The Culture Nerds - A Leadership Podcast

📰 Front Page Leadership - Flexible work arrangements - a right or a privilege?

• Simon Thiessen & Kirralea Walkerden

Share episode

We would love your feedback! Send us a text message!

The line between flexible work arrangements and some emerging employee trends is becoming blurred.

On one had, too many employers refuse to offer flexibility because of outdated systems and beliefs - leading to employees being dissatisfied and pushing the boundaries.

On the other hand, insidious trends like quit quitting and being over employed are being used by a small number of employees - leading to cynicism and caution about flexibility from employers.

Who is right? And should flexible working arrangements be a right or a privilege? Listen in to hear what The Culture Nerds think.

Resources referred to in this episode:

The ABC News Article

Business Insider article

The Overemployed website

Previous podcast episodes where we discussed flexible working arrangements:
Truth & Trust
Just to be clear - from Elon Musk

******************************************************
Want to check out how Authentic your organisation is? Take our free online Authentimeter Assessment tool here

You can find full shownotes for this episode and more here

Visit our website The Real Learning Experience

Follow us on instagram or Linked In

Got a question for the Podcast? You can drop us a voice message via instagram or email us at: theculturenerds@reallearning.com.au

Thanks to our Podcasting producer, Josh at Deadset Podcasting for all his work behind the scenes.

Thanks for listening!

Speaker 1:

Before we get into today's episode, we want to acknowledge the privilege of living and working on Aboriginal land and we pay our respects to the elders, past, present and emerging. Hello listeners, welcome to another episode of the Culture Nerds. My name is Kira Lee and with me I have my co-host, simon. Hello, simon.

Speaker 2:

Hello, yeah, good today, really good, really excited to be here. I'm feeling quite fired up about today's topic.

Speaker 1:

You shared with me an article earlier in the week and you said to me at the time this would be a really good topic for front page leadership.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it's one that, look, it did get me a bit fired up reading it and it sort of plays into some really strong thoughts. I've got around work and what work should look like. There's sort of a bit of a counter story here too, and so I'm not going to spoil your thunder. You're our great investigative reporter and I know that you've been doing all sorts of research and some background on this, so tell the listeners what you found.

Speaker 1:

The article that you shared, which we will drop into the episode notes, is about over employment. Now, over employment refers to individuals that were.

Speaker 2:

Oh yeah, people switch off in drives. We're not talking about some economic subject here, about over employment. No, we're talking about a real workplace phenomenon.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that's occurring right here in Australia and the article that we'll share is based on what's happening in Canberra. That is what the article is about, but it refers to individuals that work two or more full time jobs without their employers finding out about them. So it's much more common in fully remote roles or task space jobs. So it's huge in software development and computer programming In America. It is a massive phenomenon that's going on over there. So basically, the remote workers in the privacy of their home officers, employees work flexibly as they want to jump in and out of meetings, declining meetings that they don't have time to attend to or scheduling multiple interviews with other companies, all while flying under the radar. So there is a website, overemployedcom, that has, at the moment, 184,000 members, and this is an online community offering advice, job search templates and hacks for employees looking to take the plunge into over employment. So last year's great resignation.

Speaker 2:

Basically.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it's like a little bit of a how to. Last year's great resignation has given way for this to happen away, for employees to make some serious cash by double dipping, all in the same nine to five window that the rest of us have. So within this website there's a link to a discord channel and on the discord channel, which is a public forum, anyone can join it. The overemployed workers typically have a range of tricks up their sleeve to avoid detection and, you know, often they'll work from two different laptops so that they keep everything separate, or never accidentally email from the wrong email and choose and very importantly choosing roles that allow them to work independently on quantifiable deliverables for organizations large enough to let them fly under the radar, which is why it's really popular with software development and computer program, because majority of these roles are often remote.

Speaker 1:

So what I did was, after we read the after Simon shared the article, I because I hadn't really heard about it. So I did a little bit of reading and I came across a, an article that was it's based in America and it was a guy that was a software engineer at Amazon and he was made redundant, and so he thought what am I going to do. You know, I can't survive. He had to move back home with his parents and so he took a job with IBM, and it was a remote role with IBM and he still felt like, even though he had that role, that he had no control. He said you know, I felt like I was under the whims of a company that gets to decide whether I'm employed or not, and he never wanted to be in the position where it was before, where he had to pack up everything and move home. So less than a year into his job at IBM, a recruiter from Meta came calling and you know the normal thing that would happen is you would weigh up the pros and cons and you decide you know which one you are going to keep and which one you're going to quit. But what he did is because both were fully remote, he thought you know what if I keep my old job and took on the new one as well? So essentially, he was two time in IBM and he could double his income.

Speaker 1:

So as he started to think about this idea, he realized he wasn't alone. He did some Googling and he found there's a whole community of professionals online who trade tips about how they juggle these jobs on the slide and they described themselves, as we said, the the over employed. And you know they seem to be getting away with it Helping, and there's forums, there's websites that help them evade detection and, you know, fly under the radar. The Discord channel that I said before has over 300,000 members on it, and so this guy decided I'm going to join it. So he took the offer from Meta, landed another job in Tinder, so now this was three companies. He was working in software development for IBM, meta and Tinder, and, after negotiating Meta and Tinder against each other for more pay, then accepted them both. So 15 months earlier he was unemployed and now he was suddenly employed three times over and on track to earn more than $820,000 a year.

Speaker 2:

Amazing.

Speaker 1:

Now there's some tricks to this. So what is reported is employees this is in America, where it is very, very big. They freeze their employment histories with Equifax. They hibernate their LinkedIn profiles so employers can't see that they're holding multiple jobs. They don't tell anyone what they're up to. Maybe they might tell their spouse or their accountant, but there is a lot of references in anyone that's seen the movie Fight Club. There's a lot of references anywhere where you read about over employed to Fight Club. First rule of OE is you don't talk about OE. So anyone that's seen Fight Club knows that their trademark was. First Rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club. It's very similar with the over employed. The first rule is we just don't talk about it. And it's really kind of an underground operation, isn't it?

Speaker 2:

Simon, it was fascinating. I read this article and just got drawn into it because the article I read was it started with a guy getting caught because someone caught him and this was in Canberra.

Speaker 1:

The article that you read so a lot of what I just said about IBM and Meta was a guy based in America, but the article that you shared with me was happening right here in Australia, in Canberra.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. And he got caught because someone from his other job was on a Zoom for his first job and so he realized he got called into a meeting and then realized that he'd been caught out. So I don't know if you recall, curie Lee and I didn't give you any warning about this We've had an over employed person working with us and I'll bet you're scratching your head, but this guy was not only dishonest, he was stupid, because he was a guy that worked with us on contract, purely on contract. He worked for an insurance company from home, and when we asked him wait there, how are you going to juggle this contract that you're going to do with us with this? He got really elusive, really sneaky about it and we actually ended up walking away because we felt really ethically uncomfortable with him on a number of levels, but that was absolutely one of them, and you know the bit about this that bothers me.

Speaker 2:

I'm absolutely 100% for flexible working arrangements. The bit that really bothers me is something you read before that they're doing it in the same nine to five window. So it's not like they're saying I'm going to take three jobs and work round the clock to get them done. It's I'm going to squeeze three and I'm going to sell the time nine to five to three different employers, which is cheating, isn't it? I mean it's, it's illegal, it's dishonest. What's your gut feel about this?

Speaker 1:

I'm going to play devil's advocate. If you have two software engineers and one is, and you have the same set amount of work and one is capable of completing it because of their ability, yeah, now, I'm not saying that this is the right way to look at it either, but it's like should that person be constantly? Give me more work, give me more work, give me more work? Will that person, well, say, two colleagues right, and they're in the same role, but they're on different projects. And because one person works quicker, faster, might have a little bit more knowledge, you know, why should they have to take on twice as much work when that other person?

Speaker 1:

You know, I see both ways. I see from an employer's perspective. I see you know, well, you're going to get bored pretty quick if you're, only if you're having lots of downtime, so let's utilize this person. But I also see it from an employee's perspective of going well, hang on a minute, just because why should I get twice as much work when I'm going to receive the same amount as I'll make sitting next to me?

Speaker 2:

Now one surprise you to know. I've got three thoughts on this.

Speaker 1:

I'm trying to think of what our listeners might be thinking inside their head, and I can see people sitting on both sides of that argument Absolutely.

Speaker 2:

Look, the first thing is, you know, I've got a very strong belief that you should manage performance, not attendance. So and we do that within our own company, so we don't keep regular hours. We regular listeners will probably know that we've got a policy of unlimited paid annual leave. We don't have start times, we don't have finished times, we don't have lunch breaks. We do what we need to do when we need to do it, but we have, with that, really high accountability. So get your job done and do it really well. Meet your deadlines. Don't let people down. If there's a commitment, you know, if we have a commitment to a client, then doesn't matter how flexible we are, we meet that commitment to the client.

Speaker 1:

So we're really, and in doing so there's some. When we have commitments to clients, whether that be travel or preparation, there's sometimes where we will work you know seven in the morning till seven at night, or you know weekends or things like that, because it's give and take Absolutely.

Speaker 2:

So it's a give and take, and that's so. I think the give and take is really important here, because the overworking crowd are not givers and takers, they're takers and takers. They're dishonest, so they're hiding it instead of having that honest conversation. If you're going off to the kids' concert or if I'm heading out for a bike ride because it's a beautiful day, we don't hide that from each other. We just say, hey, I'm not going to be free for the next couple of hours, I'm going out on my bike, or the kids have got a concert or whatever it might be. So it's about the integrity of us.

Speaker 2:

But that's my fourth thought on this, by the way. So I've still got three. But manage performance, not attendance. I think organizations that manage when people are there are measuring the wrong thing, unless you've got a role where it's all about attendance. So you need a certain number of people in a customer service role when your outlet opens, or you're in childcare and you need a certain number of people on the floor or health. You need the professionals there at the right time. But I believe we should measure performance, not attendance.

Speaker 1:

And that is just before you move on to your second point that was discussed in that article, of the guy that was working between IBM, tinder and Meta. That was discussed saying that, post pandemic, there's been a rise of remote and hybrid work, which we all know, which has also introduced employers to a new way of measuring productivity. So instead of tracking and you know, employers were forced into this environment and I think a lot of people learned that instead of, you know, tracking the number of hours that employees sit at their desk, we now evaluate employees based on what the work that they actually produce. And by doing this it does give more flexibility because it becomes a more results orientated approach to management. And there was a comment made in the article I read that some bosses actually don't care about the employee's second job as long as they're getting what they need from the employee in the role that they're in with them.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and look I think that's the sort of leads me into the second point that if a person has negotiated with an employer, these are the number of hours that I'm going to sell of my time to you for this amount of money and you're not providing that amount of time, then that's dishonest. It's different to being flexible and saying, oh look, can I work later or earlier, or you know leave in the middle of the day or you know whatever it might be. It's different to that. It's not the deal that I've done In our company. The deal we do is you can have unlimited paid annual leave and that we don't track work hours, but that we're really high on accountability and performance. That's the deal we do and as an employer, we stick to that and we expect our team members to stick to that. So these people are selling that nine to five window to an employer. You can absolutely guarantee I'm just going to name it up this Isaac who runs overworkcom is over employed.

Speaker 2:

He's a self-serving parasite because he's got to hope he's listening. Give me a call because I'd love to tell you exactly what I'm concerned about. It's all about justifying the outcome he's already decided he'll go to because he's got poor values and poor morals. So if someone you can absolutely guarantee that if Isaac had too much work, he'd put his hand up and say I've got too much work to do in the time that I've sold you. But he's saying I shouldn't have to put my hand up if I don't have enough work to do in that time. And that brings me to my third point.

Speaker 2:

Often with these jobs, people have paid a lot of money. I mean, we talked about one there making $800,000 a year. That means his average salary from his three jobs that he's doing concurrently is 267,000. That's a lot of money, a lot more than the vast majority of people make. So they're paying it, being paid a lot of money for their ability to do things really well and for their ability to be highly efficient. And then they're saying but yeah, I'm being paid for that, but now I'm actually not gonna provide that. I'm going to do my job as quickly as I can and I'm not gonna give you the but what if they are?

Speaker 2:

providing that. What's that?

Speaker 1:

What if they are providing that? One of the other articles I've read said that there was a woman who is part of this OE movement we'll call it and said that in her employee review last year she got exceeding on every single review from her employer. So and I don't disagree that there would be a lot of people that would be taking the piece of the situation and not turning up, not fulfilling their obligations, and that's, I guess, part of the problem. But I do wonder, in the situations where she's had her performance review and she said it's hard to feel guilty when you're doing what you're supposed to be doing and when you get being told you're exceeding for the role that you've been employed, that's just by that person's manager, who might be a really ineffective leader, who might have really low expectations, who might be really poor at giving feedback.

Speaker 2:

For me, I can't get past the fact that the employer thinks they're getting 38 hours and they're paying someone for that.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I agree with that.

Speaker 2:

And if they can do more in their 38, if they can do more in their 38 than they are, then ethically we should, that's I mean, we should do what we can in the time that we're given, and if I've got the capability to do more, then great. On the other side of that coin employers, managers if your people can't get the things done in 38 hours that you expect of them, either you need to look at whether they've got the skills necessary, or are you asking too much, because I believe that just as strongly that you shouldn't pay someone for 38 hours and then give them stuff that takes them 50 hours to do and punish them when they don't. So I'm really concerned about that. I think it becomes a bit self-justifying. I'm gonna read you something that our friend Isaac said we aren't making any more. What's that?

Speaker 1:

No, we're not sure we have a friend anymore.

Speaker 2:

Well, bullshit this guy. Isaac, you are breaking laws, mate. You're a thief. We're just quietly disagreeing with Lopsided Employment contracts and policies without confrontation. So you're a coward too, isaac. Instead of having the conversation, you're just stealing and avoiding issues. He argues that the over employed operate by the same cold hard logic that businesses do, and their deception is no worse than the way companies treat their workers. Employers lie by a mission to their internal staff when layoffs are happening into investors by cooking their books. Capitalism encourages profit maximization. We're simply playing the game without judgment. So remember the word capitalism Now. I object incredibly strongly to this characterization of all employers as being merciless assholes. I also just as much as I do.

Speaker 1:

We are going to get frowned upon by Apple in this episode.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, apple on five, there are a lot of exclusives.

Speaker 2:

On the bad Apple, but I have frowned on that just as much as I frown on the characterization of all employees as being lazy and just getting away with whatever they can. So these stereotypes are lazy from over because it's just justifying the outcome he wants out of greed. So remember his objection to capitalism, and he doesn't have too many crimes about exploiting the loopholes. He acknowledges that only a select few white collars workers enjoy this luxury, while others will have to suffer. The workplace policy For this is unapologetic. Welcome to how capitalism works.

Speaker 2:

Well, you can't have it both ways, isaac. On the one hand, you're complaining about capitalism and on the other hand, you're strutting around like a rooster, saying you know, king rooster, I can take advantage of this, even if you can't. He's just lost me. And if you look at the website, it is self-serving, trying to flog stuff, pop up ads all the time. This is a movement and I think you've got someone like this, isaac, inspiring people to be dishonest and honestly, I think if anyone was able to, I think he should be charged and prosecuted because he's a thief. There is no two ways about it. Can I give you a counterpoint here? Kerala?

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

In the same article. 91% of Australian businesses are using in the survey that we surveyed are using software to monitor their employees when they work remotely. Now, that's a little bit. What would that you talk? You found something that these that over employed people.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So what I found was that there was some Pensive software isn't that effectively? Yeah, try and true hacks for their OE hustlers is what they call themselves. So some try and true hacks for the OE hustlers. So that is that with your onboarding a new role, that you should take one to two weeks leave from your other roles, because it can be quite demanding the onboarding process. Sometimes you can be dealing with people in different time zones. This was more so America, but it would be relevant here in Australia as well. Keep separate work calendars for each job, but avoid double bookings. So make sure that they're all linked. Don't skimp on tech. That will make your life a bit easier Mouse jigglers.

Speaker 2:

They're a bit sleazier.

Speaker 1:

Mouse jigglers create the appearance that you're online even when you're busy tending to your other jobs, and a KVM switch helps you to control multiple laptops from the same keyboard. I mean if someone had to tell me what is a mouse jiggler, I'm not sure that my response would have been you know, so that you look like you are working when you aren't.

Speaker 2:

I was going to call the RSPCA, hey I mean. So this is where I'm going to change gears, and I'm not going to change gears and agree with Isaac. I've got a clear opinion on Isaac, and you know I'm pretty clear on that, but 91% of Australian businesses are monitoring employees when they work remotely. We have a client who famously told us, if I can't see them, they're not working when asked about when we actually suggested to them that they needed to be more flexible in their workplace practices and this is a number of years ago and then COVID hit and they had no choice but to be more flexible and was surprised by how productive people were. So I have a massive belief in trusting people and a massive belief in which is probably why I'm so outraged by by Isaac and his cohort Massive belief in trusting people, massive belief in flexibility, and I'm really disturbed by this monitoring of people, because I think if you tell people I'm watching you all the time, you tell them I don't trust you, and then we wonder why people don't behave in a trustworthy way.

Speaker 2:

So it's the chicken and egg, though, isn't it? Is it the 91% of businesses using the software that are the problem, or is it the mouse jigglers. I know the problem.

Speaker 1:

They're no longer OE hustlers. They are now known as mouse jigglers. Mouse jigglers.

Speaker 2:

So I mean which ones? And look, it's a bit of both, isn't it? But I do. It does concern me that that's happening. And if it's happening because we there's laws around people doing inappropriate things online or whatever that's not my domain, I get it for those purposes but if it's around management of activity you know, oh, their mouse is busy, therefore they're working then that really concerns me. I think it's a substitute for poor leadership, because if you're leading well, you're having conversations with someone, you know whether they're clear on expectations, you know whether you're challenging them, you know whether they're performing well, you're building accountability. So that one does concern me absolutely and I get the objection to that.

Speaker 1:

You understand the mouse jigglers line of thinking.

Speaker 2:

Not so much their line of thinking. I get the objection to being surviving. Yeah no Survived. Yeah, I'm going with surveilled Kirillie in there. There's a real in some of these articles, and part of the justification used by Isaac and his mates is the outrage, the utter outrage, that some employers are asking people to at least partially return to the workplace.

Speaker 1:

What are your thoughts on that? I have really mixed thoughts on this. To be honest, I'm a little bit on the fence with both ways. I think COVID taught us so much about remote working and that was because people were just literally thrown in the deep end. There was no option, there was no getting used to it, it was just. This is what our reality is now.

Speaker 1:

You look at and we've spoken about this in previous episodes and we can drop links to those in the show notes, but you look at the savings that businesses have had on reducing office space and the statistics that show how productivity has increased from people working from home, people I can fully appreciate people that have an hour and a half to two hour commute every day to work. That's four hours out of someone's day that they no longer have to and if the statistics are there, the work is there, the culture is there for what they're trying to create in a workplace, then I don't see what is wrong with adopting a remote workplace. Moving forward, however, knowing working being in different organizations, I understand that there are times where you just simply cannot create the dynamic that you need. We work remotely, we work on Zoom a lot of the days and that's really great, but sometimes we actually need to be in the one place to be able to.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, especially when we're planning, if we've got new programs, if we've got new marketing ideas, if we're trying to do strategic planning for the year ahead. It is a lot easier when you are sitting there face to face Now we've gotten a lot better yeah that's right, we've got.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that We've gotten, like I think that we work remotely brilliantly, like we aren't held back from anything. But in saying that, I understand why people like to have people in the office. We've spoken to leaders, we've spoken to team members who might be remote team workers and they say I like to go into the office and they might go into the office one or two days a week, because I find that if I'm not there and the majority of my team is there and there needs to be an impromptu meeting, they just have it without me. And that makes sense, because if you're wanting to have, if three or four people have come during you and are asking about something, oh, let's just grab a meeting room and have a chat about this. You're not gonna go. Is everybody that's remotely working available? Let's log in, let's let everybody dial in if it's gonna be a 10 or 15 minute conversation.

Speaker 1:

And so what we are finding now is the people that are remote compared to the people that are returning back to work. They do feel on the outer sometimes and so they're finding that it is better to come in, and so I know a lot of businesses will have like an office day so they might have a lot of remote workers and they say Wednesday we'd like everybody to be in the office and that's the day and then everyone can plan their meetings around that. So I don't have a hard and fast answer to that question. I think that I can appreciate businesses feeling like the remote work needs to end and come back and everybody come back to the office. But I really challenge the thought behind that, like why is it?

Speaker 1:

And that's what I would say to someone. If there was an organization or a leader or executive team sitting in front of me that said we just want remote workers to come back, I would say why? What is the driving force for that? If the driving force is we've got performance issues, we've got productivity, output is dropping, understand that, tighten up the reins, bring everybody back in and let's rebuild. But if their reason is simply well, covid's finished. You know this is not. We're not living in a covert world anymore.

Speaker 1:

That's right. Then I go uh no, this is not. This is not the way Organizations should be thinking in the year 2024.

Speaker 2:

I'm gonna preface this by saying if your pro work, pro flexibility, don't switch off when I say this, because I'm gonna put a huge asterisk on this, on this statement. If you, um, hate flexibility, don't cheer when I say this. I Don't think people should be entitled to flexible work. I don't think it should be an entitlement, I Think it should be a privilege, and I think companies should abundantly make that privilege available. And the reason I say that is I think people should be Uh what.

Speaker 2:

So organizations should be able to run the business they feel they need to, but they're stupid if they don't provide a whole bunch of flexibility to people who deserve it, because that's how you get best people, that's how you get diversity, that's how you get a whole bunch of stuff. So I feel like the entitlement that comes through in these articles around how dare they ask us to work from the office? Don't they trust us? And this is from people who can't be trusted. I think that's misplaced. I don't think they should be indignant about how dare they. I think that I think an employer should be allowed to, but they just just no good reason normally that they should and I agree with Absolutely.

Speaker 1:

I don't just agree with what you're saying at all, but do you think that entitlement has been formed because, in the current working climate and the climate we've had over the past 18 to 24 months, it has been used as a carrot To recruit people and so therefore it feels like it's an entitlement?

Speaker 2:

That's a really good point, and if people have been Enticed to work for an organization with that carrot minutes taken away, then that's not ethical, I agree.

Speaker 1:

If I just and I think that's a genuine issue in what is happening in Organizations at the moment is that people have that's the carrot that's drawn people in, because we were in a remote working climate and so to compete with that, that's what they've had to offer, and now suddenly we're starting to pivot and I think a lot there's definitely people out there that feel like it's an entitlement after COVID don't get me wrong, but I think there is a genuine portion that this is what I was hired under, this is what my role was sold to me as. So no, I'm not going to return to the office when that's what I agreed to. Yeah, and I that and that's.

Speaker 2:

That's a really legitimate point and I don't know what to do with it, so I'm gonna ignore here's. Here's what I was getting to what I believe organize and the reason. I don't think it should be an entitlement, it should be a privilege, but that organizations should abundantly make that privilege available to people who deserve it. I think you're mad not to be as flexible as you possibly can be, because the benefits are so clear for the Organization and for the individual. I do like hybrid models, but I think organizations overestimate how much time they need people at work it, you know, in the workplace. Um, I think it's really critical that if you have an office day, that on those days people don't spend those days on zoom meetings because it defeats the purpose. Yeah, so what you do on those days.

Speaker 2:

But here's probably the controversial bit I Don't think organizations should let everyone have flexibility. I think some people don't deserve it. I think it takes really courageous leadership to say actually, person a, b and c Come in when you want. You know what you do. Great work, we've got this communication, it's open, etc. You over deliver all the time. We don't have any qualms about what that might look like.

Speaker 2:

Person D you know what, your performance isn't where it needs to be and we notice that when you're not in the office, we don't get the output we need from you, or we don't get deadlines met or the quality we need supports the person D. We're not going to give you as much flexibility, and I think that's a completely legitimate approach, because why should we give someone flexibility who won't? Who will take advantage of it and potentially be an overworker, or maybe that is the number worker, maybe they're watching Netflix, I don't know, but but I think it's. It's a discussion Between a manager and I am aware of the floor in this plan and I'll Dress that in a minute. It's a discussion between a leader and a team member. What does this look like? And I think leaders should give much, much, much more flexibility To those who demonstrate. Why put boundaries on people who don't need boundaries? Yeah, but they should be able to put boundaries, without fear of repercussion, on People's whose performance doesn't justify flexibility.

Speaker 1:

We have this discussion so much with leaders, don't we? And yeah, it's I. Anyone that I work with will say that so much of leadership Relates to parenting, and it's a discussion I have with my children as well, but it is a discussion that we have on the regular with leaders. There isn't everybody getting the same thing. There is everybody. Everybody getting what they need, and, in those instances, the needs of two different people. You know, what's fair isn't always equal.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely and what's appropriate. Do you know, if I had two people in my team, one who did amazing work and One who just was really struggling, I'm gonna supervise their work more closely, whether it's remotely or not. I'm gonna take a different leadership style. I'm not gonna apply the same principle to those two people, and they need different things from me. One of them needs me to get out of their way and let them do their best work, and the other needs me there Getting them up to speed more. Why would it? Why would we apply a different thought process to Flexibility?

Speaker 2:

But I think what happens is organizations are fearful that someone will say, oh well, they get flexibility and I don't. Therefore, and there'll be a whole bunch of objections They'll raise around, you know, being target and being bullied and all that sort of stuff. As long as it's based upon legitimate performance and not a whole bunch of other things, then that's fine. The weakness in this plan is, of course, the capability for later to have those discussions. So I, for me, I think organizations need to be driving really strong organization-wide policies around. Let's remove all the barriers we can to flexibility. Let's think about what, what's the balance we would get, what's the? You know how much do we actually need people to come in? Is it one day a week? Is it one day a fortnight? Is it? A lot of organizations seem to do three days of fortnight, which I think is more than needed, but what's the balance we need? And then, how are we going to empower our leaders? A have an expectation they'll provide maximum flexibility to those who deserve it and Give them the courage and give them the support To deny flexibility to those who don't deserve it.

Speaker 2:

And for me, that's the perfect world, because you know what the problem with other? Well, there's a lot of problems with Isaac and his mates. Um, but you know who. You know who's suffering? The consumer, because in these organizations, the end consumer is not getting as much as they could, because these people are doing a third of the work they should. They're dividing their efforts between three jobs. But you know how is this happening?

Speaker 1:

I don't agree with that, you think. If this was, I think we're assuming that some people are doing that. Do you know who I would love to dial in right now? Who your son, nick?

Speaker 2:

Absolutely, because he would. I'm actually absolutely fascinated to talk to him. For listeners who haven't heard the previous episodes, nick is a senior leader in a software organization in the States, so yeah in Silicon Valley.

Speaker 1:

I would love to hear, for truly, if you, I still just I don't think I don't say this making it okay, but I still think we're assuming that people are giving you a third of the work just because what if they're not?

Speaker 2:

Or if they're working 38 hours in order to.

Speaker 1:

So, if you have a project-based role, which is a lot of what the software development is.

Speaker 1:

Yeah from my understanding of what I am not moon-laden as a software developer, so please nobody make that assumption. I am speaking very much out of my depth with anything about software development, but my understanding from what I've read is that it's a lot of project-targeted-based stages. If they are meeting that, then they're not giving you a third of their. They're meeting the expectation of the role. Are they exceeding the expectation of the role? Probably not. Are they capable of more? Yes, they are. Could they be giving more? Yes, they are, but they are meeting the objection of the role.

Speaker 2:

But what if they're manager and you would think this is happening? A lot is saying how are you going? Look, I'm really flat out, but I think I can make the deadline.

Speaker 1:

Do you know what a lot of them are doing? They're taking roles that are below their capability, so by default they exceed to begin with.

Speaker 2:

But they're still making $267,000 per job.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but they're overqualified for those roles. This is just purely devil's advocate of me saying. This is the underground world of OE.

Speaker 2:

I'll tell you the other person who suffers. I'm not convinced.

Speaker 1:

The consumer suffers. Meta's not suffering right now.

Speaker 2:

What if it's a project role in a health-based field and that person could deliver more outcome with the same funding? It's easier to go. Well, it's just Meta, and so people get less features on Facebook or whatever. I remember.

Speaker 1:

This is turning into a lot more contentious than what I thought this episode would be. What you're saying is this is your role, this is the expectations, these are the deadlines, this is what we expect from you If that's delivered on. But we're going to hold it against that person because they could probably give us 10% more than what they could and we're going to say, well, you could have done this if you had chosen to go over and above.

Speaker 2:

We might have projects we're working on and we constantly check in. How are you going with the projects?

Speaker 1:

You're fine with it time-wise, but I think the difference is the psychology that sits behind people in these roles and the mentality that sits behind them and that's what they speak about as well is, they say they've detached themselves from. So right now, I love what we do. I go to work every day because I love what we do. I love the environment that I work in. I'm really appreciative of the flexibility because it gives me the lifestyle that I like to live with my family. I can be there for my kids. I don't feel obligated, but I feel a need to be able to go. I want to give back because I really appreciate this and I know that other organisations and other people simply don't have that flexibility. So because of that, I am grateful. The difference is that these people detach themselves from that and they go.

Speaker 1:

So I might be someone to remove myself from this company because I know that we offer a lot of benefits that other people don't. But you might say I need this job. I've got a mortgage to pay. I've got school fees to pay. I can't survive without a job. So I need this job to put a roof over my head, so I need to impress my boss and I need to make sure that my job's secure when they've got three other roles. They don't have that attachment, they don't have that obligation. So it almost removes the feeling, I know, and doesn't make it right, no, but I think what's happening is it detaches the feeling from it, so it becomes transactional, it becomes you tell me what you want from me, I'll give it to you, and then I get my paycheck in return.

Speaker 2:

It becomes purely discussion between with a manager, there's inevitably going to be how you're going with your workload. Yeah, I'm fine, I can hit my target. But they're dishonest, aren't they? They're not saying actually I'm comfortable, I could take more on, because a manager hopefully a good leader is going to be careful about the load they put on their team members. If a team member comes in and I can make it, I'll get it done. I have to really push and they're actually working 10 hours instead of 38. Then they're creating that scenario where their manager believes they're busy and they're not.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

Let me do one more final thing before we wrap up. I don't want it to get too long because I've promised our listeners we will be short. There's an impact on their colleagues because their colleagues may be working 45 hours to get everything done because this person's not putting their hand up saying I've got more capacity. It's selfish. There are other people out there potentially working late, potentially working at a really high intensity all the time because there's a part of the team not fulfilling the bargain that they've entered into. Now, if the bargain was only 12 hours, that's fine, no dramas. If the bargain was you do this work, don't care how long it takes, that's fine. But if the bargain is 38 hours and we'll pay you this much money and the team's stretched and other people are working hard, the manager can't go to their manager and say I need more people. They'll say you've already got the headcount you can have, so just make that work. Well, everyone's flat out, but someone's not and their teammates are suffering.

Speaker 2:

So I see this as an incredibly selfish thing and I actually see these people as creating a cynicism amongst leaders around flexible work arrangements that's based on these 1%, these 2%, rather than the 95, 98% of people who will do the right thing. They're creating a world in which leaders and we all do it, don't we? We react, we go, oh, a few people rip the system off. Therefore, I just can't do it, and that's really sad because they're making it harder for the vast majority of people who are honest and deserve more flexibility than they're getting, and I genuinely believe that the vast majority of people deserve more flexibility than they're getting. As workplaces become more enlightened, people will get more, but the potential blocker is leaders. Go well, I've got this person. I know they're not pulling their weight, but because of this whole push around flexibility, how do I hold them accountable? That's my last word on the matter. Right, I will be quiet now because I've spoken way way too much and I think if I've really offended you, yay.

Speaker 1:

I knew when you opened with calling him a parasite that we were in for. You're going down, haven't you? So I'm really passionate views about this.

Speaker 2:

But a parasite lives off something else and that's what Isaac's doing. That's what he's doing on my side, probably not having his real name, probably doesn't have to carry the spot that out.

Speaker 1:

No, well, it was your name. It said that in the article.

Speaker 2:

There you go. If you can't tell, if you've got a hide behind a pseudonym, then what you're doing is probably not honest and in this sort of field, and the fact that they don't- know he's the original OE.

Speaker 1:

He can't put his real name because then people will know.

Speaker 2:

And they don't tell me, I don't think he's hiding behind anything.

Speaker 1:

I think that it's just his protecting.

Speaker 2:

His dishonesty.

Speaker 1:

It's all part of it. It's all part of it, Simon.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

All right, simon, just before we wrap up, do you want to mention to our listeners about our plenty in 20 that we have now dropped two of the webinars into the Watch on Demand?

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. This year's new process the free, plenty in 20, absolutely power pack 20 minute webinars on hot topics for leaders is now pre-recorded so that you don't have to turn up at a specific time. What you do is you sign up on the website and that enrolls you for the full year and every month you'll get a reminder email as each one drops, and there will be one every month in 2024. So we've been a bit overwhelmed by the number of people signing up for already in February and an amazing feedback. So jump in there. It's under the events section and then plenty in 20.

Speaker 1:

We'll drop a link into the notes of this episode Fantastic.

Speaker 2:

Other than that I said it was my last word before and I've got.

Speaker 1:

Well, thanks for this front page leadership. I think some of the aspects will agree to disagree on, but as a whole, I think we can say that we're on the same page, I think we're on the same page yeah, I think we're on the same page on most of it, and the rest of it you're wrong.

Speaker 2:

See you, listeners, see you in the next episode and in the meantime, stay authentic.