Most of my clients who worked remotely during the pandemic have resumed a range of in-person activities, from occasional days in the office to executive offsites to full-company retreats. And yet almost all of them expect to continue working remotely, at least in part. In some cases this is because they or their employees have relocated, or because they've hired in new geographies, making a full-time return to an office logistically infeasible. But in addition, unless they're involved in the production or transport of physical goods or the delivery of in-person services, they've recognized that the nature of their work has changed, as I noted last year:
Rather than viewing remote work during the pandemic as a temporary response to a crisis, my clients generally see it as a learning experience that enabled their organizations to become more flexible on a permanent basis. The benefits of this flexibility include responsiveness to employees' preferences, the ability to attract and retain talent in a wider range of geographical locations, and even increased productivity in some circumstances. [1]
But even as my clients begin this next chapter in which remote work will be a normal part of their daily or weekly routine, a surprising number of them are persisting with a practice that I view as one of the most toxic by-products of the hastily arranged transition to remote work at the start of the pandemic: Back-to-back-to-back meetings, without a single break in between, sometimes for hours on end.
Not only does the lack of a break between meetings exacerbate mental and physical fatigue, it also prevents effective context-shifting. In the blink of an eye, people go from a detail-oriented tactical agenda to a high-level strategic discussion, or they're thrust out of a large group setting into an intimate one-on-one, or vice versa. (It's grimly fitting that the service so many of us are using to facilitate these abrupt jumps is called Zoom.)
These problems are only made worse by the complexity of the current environment. War, climate change, political polarization and the persistent effects of the pandemic are taking a toll on even the most resilient people and organizations. My clients and their employees are finding themselves in unexpectedly emotional conversations with colleagues and that's unlikely to end any time soon. [2] In this context it's more important than ever to take a moment to reset, compose ourselves, and prepare for the next event on our calendars.
The solution, as with so many issues in my practice, is simple but not easy: End every event at least five minutes before the next one begins. This may seem patently obvious, but as with many potentially productive behaviors, it's very easy to create a set of aspirational rules and very difficult to change actual norms, as I've discussed previously:
You've probably worked as a group to identify some "ground rules" to improve the quality of your meetings--that's a common exercise and one I've conducted myself. But despite these efforts, your meetings haven't really improved. One reason why is the difference between "rules"--which are what we intend to do, or what we're supposed to do, and "norms," which are what we actually do... To repeat: Norms are informal social regularities that individuals feel obligated to follow, and patterns of behavior based on shared beliefs about how individuals should behave. [3]
So what are the keys to putting this simple guideline into place? As I describe in the piece cited above, there are four necessary conditions for the establishment of a productive norm:
1. A set of shared beliefs regarding productive behavior.
This is the easy part--the group simply needs to agree on a guideline that every event will end at least five minutes before the next one begins. But note that this won't be enough to change behavior, because rules aren't norms. Behavioral change only occurs when all of these conditions have been met.
2. Sufficient mutual esteem among group members so that its withdrawal would be felt as a loss by any individual.
Here's where it starts to get harder--the members of the group need to care about each other. This is why it's so important to invest in relationship-building and cultivate a sense of social cohesion, in ways that range from making small talk to in-person experiences such as offsites and retreats. So the leader has a special responsibility to promote these activities, because a group's mutual esteem can't be summoned at will--it can only be created over time.
3. A willingness by members to openly acknowledge a norm violation by a peer.
The degree of difficulty continues to increase--group members must be willing to speak up instead of silently colluding when the guideline is violated (as it inevitably will be). When the leader violates the guideline (also inevitable), other members must speak up and the leader must be receptive to their input. But when other members violate the guideline, speaking up can't be the sole responsibility of the leader--members must be willing to call out their peers.
4. A willingness by members to withhold esteem from a peer as a consequence of a norm violation.
Finally, group members must be willing to hold each other accountable, and the easiest way to accomplish this is by withholding esteem, as noted by legal scholar Richard McAdams:
Withholding esteem is, under certain conditions, a costless means of inflicting costs on others. These costs are often extremely small... But...dynamic forces can cause the weak desire for esteem to produce powerful norms, sometimes because individuals struggle to avoid deviance, sometimes because they compete to be heroic. [4]
The withholding of esteem need not be harsh or rancorous, and it's actually most effective when conveyed with a light touch or even a sense of humor. But yet again, peers can't leave this task to the leader--on occasion the leader may have to enforce a rule, but that doesn't make it a norm.
Footnotes
[1] Four Buckets (On Co-Located Work)
[2] The prescient historian Peter Turchin didn't predict the pandemic, but in a 2010 essay in Nature he noted that we were entering an era of sustained instability and discord and tumult:
The next decade is likely to be a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe... Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of looming political instability. Very long 'secular cycles' interact with shorter-term processes. In the United States, 50-year instability spikes occurred around 1870, 1920 and 1970, so another could be due around 2020.
[3] Rules Aren't Norms (On Better Meeting Hygiene)
[4] "The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms," page 342 (Richard McAdams, Michigan Law Review, 1997)
For Further Reading
Better Conditions for Working Remotely
Photo by PeakPx.
