Beware of return-to-work edicts
The fiasco in the U.K. should offer a lesson to Doug Ford and all other Canadian government leaders to make sure that whatever policy they adopt has strong buy-in from staff members
‘‘ How do we get engaged at work? The same way we get engaged in the rest of our lives — by following our interests — Maja Djikic
In an era where the very fabric of workplace culture is being rewoven, the push to mandate a return to the office for government workers is sparking a contentious debate.
This discourse, emerging from recent events in the U.K. and rippling toward Canada, underscores a pivotal moment for leadership in government sectors worldwide. It’s a narrative that demands our attention, not only for its immediate implications, but for the broader lessons it imparts on leadership, adaptability and the future of work.
The decision by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the U.K. to mandate a 40-per-cent office attendance has led to significant unrest among its staff, culminating in a decisive strike vote by more than 70 per cent of Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) trade union members.
This strong stance, underscored by a 50-per-cent turnout, signals a growing discontent with top-down mandates that overlook the nuanced realities of today’s work-life dynamics. The insistence on a return to pre-pandemic office norms, as articulated by the ONS, ostensibly seeks to balance organizational and employee needs. Yet, the pushback from the staff suggests a misalignment with the workforce’s evolving expectations and needs.
At the heart of this contention lies a critical challenge for leaders: navigating the delicate balance between operational requirements and employee well-being. The PCS union’s outcry, spearheaded by Fran Heathcote, underscores a perception of disregard for staff welfare and a preference for unilateral decision-making.
Heathcote’s critique of the ONS’s approach as “heavyhanded” and “heedless of the consequences” illuminates the broader implications of such mandates. It’s not just about where work is done, but how such decisions impact the morale, goodwill and, ultimately, the productivity of the workforce.
The crux of the matter, as voiced by the PCS, revolves around the need for a more inclusive, dialogue-driven approach to policy implementation. The union’s plea for an immediate pause and reassessment of the return-to-office policy reflects a deeper yearning for policies that are cocreated rather than imposed. This call for a “sensible resolution” that does not “carelessly disadvantage staff” embodies a broader principle that extends beyond the confines of the ONS or any single institution.
It speaks to a fundamental shift toward more empathetic, responsive leadership that values the input and well-being of its workforce.
This strike vote happened just after Premier Doug Ford’s appeal to the federal government, urging a three-day office return for federal workers framed as an economic stimulus for Ottawa’s downtown core. While the intent to rejuvenate local businesses is commendable, the approach raises pivotal questions about the long-term efficacy and fairness of such mandates.
Ford’s narrative, equating physical presence with economic contribution, overlooks the nuanced dynamics of productivity, worker satisfaction, and the evolving nature of work itself.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) offers a compelling counternarrative, championing “presence with purpose” over blanket mandates. Their stance, advocating for a work model that aligns operational presence with actual need, underscores a critical insight: the one-size-fits-all approach to office returns may not only fail to capture the intended benefits, but could also detrimentally impact productivity and worker satisfaction.
This viewpoint is especially pertinent in the context of public services, where the quality and efficiency of service delivery are paramount.
The unfolding scenario presents a crucial learning opportunity for leaders across the spectrum of government and beyond. After having trained numerous managers in the Canadian government on hybrid work best practices, I can say with confidence that the essence of effective leadership in today’s dynamic work environment lies not in rigid mandates but in adaptive strategies that recognize the diverse needs and potentials of the workforce.
The fiasco in the U.K. should offer a lesson to Doug Ford and all other Canadian government leaders to make sure that whatever policy they adopt has strong buy-in from staff members.
The transition towards more flexible work models, including hybrid arrangements, is not just a response to the pandemic but a strategic evolution towards a more resilient, satisfied, and productive workforce. GLEB TSIPURSKY, DUBBED THE ‘OFFICE WHISPERER’ BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, IS CEO OF THE FUTURE-OF-WORK CONSULTANCY DISASTER AVOIDANCE
EXPERTS AND AUTHOR OF SEVEN BOOKS, INCLUDING “RETURNING TO THE OFFICE AND LEADING HYBRID AND REMOTE TEAMS,” AND “CHATGPT FOR THOUGHT LEADERS AND CONTENT CREATORS.”