Recruitment firm Robert Half released a report in August this year which identified the three key reasons Australian workers leave a company: higher pay, better work life balance and career advancement.
While employers are obviously looking for what suits their needs most when hiring someone, the same increasingly applies in reverse. Through the application process, both sides are being interviewed to see how they stack up. More and more, younger generations are deciding they should have a say in the quality of their working lives.
As Charlotte Rimmer outlines in the Australian Financial Review, 'salaries are not just about money — your remuneration is called a package as it consists of all the attractive, enticing temptations to draw you in to a new role and keep you there'.
Managers and CEOs not stuck in a punitive or authoritative model are learning that holistic working relationships that build loyalty and mutual respect are the best ingredients for a well-functioning team.
A few years ago at an event hosted by an organisation I write for, I was talking to a man nearly three times my age about the relationship between writers and editors — including the terms of such a relationship, like pay. Mid-sentence he offered this side note: 'You know, when you're younger you haven't realised yet that you're worth more than that.'
The comment has stuck with me ever since. It was a hard lesson, but early on in my career I realised that employees who don't know their worth are the easiest to exploit.
It has taken western workplaces some time to realise that the 'common good' argument (around a common cause) must first be applied to each individual, in the form of self-care. Any other approach is short-sighted and futile.
With a growing awareness of this fact filtering through to senior management and executives, you've got workplaces that feel like homes; you've got terms like 'work life balance' which prospective employees can bring into the conversation as early as interview; and you've got 'working from home' and 'flexible working arrangements' as standard policies.
"An older school of thought might see this as pandering to a softer generation — but these models result in a more engaged workforce, more likely to care back."
While it's now easier for a company to find someone to fill a gap, sans long-term contract, there's also a greater variety of options available for employees. The Fair Work Ombudsman stipulates that after 12 months continuous employment, staff can make a request for flexible work arrangements. One might argue that the changing nature of work is a win for employees over employers — but it goes both ways. Leaving a bit early, coming in late, the occasional long lunch, or the ability to work from home, a café or a different country, all support the key driver of company success: staff wellbeing, which leads to efficacy.
Kathleen Gerson, professor of sociology at New York University, describes the 'ideal worker model' of the 20th century this way: 'The good worker is someone that is there full time, in an uninterrupted way, over the course of their careers, and that they will put work first.'
There lies the central point of difference — while once it was honourable to put your work first, it's now seen as a fool's errand. Not to say staff should discount their employer's interests, but put them in their proper place — important, yes, but not more important than health, for example, or family. Unions have built memberships on these kinds of ideas for decades. But the current movement is not so much about grouping together as it is about individuating: 'My particular needs are important, too.'
While the older model is being superseded, it still requires staff insisting on work/life practices. It also requires a strong belief in the value of rest and play. Rimmer's article touches on the work/life practices of her own small company.
'A morning surf, afternoon personal training session and children school pick-up are all accommodated. But when a last-minute pitch/presentation is due, it can be hard to rally the troops and complete to deadline. So we have created a call-out — the word 'rally' is texted to the team. All those who have succeeded in their quest for flexible work arrangements need to come to the office, the team supports each other and the business succeeds in its goals.'
It sounds too good to be true. But it makes a lot of sense when you consider the basic give-and-take of all respectful relationships.
Staff should benefit their organisation over months or even years, and burnout won't achieve that — nor will it entice individuals to stick around. Neither will spectacular R&R programs or free pizza lunches which are an obvious ploy to buy staff loyalty (on the cheap). All employees really want is to see is that their employer cares about them. An older school of thought might see this as pandering to a softer generation — but these models result in a more engaged workforce, more likely to care back.
Mainstream psychology teaches that if an individual is solid on their own boundaries, those around them, even withstanding a power differential, will tend to accept those boundaries — particularly if they value what they get from the relationship. The good news is, you're more likely to 'bring value to the table' if, in the past, you've maintained the boundaries necessary to protect your own wellbeing.
My guess is many people learn this as they get older and wiser. Maybe younger generations, both employers and employees, can reap the benefits of this knowledge without having to learn it the hard way.
Megan Graham is a Melbourne based writer.
Main image: ShiftWorking.com via Flickr
This is the first article in a multiple-author series on work that Eureka Street will present over the coming weeks.