After I gave a speech about Gen-Z in the workplace, a human resources director in the audience asked if we could chat briefly. She explained that their Gen-Z employees would not stop asking for—even demanding—a four-day workweek. She was at her wit’s end, trying to explain to them why that wouldn’t work for her business.
“Tell them the discussion is over,” I said. “This business operates five days a week, end of story.”
What I didn’t know when I said it is that this level of harshness is on par with what CEOs of big companies are saying.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
To keep reading, click here: The Workplace Social Contract Is Broken. Now What?
Great article presentation on this continuing conversation and yet neither side of the conversation has offered any reasonable solutions. Especially since the world is not locked in any concept of shutting down need for work related activities to allow everyone to have 3 days off after working 4 days and to have all work activities be done wherever/whenever the employee wants to do it because that doesn’t create any sense in the economic of running any business. Needs are not the same as desires. Like the article says let these complainers develop a successful enterprise that utilizes their concept adjustments to the workplace environment so that personal lifestyles are not affected and still achieve that profitability in whatever way they want. Change is good but it also means some compromises. I don’t think that GenZ and the generations following have reached that point yet.
A huge part of the problem is that employers screwed people over. The whole “Work/life balance is your problem” shows not merely disrespect for one’s employees, but open contempt–one is reminded of Welington’s description of his soldiers as “the scum of the Earth”. I’m perfectly fine with profanity in certain amounts, but a “profanity-laced internal meeting” among top-level executives does not suggest a culture of sober consideration. Instead it suggests that the CEO feels attacked and is lashing out. Then there are things like Amazon not allowing people to engage in basic bodily functions in the name of productivity–stuff that would make a Victorian Era workhouse look soft.
Employers need to accept that they do not own the people who work for them. This has real implications for management. You can’t just push people, or only hire the best of the best of the best, nor can you require everyone act like a top performer. What management needs to recognize is that they need to figure out how to get quality work out of average people. That means putting systems in place that allow people to have lives outside of work (maybe not a four-day week, but certainly keeping work/life balance in mind), and that allow the average person to work at about 70% capacity when they’re at work outside of VERY LIMITED crunch times (because that’s all you’ll reasonably get).
What the pandemic did, really, is illustrate to many employees just how much their employers were taking advantage of them. They saw that many of the rules were arbitrary, outdated, and geared towards the egos of the people in charge rather than actual productivity. That genie isn’t going back in the bottle.
The thing about social contracts is that there are usually obligations and expectations on both sides – and I think more and more, workers have started to feel that companies haven’t held up their end of the bargain. They expect loyalty, they expect people to “go the extra mile” but are quick enough to cut jobs and wages. Workers meanwhile have increased their productivity, and seen company profits rise, but have not seen their compensation rise accordingly. So yeah, no surprise that workers are starting to question things on their end, too.
Ah, I sorta disagree Suzanne, even though I’m usually on board 100% with your articles. If employees don’t like their workplace conventions, I’d say they’re welcome to do what they can to change though, which yes means complaining, unionizing, and striking, and anything else they legally can. The days of “this is the way things are, end of discussion” are indeed over. Your example of Jaime Dymon doesn’t mention that he later regretted his profanity-laden tirade. It’s a new century.