sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

A brave new world without a map for employers – are ad-hoc responses the best way forward?

Business / analysis
A brave new world without a map for employers – are ad-hoc responses the best way forward?
gi
Getty Images.

By Jennifer Scott, Beth Tootell, Kazunori Kobayashi & Wayne Macpherson*

Increasing demands from staff for flexibility in the post-COVID era have left small businesses in New Zealand scrambling.

Our earlier research found two-thirds of workers were asking for more flexibility in where and when they work.

We have found employers are, indeed, reacting to employee needs with creative solutions. However, sometimes these are too spontaneous and possibly short-sighted in nature. Additionally, despite the demands from employees being widespread, employer responses have remained ad-hoc and informal.

Owners and managers want to do right by their staff, but are unsure if their actions are good for their business, both now and in the long term. They need (and are seeking) support in making good decisions and assessing the impact of their new initiatives.

Learning to adapt

As part of our ongoing research and engagement with NZ businesses, we have developed ten case studies to explore employer actions as they respond to employee desires in a post-COVID era.

Key themes are apparent across small businesses. Businesses have been focusing on “people power” (recruiting and retaining staff), understanding and testing out different business models (organising and managing people and their work schedules differently) and responding to individual values (adapting company strategy and tailoring recruitment to priorities of the next generation of employees).

However, small businesses dominate the NZ landscape. This means there’s a large number of employers each trying to respond to demands coming from within their own organisation. A lot of different decisions are being made to respond to employee demands, but the decisions ultimately impact only a few people at a time.

In each of our ten cases, the decisions and actions were different and diverse. They were creative and embraced “Kiwi ingenuity”, but they were very specific to individual companies and their employees.

For example, one company that relies entirely on solar power allowed some of its line workers to start their shifts before sunrise, much earlier than other staff. This was in response to their personal schedules, even though the company had to pay for additional electricity.

Another company now only works Monday to Thursday to give employees a weekday to themselves for enhanced family, personal or other employment activities. This is a policy for all staff and the company refuses to make exceptions for Friday or weekend work, no matter the potential customer.

We found an employer who worked one-on-one with employees to understand their personal situations. One example here was the owner helping an employee into their first home by providing financial help.

Finally, a company implemented both policy changes for all shift workers and self-management for administrative staff. The shift workers moved to four 10-hour days, while the administrative staff organised a roster for working from home while maintaining an on-site presence.

Implementing an holistic approach

In all cases, the importance of caring for employees in an holistic manner was evident, but the needs of each employee and the practices in each company differed.

The desired benefit for each situation might be different. In some instances work-related outcomes were sought after. These included reducing turnover and absenteeism, increasing productivity, and enhancing job satisfaction.

Other times, non-work-related outcomes were the focus, such as enhanced personal wellbeing, personal growth and increased family and life satisfaction.

We observed that, while employers were focused on different possible solutions for their employees, their responses were often put into action quickly and focused on achieving short-term results. These were often at the expense of exploring longer-term benefits to both employees and the company.

The future of running a business

So what does this mean for small businesses in New Zealand going forward? Kiwi ingenuity is flourishing. Businesses are looking for a number of different, creative ways to respond to their employers. However, it is taking time away from core business operations, and it is not always organised for clear outcomes.

Because each company is responding to its own unique challenges and own employees’ needs, the awareness of possible solutions can remain quite narrow. With each business doing its own thing, understanding and assessing the impacts or harnessing benefits from the initiatives become increasingly difficult.

Acknowledging the challenges for small businesses, which are often limited by resources, perspectives, experience and expertise, we suggest a more collaborative approach or sharing of practice is needed.

As employers navigate their own strategic decision-making about how and when to implement new initiatives, they could leverage the experiences and perspectives of other organisations.

We do not want to diminish the ingenuity in business responses, but take what others have learned and share across the NZ small business environment. This can help raise awareness of changes that have been tried by other businesses and how they worked.

When small businesses can learn from each other (what works, what doesn’t, and what changes could improve similar initiatives in different firms) they can leverage a broader understanding that will benefit their company and employees in economic and non-economic ways.The Conversation


*Jennifer Scott, Senior Lecturer, School of Management, Massey University; Beth Tootell, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, Massey University; Kazunori Kobayashi, Lecturer in Management, Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Massey University, and Wayne Macpherson, Senior Lecturer in international business, strategic management, innovation and entrepreneurship, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

14 Comments

The future of running a business.....

Is screwed under this Government constant and overbearing barrage of costs of regulation, taxes, and avoidance of any support unless you qualify for the "Maori wonderfulness cash" being racially splashed around at great pace?

Up
2

It really is pretty dire out there. The returns on having staff have become increasingly marginal over time, and the compliance and responsibility curve is through the roof.

A business usually exists in the realm of a competitive environment, and the requirements for an employer is now sitting more in a matriarchal role. So you have customers expecting levels of service, prices and quality, while having to be a parent for staff expected to deliver that service and quality.

If I'd have had the same staff levels as 2008 in 2020 I'd have been bankrupted by now. The half compromise is having a team of well compensated contractors.

Up
9

I worked over 40 years in a mix of NZ SMEs & multinationals, from the factory floor to the boardroom ("retired" 2016). I managed multicultural multishift 24/7 workforces between 50-150 people over half that time.

I now know how much of a dinosaur I am & why I'd never be able to work in management again. Last year for family reasons I put myself on a short course "Mental Health First Aid", designed to assist people dealing with workplace & family issues such as depression and dependencies. This was based on an Australian model & I do recommend it highly for an enlightened perspective.

A large number of the participants were public & private sector ER/HR practitioners ('Culture & people"): who described many of their challenges & how they dealt with them in the contemporary workplace to proactively support people for long periods who struggled with personal & performance issues. It was clear that many employees personal support needs far outweighed their basic  obligations to turn up on time fit & capable to do their jobs.

I stunned the room into a long silence when I said that I'd lost count many years ago of the people I'd sacked for turning up to work under the influence.

Up
1

Now if your employees have a drug or alcohol problem, legally you get to own that issue with them. The two times that's come up for me where it's affected performance (attendance), I offered paid therapy, etc, both times refused.

Sadly, almost without fail any time I've wanted to go the extra to help people get ahead or resolve issues for them, they've just seen that as a weakness to exploit.

Up
0

Not sure who this article is for but does appear to assume that those of us running businesses in NZ are a bit thick and cannot figure out how to look after our staff

On second thought maybe those of us running businesses have to be a bit thick given the woke and nanny state environment where policy is made up on the fly, basics are ignored and school age climate change activists become celebrities - also making policy on the fly  

Up
1

Yeah the irony in insisting employers "think longer term" is that the environment being operated in can change at a moment's notice. How would you ever be able to model long term for that - aside from assuming it's not great now, and the trend is for it to get progressively worse.

Up
0

"VUCA - Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous"

Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity - Wikipedia

 

Up
0

I think it's saying get a degree in psychology whilst running your business and get better at counselling your Gen Z employees. Yeah small businesses NZ!

Up
1

Experience in child care might be better for some employees.  

Up
0

With the way things operate, small businesses mostly won’t survive, dreams are free…

Up
0
Up
0

This is a bit of self advertising, so delete if it is inappropriate. This is merely to provide a data point.

But I have been working on an app for clock in and clock out of users using mobile devices for timesheeting (and soon scheduling as well as proof of work photography), which I sell as a SaaS to a few businesses since we are still in pre-alpha/alpha phase feeling out the market.

One thing that was notable in the data and experience of the businesses that I've worked with so far is the offloading of menial work and routine matters, or organising core information is the hard part there. Legal liability and proof of work for tradesmen is all in before and after photos for example. So a tie in benefit for employees is proving a mobile phone or paying for the employee's mobile plan so long as they use the appropriate apps for work. Delivery/Logistics is likely similar but I have no direct proof of this.

Another thing that was notable was the small businesses tended to work the hell out of their workers for fewer benefits. They also seemed very resistant to adopting technology early or while the challenge isn't pressing. I found test bed clients by hitting up businesses which were in a scaling phase going from ~15 employees up to 50 employees. But they would often be using paper scheduling or time keeping, complete with fraud, time theft by employees and wage theft by employers (the latter is far more common I suspect than owners will admit).

These issues seem perpetual for smaller businesses and often must be scaled with better organisation over time. Employees can demand more and will get more, but it is a give and take where employers need to accept the fact that employees have this power with such low unemployment.

Up
0

There is always a very fine balancing act, particularly as an organisation grows, between having enough oversight so as to have a good grasp on what's going on, but not having it so intensive it becomes a job in itself.

Likewise as an employee, there's a tradeoff between the added security and compliance of a bigger firm, and their tendency to become soul-less machines. That said if you're working for a smaller firm you're at the mercy of the quality of the ownership, many may be good operators in their field but management and governance is beyond their skillset (or they're a mental).

Up
0

The first 10 years of my working life (70s early 80s) were spent in NZ family owned businesses - never again. Ive heard religious org owned ones are worse.

Up
0