Why are people ready to resign? — Part 1 ½ — Section 1/3.

Per B. Berggreen
12 min readJan 8, 2022

“The contemporary discourse”

The Great resignation & the Great gig in the sky

Ref.:

Part I — Section 1/3

Part I — Section 2/3

Part I — Section 3/3

Part I “What’s a stake for whom?” (Biz Catalyst 360)

Preface

Part I looked at some of the basic elements in the human condition like fear of dying and annihilation, resonance and communication with the world, authenticity, freedom, and equality in the sense of managing the letter or leading from the spirit of the law.

This can only be relevant if it achieves at least one of two purposes. It either must spur the contemporary discourse and/or be relevant for it. To be a bit more ambitious I quote Ole Fogh Kirkeby's introduction to “Organisational philosophy — a study in liminality”:

“Philosophy presents two tasks for anyone, who wants to apply it in relation to any given field of practice: To argue and reason the field theoretically, and to determine the principles and mechanisms, through which it transforms”. [i] (p.11).

The field of practice in this case can be seen as the provision of sufficient flexibility for humans to live a good life through all the combinations occurring in the one life we have.

Where Part I uncovers part of the theoretical reasoning, Part I… and a half looks at the contemporary discourse (what’s happening in the real world) of the practice. As Kirkeby continues then philosophy (the love of knowledge) encounters a border, a limen (a threshold), that both marks the limit for the theoretical reflection and the planned practice and the actual action. The intriguing thing in liminality is the oblique sensation of both being in multiple places at the same time and none at a given time — the border country of transformations.

When we chose to see this as an opening and not just a limitation, we may be able to see a new cartography where all kinds of liminality are in focus.

In short, without the contemporary discourse, the whole plot is disconnected from reality, and that is one thing we should not try to escape from, no matter how painful it may be.

Section 1/3

Picks different examples of the discourse and attempts to link to below-surface conditions of human life.

Section 2/3

Look at conditions and how a future of work, discourse and mindset is needed.

Section 3/3

Is about caring. That’s a mutual phenomenon, and when it is not, it influences our relations with the world. The encore concludes with a basic statement of protreptic character, also emphasizing mutuality:

“…it is also ultimately the call to let oneself be well advised (eubulia), primarily by those who dare tell the truth, but ultimately by “oneself””.

This is not only a call to self-leadership, it is a call to leadership!

What is the Contemporary discourse?

So, when some self-proclaimed (non) visionary CEOs proclaim they need the people back in the offices to run their business it seems obvious that they missed out on the past 24 months of the covid pandemic — the proclaimed need is basically a figment of their imagination, they have lost their own proof of concept and Taylorism has suffered a significant blow — because the humans have proven that the world can work without physically forcing people against their will. This is not to say that the idea of community rooms (offices) is dead.

Meeting face to face has huge importance in building the relations that will define us being the basic motivator and secondly to enhance and maintain collaboration. The insightful mind will recognize one of the most prevailing ideas in human life — it is both/and, only rarely is it either/or. The idea of agility is the balance of stability and flexibility — but it must be mutual. The great gig in the sky has provided us all with an opportunity — flexibility is not a perk like free coffee and table tennis — it is an intrinsic motivator because it touches the lives of people (copying Bob Chapman, CEO of Barry-Wehmiller companies and Raj Sisodia: “Everybody matters — the extraordinary power of caring for your people like family” [ii] and essay-like book review [iii]).

Arguments like those performed by CEO of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon, Barclays’s Jes Staley and Mary Erdoes (head of asset and wealth management) JPMorgan Chase & Co in different settings and media are scary and ignorant reads e.g., ”The bosses who want us back in the office” [iv], “Why presenteeism wins out over productivity [v] ”, “Here’s why your boss really wants you back in the office” [vi], “If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that humans are hardwired to connect” [vii] and the list goes on and on.

The number of instrumental Pro and Con are many, but more than anything they are “surface” arguments of which many also hold double standards, and I’ll not further fatigue you with those. However, it may be prudent to contemplate the opinion of Professor Kevin Murphy “Performance management is the real unspoken reason behind the rush to bring us back to open-plan office hell” [viii] dealing with three core argumentative reasons for hoarding people back into the office:

1. Spontaneous interactions — innovation & creativity

2. Maintaining and building “culture”

3. To build commitment (produces presenteeism)

All three are gently and decisively eliminated as valid reasons — there’s simply insufficient data, research, and evidence to support them.

It is easy to see how this relates to the former described “psychological crisis” (Part I, Hartmut Rosa), both in the sense of lacking resonance responsiveness and perhaps most of all by way of not asking the right questions in the right space, hence lacking the foundation for even thinking about “parity of participation” (Nancy Fraser, Part I). In short, CxO see themselves as demiurge's with divine self-invented answers to the real world of practice — to reuse Luciano Floridi in a different context, they simply stop the negotiation with the world of employees and hence any chance of resonance is lost — there’s, after all, a significant difference between being talked to and being talked with.

My own meagre contribution to this discourse should limit itself to stressing “IT IS AN BOTH/AND” situation and the standards for handling it should be based on the best of both worlds — hybrid solutions that accommodate a fair balance of rights and duties by listening to the individual because the responsibility is mutual and so is the listening! Forget about compliance and dusty code of conduct and start to observe common sense and the “spirit of the law”, if you look closely enough and with sufficient attention, you will find the backbone, the axiology’s that people base their life on in form of ethical values and statements that eventually form our behaviour.

PRESENTEISM — absurdities and irrationalities

It strikes me as relevant to refer to a piece by Selina Short which showcases what can come of hybridity of thought. The title “If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that humans are hardwired to connect” [vii] and although subtitled “Is COVID-19 forcing real estate to rethink its role as a human connector?” is actually about loneliness and lack of connection.

The issue is not a product of the pandemic it has been increasing for years along with the authenticity culture, a side product of being absorbed in the self. A very dear friend of mine Jane Adshead-Grant questioned a piece I wrote: “Remote work is a modus operandi — lets preserve the option[ix]. Rightfully so, because I can come across as a one-sided proponent of not just remote work but work from everywhere — and I am a proponent, but not one-sided.

At the same time (this is where my hybrid constitution comes into play) I have been working with relationship management for more than two decades and have a fairly good idea of the importance of meeting face2face. I firmly believe we should have more meetings, not decision meetings but discourse meetings — because the most important thing (long-term) is getting to know each other as humans beyond the function or role we play.

In this context it is a good idea to remind us all, that the task of rhetoric is not (as often claimed) “to convince/persuade”, but “to find the convincing arguments in every case”, and there’s quite a difference (Aristotle: Rhetoric’s). The idea of slowing down to speed up has its fundamental roots within these conditions.

This of course leads back to the thoughts by C. Taylor on authenticity — we cannot define ourselves by ourselves (M. Buber, more in Part II), authenticity based on an assumption that we can is nonsense and narcissistic (soft relativism is not only destructive, but it is also self-destructive).

Defining ourselves must pertain to horizons of human significance, not just how I happen to feel about this or that — The “I” cannot define human significance, it transcends the “Me”. This can be perceived as counterintuitive, but any true encounters also always present and represent the “I” and when one is further capable of seeing “oneself as another (Ricoeur)”, that is in the sense of Løgstrup, “to trust and lay oneself open”, then we become each other’s guardians because we hold something of the other life in our hands.

Knowing that our wellbeing depends on how we interact and how we relate to others it is peculiar that we continue to have an unbalanced focus on extrinsic components in what I would call an irrational motivation culture. We know (period) that intrinsic motivation drives us long term, it’s self-reinforcing and contagious.

Let’s be honest about the “nature of perks” — they are a) extrinsic and b) only instrumentally implemented in the hope of better performance — that’s it, period. If we conceive the same notion about “real estate” [vii] we get the same result — genuinely feeling welcome will not come from a nice couch that encourages informal conversations, it does not suffice. It is simple because it is instrumental — it is a frame, it needs to be filled with content (content strikes out appearance when things are significant), in this case, the “Informal conversation”, and from a performance perspective that is generally perceived as a waste of working hours. The idea is nice, but empty, besides the invite. It is in fact a huge problem when these types of (supposedly) instrumental “affordances” cannot be filled with something meaningful because of inherent systemic organisational constraints!

I love the ideas proposed in the real estate article [vii], but if they are empty boxes — they might even backfire. So, we should revisit Rosa — loneliness is at a minimum a lack of resonance and it alienates the individual. Encouraging the informal conversation is the real content enabler— it cannot be a surprise that to connect on a deeper level than function, real conversations about real human things are needed (how to reduce lead time is artificial).

”Most of us spend a third of our lives working, which means we connect with colleagues more hours each week — whether physically or virtually — than with family or friends. Where once people connected at the town hall, marketplace or place of worship, today it’s most likely to be the workplace. Feeling like we belong taps into an intrinsic human need. So when we look at the hours we work it is a logical conclusion that the workplace is a primary source of our sense of belonging.” [vii]

It may be logical, but perhaps the premise is flawed — maybe the idea of spending the best third of our lives separated from our core is not the best solution (for humans)?

The logical conclusion in either instance is that the needed circumstances to take advantage of the affordance (the nice couch) needs to be realizable — otherwise, don’t bother to buy the couch in the first place (save your budget).

On the upside, the couch is an opening (a glimpse of liminal potentiality) a place that we don’t really know yet, and in terms of Floridi we need to negotiate the invite to get a proper reply from the world. The wise could then negotiate the intrinsic through the extrinsic — because it will always be an invitation to discuss matters of significance (when you face the insignificant “couch”). That’s the real affordance — the rest is just slippery surfaces with little or no hold (worth remembering that any traction is preconditioned by friction! (Newton)).

Broken promises and expectations

Breaking promises and expectations are a serious matter. In this context trust is a fragile phenomenon — we know this best from our personal friendships (Aristotle provides excellent insights and guidance in the Nicomachean Ethics [x], parts 8 & 9). Leaving the policy on flexibility hanging in the air creates one thing — uncertainty.

Normally most people can tolerate levels of uncertainty as part of life. When uncertainties enter the realm of the existential things are quite different because they then represent threats to the life we live and almost automatically turns on our survival instinct — vague communication does not help in these situations. It is worth remembering that the transition into a pandemic state of work was challenging, transitioning out of it again will be so too. Having provided positive proof of concept over the past 24 months mandates the expectations of employees to have increased flexibility — it’s that simple, no matter what the demiurge’s think. Every employee and employer should set aside time to investigate the contemporary discourse and a place to start could be “Workers feeling burned over broken promises, office culture as employers try to bring them back” [xi] investigating employees experiences during the pandemic. Mainly because the short piece cites real people living real lives.

”Employers that quickly flip the switch in calling workers back and do so with poor clarifying rationale risk appearing tone-deaf.”

One can only be baffled that this is the level we have reached and how scientific management still rules much of corporate life, with significant cost to both corporations and the individuals working for them (deliberately not “working in them” as organisations from this perspective is solely a structural plug & play idiocy).

”Only a small minority of workers in our sample said their company asked for input on what employees actually want from a future remote work policy. Given that leaders are rightly concerned about company culture, we believe they are missing a key opportunity to engage with workers on the issue and show their policy rationales aren’t only about dollars and cents.”

And on the divine (well-intended I guess) culture-building pseudo activities:

”many of the forum posts we reviewed suggested that employer efforts to do that during the pandemic by orchestrating team outings and other get-togethers were actually pushing workers away and that this type of “culture building” was not welcome.”

Some are very explicit about their feelings about company culture:

”As another worker put it, “I can tell you, most people really don’t give 2 flips about ‘company culture’ and think it’s BS.”

When corporate culture is perceived as BS one should think of this as a warning sign!

People care about people and people build culture. When we as leaders think that an outing and a few hotdogs will build the culture we should investigate our own brilliant ideas and maybe conclude, that such stereotype activities mainly interrupt people’s lives and create resistance — the majority simply feel they have better things to do with their time and their lives (they only have ONE, and it needs to matter)!

In section 2/3 we will look a bit into a thought future, how that can look like, and how it relates to our condition.

References

[i] KIRKEBY, Ole Fogh. Organisationsfilosofi: En studie i liminalitet. Samfundslitteratur, 2001.(Organisational philosophy — a study in liminality)

[ii] CHAPMAN, Bob; SISODIA, Raj. Everybody matters: The extraordinary power of caring for your people like family. Penguin, 2015.

[iii] BERGGREEN, Per B., We measure success by the way we touch the lives of people, LinkedIn, 2018

[iv] The bosses who want us back in the office, Peter Yeung, BBC Worklife, 25.03.2021

[v] Why presenteeism wins out over productivity, Bryan Lufkin, BBC Worklife 07.06.2021

[vi] Here’s why your boss really wants you back in the office, Professor Kevin Murphy, RTE, 30.06.2021

[vii] If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that humans are hardwired to connect , Selina Short, EY, 28.09.2021.

[viii] Performance management is the real unspoken reason behind the rush to bring us back to open-plan office hell, RTE, 30.06.2021.

[ix] PER B. Berggreen, Remote work is a modus operandi — let’s preserve it, BizCatalyst 360, 2021

[x] ARISTOTLE. Nicomachean Ethics, Loeb Classical Library, translation by H. Rackham, Harvard University Press, 1926/1934 (second edition).

[xi] Workers feeling burned over broken promises, office culture as employers try to bring them back, Kimberly Merriman, David Greenway, Tamara Montag-smith (University of Massachusetts)

--

--

Per B. Berggreen

Hybrid background and experiences from public and private sectors as internal & external. Military, Engineering, Philosophy, IT, HR… excellent boundary spanner.