Thinkers50 is delighted to be partnering with Mercer on an e-book, The Human-Centric Enterprise. I'm Stuart Crainer, co-founder of Thinkers50. Today, I'm talking to one of the contributors to the e-book, Kate Bravery. For this e-book, Kate's contribution is titled, How Relatable Organizations Are Winning Hearts and Minds. Kate, welcome. Let's start by asking, what does the idea of the human-centric enterprise mean to you?
Well, Stuart, thank you for inviting me here. Great to be having a chat with you today. When we think about human-centric enterprises, there's probably three things for me that come to mind. Firstly, ensuring that all the leaders in the organization balance empathy and economics in all their decision making.
Secondly, that the executives down to the business leaders and functional leaders really think about things from a multi-stakeholder perspective in terms of success and commitments that we make. And that HR really is executing on that people-first agenda. And I know we say that phrase a lot, but for me, that means empathizing with the diverse contributors we've got in our organizations. And designing talent processes and experiences that get them excited. Ensure they're healthy. Keep them energized.
You've used the word empathy twice already. And the balance between empathy and economics, mean traditionally, leaders haven't been promoted for their empathy, in general.
You're absolutely right, Stuart. I think empathy is a word that is bandied around a lot. Let me give a practical example then. Let's say AI can give you a 30% productivity gain in your job today. What do we do with that 30% productivity gain? Does your boss then expect you to actually have 30% more outputs? Are they going to reduce your teammates' time to 30% less staff?
I think what we want to do is take the opportunities of this age and return some of those gains to workers so that they might have higher pay. They might have more time off. They might have training to get ready for what might come next. And I think that's where we start to see empathy and economics really playing out in practice. Because those human-centric organizations aren't just thinking about shareholder return, they're also thinking about, "How do we keep a healthy, and engaged, and nurtured pipeline of talent?"
You talk about relatable organizations. Can you just talk about what you mean by that, and which organizations actually fit that description?
Sure. During the pandemic, it was those relatable organizations that absolutely stood apart. The ones that could be open and honest with their people about the current situation and what might come next. The ones that double down on what are their own values, and what might be the commitments to their people. The ones that cultivated that sense that we were all in it together. That for me, is what it means to be relatable in the eyes of the worker.
And I also like to use a human analogy because I think organizations have become more human throughout this period. They're using their ears of the organization in ways that they haven't used them before, not just to listen but to truly hear the diverse voices in their organization. Understanding who is the person behind the Zoom tile or the machine.
And for me, this is about representation and the ability to give voice so that they can negotiate around work, around matters of pay, flexibility, development. They also use their eyes to see ahead. I think we got very caught in a fight and flight response for many years. And now, they are appreciating that people are not just the lifeblood of their organization, but they need to make sure that they manage that sustainably. Look at processes that exhaust them or deplete them.
And that's been quite a change. So that includes strategic workforce planning, looking at employee market sensitive data. And then that brings me on to the heart. We've already talked about empathizing. But if we're going to truly balance that with economics, we've got to make sure that our sustainability agendas are weaved into our P&L right from the beginning as opposed to an afterthought. We already mentioned the importance there of making inclusive leadership, a must have trait for every leader today.
And finally, I think they've been very vocal. Those relatable organizations are coming off new on what they stand for as an organization. They are using their power for good in the broader communities in which they operate. And they're also making commitments to their people around good work, which I know is one of the topics we have in the book.
Is there a danger of going back to the pre-pandemic behavior, I mean, as things normalize?
I think that's absolutely on everybody's mind, at the moment. As we have started to see the impact of a global slowdown, and we've started to hypothesize what are some of the things from that pre-pandemic area that we really want to retain. I still believe those organizations though are winning out are in active dialogue around their people, about what they want their future work to be.
When we did some research into that, employees still have incredible trust that their organizations will cultivate a future of work that is more energizing, and that is based on balance. I think the big challenge now is, how do we marry that increased employee advocacy that came through that period with these high expectations about what work could be deliver. So I think it's quite dangerous if we ping back to that pre-pandemic era.
You say that as employees continue to be more enterprising, enterprises become more human, which is a really nice phrase. What can and should organizations be doing to encourage this?
Yeah, absolutely. So yes, you're right. We've talked about how enterprises have become more human. They're having real conversations. They're having eye-to-eye level conversations regardless of status and level, and they're being very honest about the future of work. But getting that right is a partnership. It's not just meeting employees with all of their needs and wants. It is, what is sustainable for the organization? And that takes real honest partnership.
If we want people to be enterprising, then I think we've got to get three things right. We've got to give them information about the future. We've got to give them the real options to develop, to contribute in the future. And we've got to enable them to make pretty good trade-offs between work, pay, opportunity. Let me give you an example that's maybe outside of our organizational domain.
The Singapore government has a program called SkillsFutures. And what they do under that program is they inform their workforce, and their career counselors, and their organizational partners of what are the jobs, and more importantly, the skills they would need in the next few years. They also tell them what skills are relevant for top jobs that people might aspire to, and what skills could go into multiple directions. Allowing people to make choices about, do I want to go for goal or do I want to play it safe?
And I think that thinking enables people to be more enterprising. And we see that in organizations because those that have opened up talent marketplaces, or have thriving learning cultures, are seeing that people are gravitating to building the skills that are critical for the jobs of the future, which of course, is a win-win.
I think the other way that we're seeing organizations unlock that entrepreneurial spirit is through hackathons and opportunities to be an entrepreneurial residence. Also, opportunities even to think about if people want to have side hustles, or they want to work in a more contingent basis. How can we allow that while still enabling benefits, and provisions, and all the opportunities we have in organizations? I think some of these experiments is how we're getting that enterprising spirit in our organizations.
So in many ways, what you describe is a communications challenge for organizations. To have open lines of communication about the skills they need and where they need them.
Absolutely. And I think that's part of being human, is being very honest about what jobs will or won't exist in the future? And what are some of the real pathways to prosperity that people could be sensible to take on board?
And what's the role of technology in this? I mean, technology is celebrated and demonized at the same time, demonized. It's going to take all these jobs and celebrated. We all marvel at how brilliant it is. But how do you see it unfolding?
Well, I definitely think it's a demon we need to make friends with. And I do think making friends with it is going to be really important. Some of our friends are difficult to work with, and they're difficult to work with because they work in different ways to us. But we know that when we work with people who are different to us, it only makes our output stronger.
Therefore, I think if we look at-- of course, generative AI is stealing the headlines at the moment. And as you mentioned, a lot of the worry is about the job losses that we hear about. Certainly, what I cannot forms recent future of jobs report points to some of those job losses that are coming out, but there's also significant gains that we're all experiencing.
And for me, the technology is going to allow us to answer those curly questions I probably would be embarrassed to ask of my team because it will take too long for them to find the answer. They'll have to go to too many places. It might be too boring. They'd also be annoyed if I then took another direction and said, "Hey, can we do it all again?"
There's certainly view that as busy work, but this amplifies my intelligence. It increases my own speed and agility. And there was one comment at the World Economic Forum Future of Jobs report, the other week that really, I think, said it all. Steve Baldwin said, "AI won't take your jobs, but someone who knows I better than you just might." And I think that shows us that if we-- technology's not going to wait for us so we need to figure out how we can keep a pace. And for me, that is making friends with it and getting exposed to it.
You write about the thrive contract. Can you tell us more about what that is and what the implications of it are?
Yeah. So the thrive contract is the new psychological contract at work that our data shows has emerged out of this period. In part, it is about recovery so it is about prioritizing health and well-being. Not just in the workplace as we saw in the engagement contract that was there before, but health and well-being more broadly. It's about a deal where expects that the organization will prioritize safety and health.
And in return, workers will want to contribute to that. What's interesting because I think this new contract also has seeds of what we believe will come next, which is the lifestyle contract where people really will take some trade-offs in order to protect their lifestyle and the life that they want to lead.
There's lots of experiments with four-day weeks in a number of organizations, certainly in the UK. Do you see that catching on?
The four-day workweek experiments have been fascinating. I think some of the challenges with the ones in the UK is they have all been small to medium firms, which I think is absolutely exciting. But many of our clients have been saying, "How do we then scale that across the world?" And I think there's some organizations who really thought very intentionally about, if we offer a four-day workweek, what does it look like in the US? What does it look like in Japan? What does it look like in Finland?
And they do need to have different nuances. Not just because labor laws are varying, but different things might be important to workers in those markets. In some, it might be critical to have the freedom to have a day off that fits with your religious observances. And therefore, what day you can take that four-day really matters.
In other markets, it might actually be to have that three-day weekend because there are more organizations in that culture doing that. I do think in part, it can be an antidote for some of the exhaustion and burnout that we're seeing in our statistics. But I still think it's early days in some of the experimentation.
I suppose in Japan, a four-day week looks very similar to a six-day week.
Well, of course. That's what a lot of people are saying. It just means I don't work on my Saturday. But quite frankly, if you're already working a six-day week, all of these are benefits that I think benefit humanity.
And tell us about the Good Work Framework, which is something else you allude to. What is that and why is that significant?
The Good Work Framework is an initiative from the World Economic Forum. And it encourages companies to think about the future of work in a more sustainable way. And effectively, to define the S in their ESG ambitions will help organizations transition to a more inclusive, equitable, and as I said, sustainable future for us all. The framework has five pillars stemming from living wage and protection, to flexible working, D&I, health and well-being, and employability. And it also has metrics and reporting.
But I think the really exciting piece that comes out of this work is its power to encourage organizations to come off mute on the things they really care about, and to set their ambition publicly around that. What will they be doing for their workers around flexible working, stress reduction, women's rights, living wage, pension protection? And then they're setting some time bound commitments around that, which is pretty exciting.
If we make commitments to reduce self-reported stress by 5% year on year, reduce the pay equity gap between men and women to less than 1%, pledge to upskill 10,000 workers, you don't just benefit individuals in organizations, they benefit communities. And that changes people's lives on the ground.
How does this fit in? I mean, talent shortages are affecting virtually all industries. So how does what you're talking about fit in with that? How is it a response to the talent shortages?
So I think the Good Work Framework does look at, how do we make our jobs more attractive? And how do we build more agility in our organization? And we need both of them if we're going to tackle the scarcity of talent. And I agree with you, Stuart. I don't think the labor shortages are going away. And I think they're actually going to become a lot more acute in many markets. We've got aging workforce pressures. We've got lagging workforce participation rates.
And as we've been discussing, work is still not working for everybody. Long term leave, sick leave, they are on the rise. Add to that the huge workforce dislocation that we were discussing earlier, the AI and automation is ushering in. And we really do need to make sure that our jobs and our workplaces are attractive for all. And we need to think a little bit differently about how we service them.
We've got a huge explosion of jobs coming in from the digital energy and climate transition. How are we going to fuel them if we can't retain enough people in our organization or upskill them quick enough? And for me, this means that we have to quicken our pace to building those skills-based organizations.
We have to increase our duty of care for people in our organization, and also those that might be leaving. And we need to apply some of those lessons of the circular economy and supply chain management so we think a little differently about who does our jobs today, and who could do those jobs tomorrow?
So when you talk to CEOs and senior business leaders, do they get these issues? The relatable organization resonate with them?
You know what's really interesting? We did do a study of CEOs and CFOs around the world. And in the same breath, they said, "We expect that our demand for our services and growth of our organizations will increase this year." But only one in two said, "We have the talent to deliver on that ambition."
So I do think, Stuart, they do see that we need to think a little bit differently about work. Are they acting on it? Probably not as fast as we need. And certainly, when burnout and exhaustion are a big part of the equation, pushing up delivery expectations without rethinking the work paradigm is probably not going to get us there.
You say that relatable organizations put a premium on listening. How do you teach them? How do you encourage organizations to become really listening organizations?
Well, to take your analogy further, just like children, I think it's what we role model rather than what we tell them. But I also agree that yeah, even just like humans, I think there's passive listening and active listening. Active listening is the listening tours, the skip meetings, the reverse mentoring, the shadow boards. I think all of them bring diverse voices that influence executives, and I think that's really important.
I also think the more formal pieces we do, whether it's focus groups or digital focus groups today, or surveys, or help, we might have overindexed on some of that. But I think that definitely has been one of the silver linings coming out of this pandemic. Just greater, more intentional listening.
But I think what's more exciting is the passive listening that we're seeing organizations do. Similar to humans, it's reading between the lines. What is not being said that we should be listening to? And here, I think looking at some of our data trends to say, "Who stays here? Who gets promoted? Who's exiting and why?" Gives you an opportunity to say, "What's the story here? Where are the blockers to building careers in this company? Where are our own organizational biases that we need to address?"
We've now got vast amounts of data coming out of this period and that also can help us predict outcomes. So if we're listening to that data, we can start to nudge our people to make better choices, preventative health care, which actions lead to better health outcomes, which skill development might lead to higher wages in the future. And I think that's really exciting because listening only shows your care if you act on it. And I think that's the real lesson of this age.
As you look to the future, Kate, five years or 10 years ahead, how do you think these issues will pan out? How will the workplace of the future be different from what we're seeing now?
Well, I hope the workforce for the future is a more relatable organization that is in active dialogue with all its people, where the diverse voices in it actually shape what that organization does and how it behaves. I think we do need to close some of the gaps that we have. You've already flagged the difference between executives' expectations and employee expectations. And I hope that the promise, the employee value proposition and the deal, the total rewards proposition, and the experience marry up.
Because I think we're entering an age where employees' expectations of their employer are at an all time high. It's exciting because the trust in them that they will make those changes. But unless we collaborate together, we can actually be off track in building a future that isn't a future that young people want to be part of.
So Kate, looking to the future, are you optimistic?
Still, I'm always optimistic about the future of work. I do believe that we have unprecedented opportunities to change the trajectory that we were on before the pandemic. And I already see that we are on that track, which is incredibly exciting.
The combination of the technology coming into our workplaces, with the increased appetite for being more empathetic, and being inclusive in our leadership styles, I think is going to allow us to co-create a future of work that's going to be exciting for the many. I also believe that we need more experimentation and exposure. You know that I work a lot across Asia. And I think in those markets where they are positive about how technology will change the future, Japan, China, they're eager for what next. And I think as leaders, we also need to encourage that in our workforce.
OK, Bravery. Thank you very much.