You may not realise it yet, but the way businesses approach office furniture is changing—radically. Imagine a workspace that evolves with you, minimising waste and maximising flexibility. In this interview, Aïssa Laroussi, Founder and CEO of Enky, reveals how his game-changing model is transforming sustainability, finance, and the future of work.

Good day, Mr. Laroussi! Thank you for gracing us with your time despite your busy schedule. To start, what inspired the creation of Enky? 

The inspiration for Enky came from a desire to revolutionise the way businesses approach workspace design and sustainability within the context of the circular economy. I recognised that traditional furniture purchasing models were often rigid, costly, and environmentally wasteful. Enky was born out of the need for a more dynamic, sustainable, and financially accessible solution that aligns with the evolving needs of modern businesses. 

Where did you first get the idea for its Furniture-as-a-Service (FaaS) model?

The idea stemmed from the rise of subscription-based services in other industries, such as software services. I’d already had the experience of working on the digital transformation of factoring for businesses with Ebedex which raised €1Bn for small businesses. The FaaS model is based on circular economy principles. I saw an opportunity to apply this concept to office furniture, allowing businesses to access high-quality furniture but without the cost of ownership, being able to free up capital to deploy to other areas to help either shore up a business needing some flexibility because of market conditions, or to help it  grow more quickly. 

How does Enky’s subscription model provide flexibility and value for businesses compared to traditional furniture ownership?

Our subscription model allows businesses to scale their workspace efficiently, adapting to changing needs without the capital expenditure associated with furniture ownership. It eliminates large upfront costs, offers maintenance services, and offers access to the latest ergonomic designs. This approach not only offers financial flexibility but also reduces waste by promoting reuse and refurbishment. 

Enky recently launched a leaseback model. Can you explain how this works and why it is a game-changer for businesses?

Our leaseback model allows businesses to sell their existing furniture to Enky and lease it back immediately, unlocking cash flow while retaining access to high-quality ergonomically and ethically sourced furniture. This approach provides an immediate financial boost – particularly valuable in a challenging economic climate where liquidity is key. Additionally, it ensures that furniture remains in use for as long as possible, reinforcing our commitment to the circular economy. 

We understand Enky also has its investment program. Can you walk us through what was the motivation behind launching the My.Enky Invest platform?

My.Enky Invest was launched to democratise investment in the circular economy. We wanted to give individuals and organisations the opportunity to contribute to a more sustainable future while benefiting from financial returns. It provides an avenue for impact investing, where investors support a business model that prioritises environmental responsibility and resource efficiency. 

How does My.Enky Invest support the broader goals of Enky’s circular business model?

The platform fuels Enky’s ability to expand its sustainable offerings by funding the production and refurbishment of high-quality furniture. By reinvesting in our circular ecosystem, we reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and extend product life cycles, reinforcing our commitment to responsible consumption and production. 

Can you elaborate on the synergy between sustainable furnishings and investment opportunities that My.Enky Invest offers?

By reinvesting in our circular ecosystem, we reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and extend product life cycles, reinforcing our commitment to responsible consumption and production. 

Sustainable furnishings and impact investing go hand in hand. Through My.Enky Invest, stakeholders can directly contribute to sustainability while receiving financial returns. By supporting the circular economy, investors help drive responsible manufacturing and encourage businesses to adopt environmentally friendly workspace solutions. The platform has already raised €750,000 in crowdfunding in just one quarter, and we anticipate a fivefold increase in financing volume over the next 12 months. Taken together with investment in client projects and furniture, we’ve raised over €2.5M to date and delivered over 50Tonnes of sustainable furniture, all ethically sourced from within Europe, and extended the life cycle of the items four-fold. 

What types of investors are you targeting? How do you make investment opportunities accessible to a wider audience?

We welcome a diverse range of investors, from individuals looking to align their portfolios with (Environmental, Social and Governance) ESG values to institutional investors seeking out green investments and sustainable assets. By offering flexible investment plans and clear impact metrics, we ensure that My.Enky Invest remains accessible and transparent, allowing more people to participate in the green economy. With more than 2,000 active investors, our platform is proving to be a major force in the sustainable, green finance arena. 

Enky has already made a significant impact in multiple European countries. What are your plans for scaling the business further?

We plan to expand into new markets across Europe and beyond, focusing on regions with growing demand for sustainable office solutions. Our strategy includes forming strategic partnerships, such as working with architects and town planners, enhancing our digital infrastructure, and increasing the accessibility of our services to businesses of all sizes. Recently, we entered the Luxembourg market, known for its strong business density and eco-innovation initiatives. We have a plan to launch into the USA within the next few years. 

With growing interest in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), how has your company aligned its strategy with the evolving priorities of businesses?

Enky aligns with CSR priorities by offering solutions that help businesses meet their sustainability commitments. Our circular model reduces waste, cuts carbon footprints, and promotes ethical consumption. By integrating sustainability into workspace solutions, we empower companies to enhance their CSR impact effortlessly and, indeed, profitably. 

What lessons from your fintech background have you applied to Enky’s operations and strategic growth?

My fintech experience has shaped Enky’s approach to innovation, scalability, and customer-centric solutions. I have applied the principles of digital transformation, subscription-based finance, and data-driven decision-making to optimise Enky’s business model and enhance the customer experiences. We recently won the 2024 PropTech Community Award for example. That was a big moment for us and a validation for the whole team that we’re on the right track. 

And lastly, as a Founder and CEO, how do you define success?

Success, for me, is about creating lasting impact. It’s not just about financial growth but about driving meaningful change in how businesses approach the circular economy. Enky’s success is measured by the value we bring to our clients, our contribution to a greener planet, and the empowerment of individuals to make responsible investment choices. The rapid growth of our My.Enky Invest platform and the strong demand for our leaseback model confirms that we are making a real difference in the industry. 

Executive Profile

Aïssa Laroussi’s diverse work experience covers leadership roles across various companies. In 2006, he founded Genisys and served as the Founder until 2011. From 2012 to 2017, he co-founded and served as the CMO of Edebex. In 2018, he joined Talundra as a Board Member and held the position until 2021. Since 2020, Aïssa Laroussi has been the Co-Founder and CEO of Enky, a Furniture Subscription (Furniture-as-a-Service) business.  

The post Furniture-as-a-Service: How Enky is Redefining Sustainability and Flexibility in Workspaces appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Andrew Barnes

Entrepreneur Andrew Barnes, founder of 4 Day Week Global, discusses the transformative potential of a four-day work week and contends that focusing on productivity rather than hours worked can yield enhanced business performance and improved work-life balance.

To many business leaders, the perception of a reduced-hours or four-day week is merely another example of society abandoning the concept of working and saving hard in favour of a better work-life balance. Inevitably, it does not sit well with individuals who have been often singularly focused on climbing the corporate tree, at the expense of family and personal needs. It is viewed as yet another exercise to pander to a younger generation looking to work less at the cost of reduced profitability and output.

It is in this context that 4 Day Week Global, the not-for-profit organisation behind the global four-day-week movement, has to operate. The irony is that the criticism is unfair, as the journey which led to the idea of a four-day week began not as an exercise in improving work-life balance, but as a quest to improve productivity.

In late 2017, my interest was piqued by a series of research reports which indicated that true productivity in United Kingdom and Canadian workplaces was in the region of one and a half to two and a half hours a day. This was complemented by a further study which delivered a loftier, but still low, 2.53 hours per day, giving a true (or productive) work week of fourteen and a half hours. Uncannily, this reflected a prediction by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s that, with the rise of automation, humans would only need to work 15 hours per week.

A significant proportion of working hours are in the form of leisure, non-work communication, and inefficiency, as well as time-wasting, to meet the standard 40 hours expected by employees.

Whilst the current reality for many employees is circa 40 hours of work a week and, through digital connectivity, the increasing intrusion of working hours into private life, I had a hunch that perhaps Keynes was right. His focus was on productive output. Obviously, this was easier to measure and achieve in traditional manufacturing workplaces, rather than in a service industry with an office-based environment typified by a work week packed out with filler: drawn-out meetings, personal calls, social media browsing, and interruptions. In such a context, a significant proportion of working hours are in the form of leisure, non-work communication, and inefficiency, as well as time-wasting, to meet the standard 40 hours expected by employees.

My own business, Perpetual Guardian, is a trust company in New Zealand, which had at the time just over 300 employees. I was grappling with how to improve productivity in the business and how to generate a stronger cohesive culture in the company, which had been created via a series of corporate acquisitions over a comparatively short period of time. Our core business was legal services, which are traditionally billed and accounted for on a time basis. My thesis was that, if we turned our attention to output rather than using time as a surrogate for productivity, we could restructure the workplace and the workday so that the desired output could be achieved in four days, rather than five. Unusually, my approach was then to offer, as an incentive, the additional time off to employees, but without a consequent reduction in salary. The concept of 100:80:100 was born: 100 per cent five-day pay, 80 per cent time, with 100 per cent five-day productivity.

In contrast to many carefully researched and evaluated experiments, I really had no evidence other than instinct to back up my launch of the four-day week trial at Perpetual Guardian in 2018, but I had the luck or foresight to commission qualitative and quantitative research by two local universities to assess the impact of the trial on the business and its employees. The results were extraordinary.

Staff engagement scores rose between 30 and 40 per cent, to the highest level the researchers had ever seen in New Zealand. Employees reported that their teams had grown and strengthened throughout the trial, again to levels higher than comparative national data. As expected, work-life balance improved markedly, with staff having more time to rest and reconnect, to participate in family life, and to accomplish tasks in their personal lives.

What was not expected was that staff reported that they were better able to complete their work in four days rather than five, and that company revenue and profitability increased, the latter by 12.5 per cent. Sick days actually halved. Also unexpected was the media firestorm which accompanied the announcement of the trial, its results, and the subsequent announcement of the policy being made permanent in November 2018. At each stage, the media articles numbered over 10,000, from over 100 countries, and with a global audience of over five and a half billion.

What was not expected was that staff reported that they were better able to complete their work in four days rather than five.

It became increasingly clear that the key issue for most employees is the need (and desire) to have more time to devote to family responsibilities or personal matters. It was also clear, at least to us, that when employees had more free time, work time was not disrupted by attempts to handle these responsibilities during working hours. Creating an environment with a focus on output paid both business and personal dividends.

So many business leaders (and employees!) made contact with us asking about the trial that I was prompted to write a book, The 4 Day Week, and also to create a not-for-profit organisation, 4 Day Week Global, which works alongside governments, governmental bodies, companies, and organisations, either individually or through a country or regional group pilot. These pilot programmes last for six months, and we assist participants with developing their own 4-day / reduced-hours work week (not all companies can close for a day, so the model changes from company to company), and each trial is monitored by independent academic research co-ordinated by our research partners at Boston College in Massachusetts and Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Each of our country pilots also involves a local research partner. We also work alongside larger organisations wanting to introduce a four-day-week policy, but for whom a bespoke programme is necessary or desired, rather than the group programmes, which are mainly targeted at smaller to medium-sized entities.

To date, we have run nine pilots involving 350 companies and 9,000 employees across 25 countries, with a further 11 pilots underway or announced across diverse countries, including India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and France. This is not an issue only relevant to Western developed economies, but resonates worldwide. Interestingly, the research results from our South African pilot, the first in a developing economy, demonstrated similar outcomes and benefits to those from developed economies such as the UK, USA, EU, and Australia.

Participants are from all sectors – health, manufacturing, logistics, public services, retail, and education – and are factory- as well as office-based. I mention this simply because critics of the four-day week inevitably assume that the four-day week is not applicable to all businesses and sectors. To be clear, we are advocating reduced-hours working with no pay reduction, and this can come in different forms: closing for a day (usually only applicable to small businesses), staff taking different or rotating days off to maintain five- or seven-day operations, half days or five-day, compressed-hour weeks (the latter especially beneficial for working parents). My own company uses all of these, as we have retail branches across New Zealand and we cannot close during the conventional working week.

Research indicates that employees value the time off at a far higher price than business is prepared to pay for it. It is this incentive which drives the effectiveness of a four-day week. After the US trial, 15 per cent of employees said that their employer couldn’t pay them enough to induce them to go back to a five-day week, and a further 15 per cent would have required a 75 per cent pay increase.

The data from our trials is almost boringly consistent now. Almost without exception, 95 per cent of employees and 90 per cent of participating companies want to keep a four-day week on the conclusion of the trial. From an employee perspective, the benefits are reduced stress, better sleep patterns, more family or personal time, and an enhanced ability to focus.

From a business perspective, they see enhanced business performance. The US and UK trials saw revenue increase by over 33 per cent, a reduction in sick days by 60 per cent, and improved recruitment and staff retention dynamics, as well as higher levels of engagement. Their employees reported being healthier and happier. Research by Oxford University on the relationship between staff happiness and the share price performance of companies on the S&P 500 shows that there is an apparent direct correlation between happier staff and share price performance. Who would have thought that healthier, happier staff would perform better?

As the benefits appear to be significant and demonstrable, it is of considerable interest that business and governmental leaders continue to rail against the concept. After all, if the reduction in sick days demonstrated in the pilot programmes were reflected across the wider business community, the economic impact would be considerable. The UK alone loses 19 million days annually to sickness, with an adverse impact to GDP of £45 billion. There is also research, notably out of Henley Business School and others, which demonstrates the potential for significant environmental, infrastructure, and societal benefits with, if the evidence from our pilots and other experiments is to be believed, no adverse impact on output or profitability.

Why is it that, when we experiment and disrupt almost every aspect of our lives, we are not prepared to question the traditional five-day week?

Why is it deemed so threatening to at least question whether traditional methods of working are applicable or even relevant to the working environment and society in the 21^st century? Why is it that, when we experiment and disrupt almost every aspect of our lives, we are not prepared to question the traditional five-day, 40-hour work week? The introduction of the five-day week was partially prompted to create new opportunities and certainly can be credited with the expansion of leisure and tourism markets in recent years.

There is no reason to believe that this would not address current issues facing society, such as gender pay equality, child care, the burgeoning cost of healthcare and care of the aged, as well as facilitating entrepreneurship, upskilling in the face of AI, or even – God forbid – time to train a citizen army, an issue now apparently faced by several European countries.

The four-day week is, at heart, a method of engaging employees to reimagine an enterprise. It is about removing blockages to productivity which are often not identified by traditional process-improvement strategies. It is about rethinking workplace design, about environmental changes to minimise interruptions by phones, emails, or social media, and to eliminate unproductive activity such as overlong or unstructured meetings. The key to a successful implementation is often not to overthink it as a leader, but to empower your employees with the not-inconsiderable incentive of the ultimate prize of reduced hours on full pay.

Spoiler alert. There is somewhere in the world a company or organisation in your sector and your business successfully applying and getting the benefits of a four-day week and they are attracting and retaining the best employees. The biggest risk to an organisation going forward may well not be introducing a four-day week, but dealing with the implications if their biggest competitor does it first.

About the Author

Entrepreneur Andrew Barnes implemented the four-day work week in his business, Perpetual Guardian, in 2018. Following the massive success of the initiative, he founded 4 Day Week Global alongside Charlotte Lockhart to help companies and governments around the world make the shift to a shorter work week.

The post Rethinking Productivity: The Case for a Four-Day Work Week appeared first on The European Business Review.

By Fiona Wylie

Workplace flexibility has become a central pillar in the modern employment landscape, reflecting a growing recognition of its importance for work-life balance, mental health, and overall employee satisfaction. At the heart of this movement lies a persistent and troubling disparity: the gender gap in workplace flexibility. Despite strides toward gender equality, women continue to bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities, a reality that significantly impacts their professional lives and well-being.

Founded on the principles of equality and inclusion, Brand Champions emerged from Fiona Wylie’s personal experiences with the challenges of re-entering the workforce after maternity leave. This journey inspired her to advocate for more flexible work arrangements and address the broader issues of gender bias and inequality in the workplace. A company’s mission should be about promoting flexibility and fostering an environment where all employees, regardless of gender, can thrive.

The Gender Gap in Workplace Flexibility

Research commissioned by LinkedIn, involving over 2,000 workers and 503 hiring managers, reveals a stark reality: 52% of women have left or considered leaving a job due to inflexible working conditions. This statistic is a testament to the widespread impact of rigid work cultures on women’s careers.

Moreover, a survey conducted by Brand Champions sheds light on another dimension of the issue: the lack of support and understanding surrounding women’s health issues in the workplace. With 61% of female respondents perceiving a gap in support and 52% reporting increased stress levels at work due to women’s health issues, it’s clear that these challenges contribute significantly to the gender disparity in workplace flexibility.

Beyond Gender: Workplace Flexibility

At the root of the flexibility gap lies a deep-seated gender bias that assigns women a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities.

While women are at the epicentre of the flexibility gap, the conversation extends beyond gender. Mental health issues, generational expectations, and societal norms all play critical roles in shaping the landscape of workplace flexibility. We need to recognise these complexities and champion a holistic approach to addressing them, advocating for policies and practices that accommodate the workforce’s diverse needs.

The Impact of Gender Bias and Caregiving Responsibilities

At the root of the flexibility gap lies a deep-seated gender bias that assigns women a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities. This bias affects women’s, and the primary caregivers’, availability and commitment to work and influences employers’ perceptions and decisions regarding flexibility and accommodations. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of inequality, where women are more likely to sacrifice their careers for caregiving duties, thereby perpetuating stereotypes and biases.

Strategies for Bridging the Gap

1. Recognise and challenge gender biases
2. Implement flexible work policies
3. Support women’s health
4. Promote equal caregiving responsibilities

Recognising and challenging gender biases involves a systemic overhaul of how gender roles are perceived within the workplace.

This means moving beyond mere awareness to promoting and practising inclusivity actively. For instance, training programmes can be designed to help employees and management understand unconscious biases and their impact on decision- making. Organisations can create a more equitable workspace by fostering an environment where employees feel comfortable calling out biases and suggesting improvements. Such efforts could lead to a significant decrease in gender-based discrimination and increase the representation of women in leadership roles, thereby changing the narrative around who is deemed “fit” for certain levels of responsibility and flexibility.

Another critical step is implementing flexible work policies as a universal benefit rather than a special accommodation. This approach acknowledges that work-life balance is a universal concern, impacting all employees regardless of their gender or parental status. By normalising flexible working arrangements, companies can dismantle the stigma often associated with utilising such options, which disproportionately affects women. Women, who are often reluctant to request flexibility for fear of being perceived as less committed to their careers, would benefit immensely from a culture that values output over hours logged. This shift enhances employee satisfaction and retention and attracts a wider talent pool, contributing to a more diverse and innovative workforce.

Supporting women’s health is pivotal in creating a workplace that recognises the unique challenges women face, especially concerning reproductive health, maternity, and related medical conditions. Providing health benefits, including support for mental health and maternity leave, and accommodating the needs of women going through menopause can significantly reduce the stress and health-related issues that affect women’s productivity and presence in the workplace. Such support not only aids in retaining skilled employees but also fosters loyalty and improves overall job satisfaction.

When women feel supported in all aspects of their health, they are more likely to engage fully with their work, aspire to leadership positions, and contribute to a positive workplace culture that values diversity and inclusion.

Women, who are often reluctant to request flexibility for fear of being perceived as less committed to their careers, would benefit immensely from a culture that values output over hours logged.

Lastly, promoting equal caregiving responsibilities is essential in addressing the root cause of the flexibility gap. This involves policies and societal change, encouraging all genders to share domestic and caregiving duties. Employers can play a significant role by offering longer paid paternity leave, flexible scheduling for all parents, and resources for caregiving. Such policies not only alleviate the burden on women but also challenge the traditional gender roles that perpetuate the cycle of inequality. When men are equally encouraged and supported to take on caregiving roles, it diminishes the implicit biases that often sideline women’s careers.

This equal distribution of caregiving responsibilities can lead to a more balanced representation of genders at all professional levels, reducing the gender gap in leadership and decision-making roles.

These strategies collectively create a foundation for a more inclusive and productive workplace. By addressing the underlying biases, promoting flexibility as a universal value, supporting women’s health, and encouraging shared caregiving responsibilities, organisations can significantly close the gender gap. This benefits women and enriches the workplace with diverse perspectives, experiences, and talents, driving innovation and growth.

Brand Champions, under Fiona Wylie’s leadership, stands at the forefront of this movement, advocating for a future where gender no longer dictates one’s career trajectory or access to flexibility. As we strive toward this goal, we must remember that true progress lies in collective action and commitment to equality for all.

About the Author

Fiona Wylie recognised the need for flexibility in the workplace after her journey returning to work after maternity leave and founded Brand Champions. Renowned for her “SOS” support, Fiona offers flexible marketing assistance with a quick turnaround, precisely tailored to the evolving needs of their clients. She’s heavily involved in charity work.

References

1. LinkedIn Research on Workplace Flexibility (2023).

2. Brand Champions Survey on Women’s Health Issues and Workplace Support (2023).

The post Taking a Stand against the Gender Gap in Workplace Flexibility appeared first on The European Business Review.

The business world is facing an ever-growing challenge: striking the balance between optimising employee productivity levels and providing job satisfaction. Here we explore workplace productivity and effective strategies to counteract challenges among remote workers in particular. 

With recent waves of “The Great Resignation” and “Quiet Quitting,” companies are grappling with challenges that affect workplace productivity, as never before. These issues come at a time when organisations are having industry-wide mass layoffs. 

Figures from Europe underpin these trends. In Q2 and Q3 2022, the UK saw historically high numbers of resignations, with more than 365,000 and 442,000 people leaving their jobs, respectively. A third of all German companies is experiencing a shortage of skilled workers due to The Great Resignation, with Gallup’s annual workplace study showing a record number of employees looking for new jobs, and 4 in 10 saying they would stop working if they could afford it. In France, the number of resignations reached a historically high level at the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022, with nearly 520,000 resignations per quarter, including 470,000 from permanent contracts.

Against this backdrop, the need for a content, productive workforce is higher than ever. Here are some actionable steps to increase workplace success while keeping employees engaged and satisfied:

Training, progression and autonomy

The argument for workers having a satisfactory work-life balance through allowing remote work carries weight insofar as employees have increased autonomy over their time and also avoid commutes and distractions that come with an in-workplace environment. With fewer interruptions, they can concentrate on producing high quality work to meet company objectives. 

It may be tempting and inevitable to give employees additional tasks (particularly if the workforce is shrinking) without the additional change in title or pay to reflect the increase in responsibility. In other words, a Quiet Promotion. Additional tasks should be aligned with each employee’s career progression plans and extra responsibilities, and achievements should be compensated. This recognition helps communicate to employees that their input and productivity are valued, and their efforts reap tangible rewards. Here, training, progression, and autonomy are part of creating a positive work environment.

Unlocking an employee’s digital experience

A remote employee’s digital experience —and improving it — is the key to unlocking staff productivity when working outside the office. Digital employee experience refers to the overall experience that employees have while using digital tools and technologies in the workplace. 

Our research on workplace productivity shows that companies offering a poor digital experience can lose nearly one hour per week per employee through IT downtime alone. There are certain actions that HR teams, together with IT teams, can implement to help employees get the best out of their remote workplaces. 

Technology is the first critical place to start as that is the interface through which an employee accesses their workplace. Fundamentals include ensuring that employees have the right technology (hardware and software) for their roles (and know how to use it) and empowering employees to report tech issues as soon as they occur. These factors are the foundation of pain-free remote working. 

Not only do many employees feel hindered by their workplace technology, but IT teams also are frustrated by a lack of visibility into how and when issues occur. A proactive IT plan helps teams to respond to IT issues so that remote employees are not stuck in queues, holding support tickets, trying unsuccessful fixes, or just ignoring the tech problem — all while losing productivity. 

Measuring digital experience

What’s next? While giving employees and teams the resources and autonomy to carry out their roles remotely, organisations do need to measure workplace productivity accurately to ensure that teams are performing at their best, and also to troubleshoot when productivity is not at expected levels. 

Employee digital experiences need to be measurable, without acting as big brother, rather than being based on assumptions, directly monitoring what users are doing, and in the worst case, just looking at user reported tickets. We know that nearly 40% of digital issues aren’t even reported.  

When measuring overall productivity of an organisation and ROI, granularity is key. Data should be available to understand costs of groups, for example, of remote workers, specific departments or technology splits, such as Macbooks and PCs. Moreover, results should be customised to provide numbers that denote, in monetary terms, how much losses in productivity are costing a business overall.

Systems like ours gather information from up to 10,000 data points every 15 seconds to help companies build and customise a 360° view of their digital footprint.

Action data and findings on productivity shortfalls

Armed with data that highlights which technology implementations are negatively affecting  productivity, IT teams can investigate further to reveal what is causing an enterprise’s digital health score to drop and productivity costs to rise. 

The remote worker may not consider the impact issues such as latency, memory, or disk space can have on an organisation’s digital health and bottom line; therefore, they may unwittingly accept these issues as the norm and fail to report them with the mindset of “too much hassle” or “enlisting IT support won’t make that much difference”. 

To counteract this failure to recognise or report issues, large-scale data collection combined with automated issue discovery can enable IT and HR leaders to understand the health of technology deployed and prioritise improvements that will ultimately affect employee experience and productivity. 

In summary, companies can help prevent “The Great Resignation” at their organisations by increasing productivity while keeping employees from being frustrated by their digital experience. This can be done through employee training and autonomy, improving the digital experience, and accurately measuring productivity to address shortcomings. Employers must also work to understand why productivity is low and address employee concerns.

This article was originally published on 7 May 2023.

About the Author

Elise Carmichael is the Chief Technology Officer of Lakeside Software. She is responsible for building and delivering the next generation of Digital Employee Experience solutions. She has over 20 years of experience working with enterprise organisations on high-tech, big data, and machine learning-based products. Before joining Lakeside, Elise held senior technology and product leadership roles at Functionize, Tricentis, QASymphony, and Mobiquity throughout the last 10 years.

Elise founded a non-profit in Florida to encourage more women to enter and stay employed in high-technology fields. She studied Computer Science and Music at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

The post Balancing Productivity and Remote Work to Avoid The Great Resignation appeared first on The European Business Review.

Balancing Remote and In-Person Work

The evolving world of work creates a host of novel issues for European employers – among the most pressing of which may be determining how far they can go in requiring in-person work. This year’s survey finds employers pulled in different directions as their desire to increase in-person work may conflict with the flexibility needed to attract and retain talent.

When asked about current requirements for employee work schedules, 30% said employees are working fully in person and 27% said employees are on hybrid schedules, with more days in person than remote. That’s compared with only 11% who said employees are on hybrid schedules working more days remotely than in person, and just 5% who said their employees are working fully remotely.

The trend toward more in-person work may deepen in the coming months, as 73% of employers who are not already requiring fully in-person work said they are considering reducing remote work options. Those who do may encounter roadblocks from employees who are reluctant to relinquish flexibility. While this year’s survey saw greater alignment between employer policies and employee preferences – in Littler’s 2021 European Employer Survey, just 28% of respondents said their work models match employee preferences, compared to 40% this year – 42% still believe that their employees prefer hybrid or remote work to a greater extent than they offer it.

“It’s encouraging that employers and employees are more aligned on work preferences than they were at this time last year,” said Jan-Ove Becker, Littler shareholder in Germany. “However, the fact that companies are still struggling to balance the pros and cons of remote, hybrid and in-person work models – even two and a half years into this new world of work – is telling of the complex and delicate challenges that come with managing a workforce today.”

Concerns With Remote Work Remain

As employers walk a fine line between pushing for in-person work and providing flexibility, they will have to weigh the benefits of offering remote work options – which 79% are looking to increase to help attract and retain talent – with those of in-person work. Employers’ key reasons for requiring more in-person work centre around culture and teamwork – including facilitating collaboration and creative thinking (54%) and improving employee engagement (48%) – rather than on productivity and hard costs. Those perceived benefits of in-person work correlate with the main drawback employers see with managing hybrid or remote work arrangements: maintaining company culture and employee engagement (53%).

“It’s clear that those who got a taste of remote work are reluctant to give it up,” said Stephan Swinkels, Littler’s coordinating partner international. “This means employers must factor flexibility into their recruitment and retention strategies, and that if they’re going to push for more in-person work, they must do so with intention. For companies that want to facilitate greater collaboration, we can’t assume that just because people are in the office that will be the case – employers need to create those opportunities.”

No matter the work model, a focus on supporting employee mental health and well-being remains important. While 9 in 10 respondents have placed more focus on such initiatives over the past year, only 28% have done so to a large extent. In addition, when it comes to combatting burnout, offering more flexible work schedules was the only step taken by more than half of respondents (54%), and more actionable steps – such as working individually with employees to manage workloads – were selected by less than a third of respondents.

“Addressing workplace mental health and burnout in sustainable ways continues to be a challenge for employers,” said Anne-Valérie Michaux, Littler shareholder in Belgium. “Flexible work schedules, for example, are a step in the right direction, but they often don’t account for the added stress and workloads that can accompany remote work.”

Wandering Workers on the Rise

“Wandering workers” – employees who work in a different country from where their employer is located – continue to complicate remote work policies for employers. Among those who have employees working with this arrangement, the vast majority (89%) are concerned with the legal risks, tax implications and other employment issues that come along with it. Moreover, this issue seems to be growing, as 73% of respondents to this year’s survey said they have wandering workers, compared to 61% in 2021.

“Employers are rightly concerned about the myriad risks that come with wandering workers, and these risks are particularly heightened for UK-based companies following Brexit,” said Raoul Parekh, Littler partner in the UK. “Unfortunately, employee expectations in this area are not aligned with the realities of the global legal system, as it is genuinely challenging for employers to make ‘work from anywhere’ a reality.”

AI Tools Gain Traction in a Tight Labour Market

Nearly half of respondents (47%) are currently using or planning to use technology solutions and/or AI tools to support recruiting and hiring efforts. What’s more, 61% of those who are already using such tools said they increased their use in the past year, underscoring the utility of AI and technology in today’s talent landscape.

“In a tight labour market, business leaders are slowly but surely increasing their use of AI solutions in hiring and recruiting – and seeing how useful they can be,” said Laura Jousselin, Littler partner in France. “As usage of these tools ramps up, it’s important for legal departments to raise awareness of the compliance steps that must be taken and ensure applications are developed under legal review.”

With regard to the steps taken by employers, while more than half (54%) of those using AI/technology solutions in recruiting and hiring said they have developed a plan that identifies specific goals and tests outcomes, less than a third have conducted an assessment to ensure data privacy compliance (31%) or coordinated with vendors to conduct reviews of AI algorithms and identify potential biases (28%).

Macroeconomic Concerns Emerge

Amid rising economic uncertainty, the survey found signs of caution emerging among European employers, though they do not appear to be taking drastic steps en masse at this time. Roughly a quarter (27%) said that macroeconomic concerns have made them hesitant to hire new employees, while 37% are now either considering or implementing workforce reductions.

The survey report – which is being released at Littler’s European Executive Employer Conference, taking place October 18-19 in Dublin – covers a range of additional legal and HR matters impacting European companies, including efforts to address pay equality, the skills gap and compliance with cross-border data privacy rules. It also breaks out country-specific analyses for Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Download Littler’s 2022 European Employer Survey Report

About Littler

With more than 1,700 labour and employment attorneys in offices around the world, Littler provides workplace solutions that are local, everywhere. Our diverse global team and proprietary technology foster a culture that celebrates original thinking, delivering groundbreaking innovation that prepares employers for what’s happening today, and what’s likely to happen tomorrow. For more information, visit www.littler.com.

The post European Employers Caught Between Desire for In-Person Work and Need to Provide Flexibility, Littler Survey Finds appeared first on The European Business Review.