Hybrid Work and Accountability
There are times in my role when I find myself still startled by apparent institutional thinking.
Let me explain.
Late last spring, Callista* came to see me about an issue she was having with her hybrid work. Callista had been hired during the COVID-19 pandemic as a 100% remote employee, working from another town in B.C. Her job could be done fully remotely, and she was pleased to be hired by SFU: she could support education and continue to live outside the Lower Mainland, which had grown unaffordable for her family.
All good, so far.
Fast forward three years. Callista received an email from her supervisor that her role had been unilaterally changed to an 80% remote one — she now had to come into work from across the province day a week at her own expense.
“I was just devastated,” said Callista. “SFU knew that I lived in the middle of the province — I was totally upfront about this — and they hired me anyway. How can they do this?”
When she asked her supervisor and her supervisor’s supervisor why they wanted her to come into work one day a week, she remained mystified. She was told that “SFU could no longer support 100% remote work,” but then wasn’t told why that was. Later she was told that this is what Joy wants (it isn’t, which I confirmed with Joy in a meeting with her last fall) and that her leadership wanted her to be in the office for team interaction. None of this left Callista feeling like she’d been given a solid rationale to have her commute 800 kilometres (round trip) to SFU once a week at her own expense.
“My performance reviews have stayed high,” said Callista. “I’ve never had negative feedback on the work I do for clients. I just don’t get it.”
As Callista had documentation that confirmed her role was 100% remote at the time of her hiring, I discussed multiple options with her, including filing a grievance under certain sections of our collective agreement. In SFU’s hybrid program, the University asserts that it can adjust work-from-home options under certain circumstances or cancel them outright, but these usually go along with a solid rationale to do so. One example might be that an employee on hybrid is having serious performance and/or productivity issues, but neither of these was the case for Callista.
Unfortunately, Callista continued to get regular pressure from her leadership to come into work a day a week. The pressure took a toll on Callista’s health, morale and trust in the University. In a phrase, she felt betrayed. Finally and sadly, in total frustration at her treatment by SFU, she quit her job without having another one to go to.
In Callista’s case, the priority for SFU seemed to be on obeying a directive, even though the directive had no solid rationale and had the air of arbitrariness about it. As I said to the senior administration last fall, in an era where staff morale at SFU seems to be very low and trust in the University seems to be just as low, does it make sense to be tightening up on hybrid work arrangements and increasing retention issues?
What doesn’t appear to have been considered by SFU is the real cost of losing employees like Callista. An online estimate citing a study by the Society for Human Resource Management in the U.S. puts the average cost to employers to replace an employee at six to nine months of salary. Such costs cover recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training and reduced productivity. In Callista’s case, assuming these estimates are correct, that cost could be anywhere between $53k and $80k. Even at the low end, SFU’s cost of pressuring Callista to come in one day a week until she quit was about $50k.
It’s not clear that turnover costs are factored into SFU’s decision making. Organizations often don’t see cases like Callista’s as a costly problem: there may not be a process in place to calculate real costs, or the costs aren’t reported to the senior administration; or the time lag between the turnover and the costs is simply too long. If SFU doesn’t capture these costs, it’s obviously difficult to learn what does and doesn’t work when it comes to employee retention.
There is good news here, at least for Callista. She quickly found work with another B.C. company. She’s working 100% from home and almost earning the same pay.
“I’m happy,” she said. “I feel empowered again.”
Very sadly for us, Callista’s positive feelings come from working somewhere else.
*Names and some details have been changed to protect anonymity.