Hybridity in companies, the great oxymoron

Hybridity in companies, the great oxymoron

Hybridity is not a benefit for employees of an organization, it is already a standard that must be respected if the companies They want to play first.

When I do search processes, one of the first questions candidates ask is “What is the company’s hybridity policy?” If companies do not have the policy installed, the percentage of people who cancel the process on the first phone call is very high. Because? Because today we learned that there is another way of working, more modern, more agile and aligned with working for objectives instead of clocking in.

The mere fact of not having a hybridity policy puts the organization in a lower category, it is not attractive for certain profiles. Anecdotally, those are the profiles that organizations typically want to attract. There is the oxymoron. It is difficult to understand that a company that is undergoing a cultural change, that is becoming professional, that wants to grow in the market and become an icon of employability, has a philosophical struggle about hybridity.

I remember a client I visited recently. He had divine offices, huge, super friendly to work in. I asked him what the home office policy was and his response was “we come here every day because otherwise no one leaves the company.” my answer was “With that policy, precisely the valuable ones are going to leave you, the ones you want to stay.” Thinking about it today as I write, I imagine he wasn’t all that comfortable with my answer. But, part of my role is to make clients see what they are not taking into account.

There are different companies with very different cultures. People who work in organizations generally do so when they feel that their purposes align with those of the organization. organization. Values ​​today play a fundamental role in decision making. Companies do not choose employees, today it is a mutual choice. Today we are all generation Z in that sense.

Hybridity is not “a factory to feed lazy people,” as some see it. It’s quite the opposite. It is an expression of the organization towards its collaborators that says that it trusts them, respects them and wants to collaborate with the balance of life of each of the people. Why am I going to the office to have meetings that I could have by video call? Why would I spend 2.5 hours on public transport if I can work and do the same things I do in the office from home?

Does it make sense for an organization to require employees to always be in person? What is the message you are sending them? “I don’t trust you and if you stay at home all day you probably won’t be working.” Of course, some will take advantage of the situation and we will have to look at those cases separately. But, you cannot define a policy based on exceptions. It’s not productive. On the contrary, it is bureaucratic. If we want to play first class and have collaborators of differential caliber, we have to provide management support and deploy a culture where those collaborators want to be.

So, What is the best formula for hybridity? There are many options, but the typical one is 3×2 and 2×3. But that is not imperatively required either. It is suggested and the collaborators then decide.

Companies that work hard on their employer brand, the large iconic ones, do not manage to get everyone to attend the offices as frequently as the management team would prefer. But, the results are positive. So the big question is Why do you want everyone to be in person? Is it necessary? What is your motivation? Because the reality is that if you demand presence, you are going to lose key collaborators. They are going to look for another place to work where they can do a home office.

It is known that to create culture a minimum of presence is needed, some things work better face to face, greater trust is generated and many other benefits. But, if the cost of achieving in-person presence is that you are going to lose valuable talent, is it worth the fight?

The big challenge is first to define what type of organization I want to have. Based on that, design the Talent policy accordingly to respond to that need. If I want to be modern and agile I will have to implement a Human Resources policy that plays in the big leagues. Because? Because there you are going to compete with teams that offer ranges of benefits designed to attract and seduce all collaborators every day. Because these organizations challenge themselves internally every day thinking about what things they can improve to be even more attractive. They make their collaborators participate in decision-making.

Yes or Google neither amazon They managed to reinstate tough policies that involved returning to the full in-person office, how is a smaller company going to achieve this? If the people of Google and Amazon threatened to withdraw and look for other horizons, being the companies that they are, how are you going to retain your talent without attractive hybridity policies?

The recommendation is that you have to play it. Of course, not all roles can be hybrids, it is impossible for a Plant Maintenance Manager to do home office. Or is it possible? Because through digitalization there are many processes that can be monitored remotely. The big question is whether you are ready to take the leap.

Ask yourself: Is your organization prepared to make a cultural change and think from another place? Only in this way can you grow and last over time. How about you take the first step today?

Managing Partner of Backer & Partners, specialized in executive search for Senior Management and Culture and Leadership Consulting.

Source: Ambito

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts