The Dark Side of “New Work”

And why it is crucial that we look at it!

Over the past decade, terms such as “Future of Work” and “New Work” have become increasingly mainstream in the business and organisational development worlds, as organisations struggle to adapt to rapid technological, social, demographic, economic, and ecological transformations and search for new ways to organize themselves, to better surf these waves of change.

These terms have increasingly come to describe ideal future ways of working, where all employees fulfill their full potential, enjoy high levels of autonomy and wellbeing, decisions are made quickly and independently, organizational structures are flatter instead of having fixed hierarchies, ensuring organisations are purpose-driven, agile, adaptable and attractive places to work.

This utopian view of the “Future of Work” often forgets to look at the “Dark Side” of these visions, or at least of the path to get to these visions. In this article, we explore these dark sides, not to delegitimize the search for a healthier, more meaningful and regenerative way of working, but on the contrary, to learn from and integrate these dark sides — thus strengthening the likelihood that such a future way of working might emerge for everybody, not just the hipsters in Berlin, Barcelona, Beirut and the Bronx.

From our experience at Purpose+Motion supporting dozens of organizations on implementing various forms of “New Work” — from cultural transformation, to “self-organisation”, to 4-day weeks — we’ve identified at least five major issues which are often left unspoken about in such processes, in literature about New Work and conferences or workshops on this theme.

I describe these in brief here, and we’re always keen to explore these (and any other such dark sides) with any of you working in this field, as we’re convinced it’s needed for this transformation to happen in a fairer and more impactful way, adapted to the complex and nuanced world we live in.

1) Toxic positivity, or where an “always be positive” culture develops, and avoids difficult conversations, honest feedback, tensions, and conflict.

We’ve noticed that some people feel that “New Work” means everyone should be nice to each-other in every situation and avoid bringing tensions or negativity to work.

For example, sentences such as “I’m doing ultimately super!” used by colleagues in a check-in (especially surprising in a usually quite reserved, pessimistic German culture!) when there are actually quite large tensions in the team, can be understood as toxic positivity.

This is toxic because it reduces a team’s ability to address tensions and conflict as an opportunity to learn, to align expectations and needs, but instead leads to a lack of honesty and transparency that usually leads to explosions and crises when those unaddressed tensions inevitably burst out of their cage.

Suggestions on how to address this:
When there is a general culture of not voicing critical feedback or perceived tensions, it can be hard as an individual to go against this and therefore exposing oneself to be the “bad” or “negative” person.

We have seen and experienced ourselves that in those contexts it can be helpful to have certain standard routines to give a consistent space for more “negative/ critical” feedback or tensions and therefore lower the hurdle for voicing this to the team, e.g. have a fixed agenda point in the team meeting where people bring their tensions or a specific regular meeting for looking at tensions.

Already simply addressing the topic of toxic positively openly can create a shift in the mindset and perception of people to feel more allowed to (and not guilty for) bringing those “negative/ critical” points to the team.

2) The expectation that staff in “self-organised New Work” settings should learn to handle conflict in generative ways, ignores the fact that people from marginalized groups (women, BIPOC, LGBTQI, differently-abled, etc.) relate very differently to conflict than more privileged people.

It is quite normal that, by implementing New Work — which means empowering staff, removing the “boss who solves your problems”, and encouraging more self-organization — there will be more conflict between staff by default. As said in point 1 above, increased tension or conflict in itself is not a problem, as long as everyone is able to deal with conflict in healthy and even generative ways, seeing the new opportunities or alignment which comes from working through the conflict.

The challenge with this is recognizing the different places we are coming from when “learning to deal with conflict in healthy ways”. In numerous workshops and sessions on topics around conflict, cis-white men have clearly stated “I generally feel safe in any work situation, therefore conflict is something I’m fine dealing with”. I too would say as much (also identifying myself as a cis-white man), even if I started out being somewhat conflict averse, it’s not felt terribly unsafe for me to learn to deal generatively with conflict.

The sentence “I feel safe in most work situations” does not ring so true for many others — be it women who have experienced sexism, harassment or worse; People of Colour who have been sidelined, rejected or experienced direct racist discrimination; an openly trans person who has experienced transphobia both in their personal and professional life; or a person with autism whose opinion is seen to have less value, or is made fun of for their “different” abilities. This baseline of “un-safeness”, means that learning to deal with this increasing level of tension and conflict might be a much bigger step for some than for others.

Suggestions how to address this:

We find it key to ensure that any conversation, goal setting, process and training around conflict management within a New Work context include measures to address different levels of comfort dealing with conflict, and starting points of team members from their backgrounds and experiences. Individual or group coaching, or facilitated workshops can be needed to surface these levels of comfort and hold such a conversation in a safe enough way.

3) Removing hierarchies re-creates inequality present in society within the organisation.

One of the key elements of New Work tends to be a desire to go towards greater levels of autonomy of individuals and teams, less hierarchy and more self-organization. The removing of hierarchies (i.e. “As I am the boss, I decide on these matters, and you, my employee, decide on these things, and follow my decisions on these others.”), means that more employees end up being equal to each-other and decide collectively, or through various processes such as the “consultation process” where colleagues are consulted, but the responsibility for the decision stays with me.

In such situations of greater equality, there is a high risk that power dynamics and inequalities present in society then are re-created in the organization: e.g. when all voices are “equal”, but some are “more equal”. Innumerable studies show the hurdles still faced by women and people of colour in positions of leadership compared to white men; and imagine those hurdles when they are no longer even in an official leadership position.

Suggestions/ideas how to address this:

Again, the key here is to keep these risks in mind and discuss them openly as planning and implementing greater levels of self-organisation or other shifts in the “formal” power dynamics within organisations. It is also important to regularly and openly check in with all involved how and where they perceive these “societal” dynamics appearing, and how they can work to counteract any unhelpful or even unconscious power dynamics appearing in the team.

4) The assumption that, in the current socio-political-economic reality, all and any business or organization will be able to implement ways of working which are healthy for all stakeholders and be financially sustainable or even successful.

One assumption often made in transforming towards New Work is that, as the organization becomes more self-organised, more purpose-driven, and a better place to work for staff, it will necessarily be more successful as a business or in achieving its goals as an organization. There is a lot of research showing that purpose-driven, “Future of Work” organisations are indeed more successful, both financially and in being healthier places to work.

We see many of the businesses leading the way in implementing “New Work”, who are also starting to redefine what it means to be successful. One could say, it is a question of “playing the game whilst simultaneously changing the game”.

Purpose-drive business are thinking in more holistic terms and are accompanying profit with other variables to measure success. Politicians in some countries are also supporting this movement towards greater social entrepreneurship, purpose-driven business and wellbeing centered economies.

However, the risk here is ignoring the incentives and power structures of the current neo-liberal capitalist economy that most businesses are acting in.

These incentives are not (yet) aligned with a greater societal and environmental purpose of creating a generative world for all, but instead, really incentivizing domination over the competition to ensure as high and stable profits as possible. It can be that, despite creating many bold and beautiful “New Work” initiatives within a business, a financial crisis, disruption in supply chains, or political changes leads to the failing (e.g. bankruptcy) of the business.

Suggestions/ideas how to address this:

In this context, it is crucial to be realistic and mindful of how much you and your business need to play the game and how much you can be changing the game. We often remind leaders and teams that, in the current economic system, even the healthiest workplace is not going to survive if it is not able to be financially sustainable.

This means that leaders, especially the visionary types, need to balance their dreams and the reality their company and the environment around their business is in. Peter Senge calls this “learning to hold and work with the creative tension between your vision and reality”. For some leaders, this feels deeply frustrating and not enough — leadership coaching and connecting with other leaders going through similar processes can be useful in these situations.

5) The language and concepts often used in implementing or transforming towards “New Work” are a jargon understood in the organisational development (and very urban, hipster, liberal, international, even new age) world but rarely lands well with people outside these bubbles (rural, older, more conservative, etc.).

Implementing New Work in a startup in Berlin or the Bronx can create a competitive advantage: Employees applying to such a business are often looking for terms such as “self-organising”, 4-day week, mindfulness, purpose-driven. However, for a woodworking shop in rural Germany or an NGO in southern Egypt, such terms and concepts can seem very confusing if not worrying.

For example, in one workshop we were in, when a boss of a mid-sized industrial business explained to her leadership team that she aimed to transform the company towards a self-organised, more organic way of understanding organisations, where all employees would flourish, the look on most of the leaders faces was more of consternation, skepticism and disbelief, than of excitement and relief.

Suggestions/ideas how to address this:
At the end of the day, words and communication should transmit a specific meaning and set of emotions to people to inspire them to move towards the intended reality together with you (in this case to create an organization that is more adapted to present and future needs of society and the planet).

It is therefore important for leaders to use the words that make sense and land with the people you are addressing in order to mobilize them towards your goal — even if that means using language that feels to you like going a couple of steps “backwards” at the beginning without losing your vision and slowly bringing your team to the place you would like to go. We have experienced that one of our core principles of “meeting people where they are” can be a valuable reminder in changing the game.

These five points are, in our view, crucial to look at in order to ensure we implement such transformations towards healthier and more effective organisations in equitable, pragmatic and sustainable ways. From our experience, it is not that every team requires or even wants more self-organisation, nor that every workplace will improve because there is more openness between staff about their personal needs and desires, nor that everyone needs to learn to become an expert conflict transformer.

What is essential is that any transformation of the workplace towards being more adapted to the present and future must be done in a way which takes into account where people are coming from (diversity of backgrounds), where they are at (current needs and purpose), and where they want to go (their visions of the future).

It must be respectful of the complex dynamics within and outside the organisation. It must be ready to address difficult conversations and conflicts, getting uncomfortable, and asking new questions, without forcing this upon those who have never asked for this.

And in our experience, it is needed to do this in a co-creative and collaborative way where the people who will be needed for the shift are actively involved in designing the new way of working. New Work and self-organization cannot be forced on people.

Therefore, the motto “the Future of Work is one where people decide how they want to work” might be better than “New Work for Everyone!”