made it clear that there will always be roles that require some face time.
While that’s not a perfect approach to RTO, it’s much better than most. It hits one of the three required elements of a truly effective RTO: customizing it to your organization’s needs. After all, as Benioff rightly points out, different roles have divergent needs for being in the office. Engineers might only need to come in 10 days a quarter, perhaps at the start and end of a sprint. Admin staff–whose job involves office management–need to cover office duties like helping people with copiers or receiving visitors, so you should make sure there’s always an admin to cover such needs. Accountants can come in a couple of days at the end of the month to close the books and for a week at the end of the quarter.
Just demanding a set number of days per week–as the large majority of major corporate giants have done–is a sign of laziness and conformism. The company’s leaders and HR failed to think through who needs to be in the office and for what purpose. Employees feel a lot of resentment when they come to the office without a good reason to be there, doing the same thing they would do at home.
What a data-driven RTO looks like
Salesforce unfortunately lacked two other key elements of a data-driven RTO: assessing employee opinions and getting their buy-in. Both of these problems are solved with similar tools, killing two birds with one stone.
First, you need to survey your staff on RTO–ideally before the RTO, or after it if you already launched the RTO. At all the companies I worked with to help guide their RTO, whether it’s from the start of the process or to refine it after RTO was already launched, we started with a thorough survey of staff opinions about remote work and the return to office. That survey involves questions around their preferences on RTO, intent to stay with various versions of RTO, whether they would recommend working here to their peers given these versions, their productivity on individual and collaborative tasks at home vs. in the office, and similar questions on well-being, happiness, morale, stress, and so on. The survey is available in the appendix of my best-selling book, Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.
Next, you’ll want to run focus groups. Choose representative staff from a variety of departments, both rank-and-file and managers at all levels of the organization. Make sure to avoid putting managers together with rank-and-file staff in focus groups, as many employees might be reluctant to be fully transparent when those in managerial roles are in the meeting.
Focus groups offer invaluable qualitative data, diving deeper into the “why” behind survey responses. They let you explore nuanced issues like work-life balance, home office setups, and team dynamics that a survey might not fully capture. This is where you can dig into some of the nuanced issues that a survey might not fully capture. For example, why do some employees prefer hybrid work over fully remote? Is it the office amenities, the team camaraderie, or something else? These sessions should ideally be run by a neutral party to encourage candid conversation and, with participant consent, be recorded for later analysis.
Once you’ve gathered this rich data, the next step is synthesis. Combine the qualitative insights from the focus groups with the quantitative metrics from the surveys. This dual approach not only informs the RTO strategy with a well-rounded perspective but also makes it deeply empathetic to employees’ needs and preferences.
Closing the loop is crucial. Share with employees the actionable steps you’ll take based on these discussions. Even if they don’t fully agree with the final decision, this transparent process makes them feel heard, listened to, and consulted.
The result? A significantly higher level of buy-in and reduced resistance to the RTO plan, as employees will feel that their opinions were genuinely considered in shaping the company’s future. Thus, unlike at Amazon, you won’t have employees leaking recordings of internal company meetings to the media and otherwise getting media involved in your company’s business. You also won’t have employees walking out and publicly protesting or signing mass petitions. None of that happened at any of my clients–because the employees felt listened to, respected, and heard, and because RTO policies were customized to the needs of each team and role.
Amazon illustrates the shortcomings of echo-chamber-driven RTO, characterized by employee resistance and low morale. In contrast, a nuanced, data-driven RTO approach provides a balanced and empathetic strategy. Given that research on CEO plans for the future by Nick Bloom and other scholars indicates that there will be more remote work, not less, it seems that many leaders have learned that their initial RTO approach was wrong. Indeed, Envoy finds that over 80% of bosses regret their initial RTO plans, saying they wished they gathered more information and made data-driven decisions. By stepping out of the CEO echo chamber and engaging in meaningful dialogue with their workforce, companies can succeed in navigating the complexities of RTO.
Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D. (a.k.a. “the office whisperer”), helps tech and finance industry executives drive collaboration, innovation, and retention in hybrid work. He serves as the CEO of the boutique future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the bestselling author of seven books, including Never Go With Your Gut and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox and over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist at UNC–Chapel Hill and Ohio State.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.