Hello and welcome to Working It.
We will soon embark on “Global AI Dive Week” here at the Financial Times, an admirable internal initiative that, as an AI rejecter, I signed up to attend. Every time Google offers to help me summarize an email or write a document. . . I ignore the message.
Scroll through data in (fascinating/scary) annual labor trend index From Microsoft and LinkedIn, I find that only 25 percent of companies, such as the Financial Times, plan to offer generative AI training to their staff this year. If yours is not. . . That’s not a good sign. In the absence of leadership and training, the Workplace Trends Index reveals that many staff are improvising and bringing their own AI to work. That sounds a bit like a “bake sale”🧁 approach to progress: the results will be unpredictable.
Let me know what you think about AI and what works for you. I need your advice: isabel.berwick@ft.com.
Read on for more evidence to support your decision to turn off the laptop at 6pm, and in Office Therapy I advise a recent graduate who wants to go to the office. (Shocking, I know).
There’s no new Working It podcast because even audio producers need a vacation; We will return next week.
Work long hours? Read this ⬇️
A work culture of long hours is a reality in many industries, but research continues to accumulate to show that working late and not taking breaks is a huge obstacle to productivity. My favorite new statistic is that “employees who log off at the end of the workday report 20 percent higher productivity scores than those who feel compelled to work after hours.”
That figure comes from a weak survey of 10,000 office workers. Christina Janzer, senior vice president of research and analytics at US-based Slack and head of its Workforce Lab, came to the Financial Times this week to talk about artificial intelligence, productivity and why “Goldilocks” days They are the way to balance our work life and work better.
Christina will also be a guest on an upcoming Working It podcast about real-world uses of AI that will help our daily productivity. My favorite: have it summarize everything that happened in email and Slack (other platforms are available) while you’re on vacation, and prioritize what you need to look at first upon your return. This could finally be the tipping point that stops us from logging in from the beach 🏖️.
The dismal late-working statistic has an interesting exception, as Christina told me: “If you work after hours by choice, maybe it’s because you’re really passionate about what you’re doing, or maybe it’s because your schedule allows you to take a break. hour at noon to pick up your kids from school, if that’s your choice, then you don’t see the same negative effect on productivity.”
This confirms something I’ve felt for a long time: not all after-hours and weekend work is bad. But one of the main reasons we work late into the night, when we are not bothered, is that we don’t have enough time to “focus” during the day. The main culprit? Meetings, obviously.
And this is where Christina’s idea of a “Goldilocks” approach to time management comes into play. That is, choosing the option that is “perfect”, like Goldilocks and the bears’ chairs, beds and oatmeal bowls in the fairy tale 🥣.
Let’s assume an eight-hour workday 👀. Desk workers say the ideal amount of focus time is four hours a day. “To achieve this,” Christina told me, “the most time they should spend in meetings is two hours a day.” That fee also satisfies our need for collaboration at work.
The rest of the time should be spent connecting with others and resting. The connection could be a shared lunch or coffee. And the “rest” part is vital. “Rest is something we have a hard time talking about in work culture,” Christina told me. (I’d say yes. Having lunch at your desk should never happen 🥗, and yet…) Break could consist of a 15-minute walk around the block to get some fresh air. “When you take a break, you are more productive,” she confirmed.
So, the magic formula for the Goldilocks workday is: 4+2+2. When that’s out of balance, it’s usually because we have too many meetings and have to react to other people’s demands. This is what Christina and others call “the work of the work,” rather than the actual work; see also Cal Newport’s description of it as “pseudoproductivity”. Too often, concentration work (aka real work) extends into the night.
Implementing a balanced workday with fewer meetings and more 15-minute breaks will be an uphill struggle in many workplaces. But the data is there: less is more.
office therapy
The problem: I will graduate this summer and am looking for a job. My skills are in demand and I plan to take my time in the job search. I’m interested in working in an office, rather than remotely. Will that reduce my employer options?
Isabel’s advice: If you’re sincere about wanting an in-person experience, you can be sure there will be employers who are up to your task. However, the advice I would give is to be guided by the convenience of the job, rather than the working conditions. You may (for example) discover that three days in the office ends up doing you good. You can always opt to work in a coworking space (maybe even paid for by the employer – you can ask!) on remote days.
Many employers are keen to offer flexibility, and while that is typically interpreted as the freedom to work from home, it can also mean going into the office more often than required. I guess the more important question is: would there be anyone in the office when you arrived on, say, a Friday?
If everyone works remotely or comes in two days a week, office life will be lonely for you 🙁. But, as I discovered during the pandemic, it doesn’t take a lot of people to liven up a workplace, and the benefit of having emptier (although not totally empty) workplaces is often an opportunity to “have face time” with senior leaders on days when there are fewer people there.
Does this sound Machiavellian? It is not. There is some interesting academic research on “passive face time” that you might want to read: Managers’ perceptions of employees are affected by their presence in the workplace. You can turn that to your advantage.
Do you have a question, problem or dilemma for Office Therapy? Do you think you have better advice for our readers? Email: isabel.berwick@ft.com. We anonymize everything. His boss, colleagues or subordinates will never know.
Five notable stories from the world of work
-
American students face recruiting challenges after Gaza protests: Financial Times reporters investigate how being the public face of university protests or being very vocal on social media has impacted students hoping to land prestigious jobs.
-
Professional makeup artists help executives maintain appearances: When you see an incredibly well-presented woman on stage, she may have had a makeup artist visit her at 6 in the morning. Emma Jacobs discovers a tip we can all use: using powder on stage (for men and women).
-
Employers face a climate conundrum: Pilita Clark digs into the numbers to find out how many younger workers are changing jobs to work at organizations taking positive action on the climate crisis.
-
Why a jacket is a man’s creation: I’m not a man, but I like jackets and Robert Armstrong is a fantastic writer. As work clothes become more casual, his advice is universally applicable. Great comments from readers too.
-
Kathryn Mannix, palliative care doctor: “It’s a lot about listening” Having lunch with the Financial Times is always a good read, but if you feel like work is taking up too much of your life, Emma Jacobs’ interview with the author of With the end in mind It will help you refocus on what matters.
This week’s giveaway
Alex Edmans is a professor of finance at London Business School and someone whose work is often recommended to me by Working It listeners and readers. In his new book, May contain lies, addresses misinformation, wherever it occurs. The subtitle is: “How stories, statistics and studies exploit our biases and what we can do about it.””. Much of this is relevant to the workplace: Alex suggests how we can create corporate cultures that encourage open debate.
We have 10 copies to give away, via this form. All entries received before 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11 will be eligible.
A few words from the Working It community
is the big one FT Business Women Summit next week in London (come say hi if you’re there; I’m moderating a panel on the future of work) and the price of flexibility. The answers may not fit in 45 minutes, but we’ll try… 🙆 ♀️)
Preparing for this event reminded me that last month’s newsletter on CEO rotation —and particularly the shorter tenure of women at the top—has continued to generate many interesting messages.
There’s a huge appetite to examine the nuanced reasons why women can get to the top, but not stay there. Here’s Rachael Saunders, deputy director of the Institute of Business Ethics, who makes a comment she hasn’t seen before:
“Female CEOs are still a novelty in large companies, who immediately become a high-profile public figure and will be asked to give many more talks, support women in leadership initiatives, etc. a diverse background. This is additional pressure on a role that is already heavily pressured.
“As a consequence, female CEOs may feel they have to take on more public roles sooner than they would have chosen. That public profile could also lead to unrealistic superstar expectations from the board and stakeholders.”
There is a lot to say about this. Send me your opinions by email: isabel.berwick@ft.com