Why Don’t Employees Go Above And Beyond Anymore?

This episode touches on the theme of Practical Psychology.

In this episode, we explore the psychology behind shifts in work habits with our current workforce. We dig into Social Exchange Theory and The Psychological Contract to better understand the personal and societal factors impacting how people engage in their work.

Our prescription for this episode is to better understand the factors of the workplace, things like Job Security, Employee Wellness, Compensation, and Consistency. They are the foundational elements that make up The Psychological Contract, and how we balance the Cost/Benefit of our work.

Past Episode Referenced:
S1 E10:  What To Expect From The Labour Market In 2023? (Fragile Grip Principle)

S1 E15: Is Job Dissatisfaction Really That Dangerous?

S1 E21: How Do You Motivate Employees Through Meaning And Purpose?

S2 E3: Why Do Companies Default To Using Policies As Weapons?

S 2 E16: Employee Recognition, Culture Initiatives, Advice For New Managers - Answering Listener Questions

S3 E1: Is Employee Loyalty A Thing Anymore?

S4 E13: Equality Or Equity — Or Is It Special Treatment? 

To talk more about Job Dissatisfaction and the 7X3 Rule, reach out to us at info@roman3.ca or through our LinkedIn page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/roman3

About Our Hosts!
James is an experienced business coach with a specialization in HR management and talent attraction and retention. 

Coby is a skilled educator and has an extensive background in building workforce and organizational capacity. 

For a little more on our ideas and concepts, check out our Knowledge Suite or our YouTube Channel, Solutions Explained by Roman 3.

Transcript

[ANNOUNCER]: 0:00

Breaking down everyday workplace issues and diagnosing the hidden sickness,  not just the obvious symptom. M. Our hosts, James and Coby.

[COBY]: 0:10

Did we lose a patient?

[JAMES]: 0:12

No, that's just my lunch.

[COBY]: 0:14

Hey, thanks for joining us. I'm Coby, he's James. And let's get  started with a question. Why don't employees go above and beyond anymore?

[JAMES]: 0:29

Yeah, I hear this question in a lot of different forms. and at its core, it's the  same question as why don't people want to work anymore? Or, you know, comments like this. Lazy.  This generation is lazy and unmotivated. And the problem is that the questions assume a framework  that no longer exists. We. That the societal. We have spent decades changing the norms of  the workplace and environment and employment more broadly. And for the past 30 years, our messaging  and our actions really haven't been aligned on this. We've told generations of workers that the  key to a successful life is through education and long term employment. And this disconnect between  what people have been told and all of their lives and what they actually experience in the  workplace has created much more transactional, more precarious, serious work environment.  But then on the other side of this, we also have the fact that we've got this participation trophy  mentality in our society with a need for constant validation, avoidance of difficult, gritty work,  or even just the idea that they shouldn't have to do certain work or certain parts of their job  that they don't like. So that's a lot, for an intro. But. And I'm going to try not to  soapbox on this too much because I could take us down a whole variety of rabbit trails. I'm  going to attempt to let you take the lead on and focus on the, the psychology of what's happening  here. What I want to do is, rant about how everybody is getting it wrong on all sides.

[COBY]: 2:17

Okay. So when you say you're going to try to not go on too many tangents,  I'm not sure if you're going to try or if you're. I think you're going.

[JAMES]: 2:26

Gonna try to try.

[COBY]: 2:27

Yeah. Okay. All right. There we go.

[JAMES]: 2:28

Classic Simpsons.

[COBY]: 2:29

Absolutely. So, yeah, no, like, you're. You're right. This is a very common. Maybe the  question itself isn't the most common, but it's definitely the right sentiment,  that we hear and we see all. All over the place. And it's a big.

[JAMES]: 2:44

It is a big discussion point, though. Right? Like, it is. There's a lot to unpack with  this because there have been significant changes in the way that we approach work. There have been  significant changes in the way that we talk about work. Our relationship with work has changed over  the years. The expectations around work have changed over the years and all of those things  have, are leading to these types of questions. Because we're assessing or we're evaluating today,  you know, the actions that people take today based on a standard that existed 20, 30, 40 years ago.

[COBY]: 3:20

Absolutely. And I think that you know like again it is important for us to look at kind  of the reality and the both sides of it that it is that employees do engage with the work differently  now. But it is also that there is an old school mentality that's been normalized by the,  by older generations that have had a more I guess, balanced approach to what work should be and what  work is and the rewards that go along with that. But I mean whenever we talk about anything very  nuanced and kind of very complex, I always like to bring it back to the psychology behind  it because to me that's where the place to start looking for answers and how do we fix this really  kind of lives. Because when we're dealing with people the psychological core is kind of where  a lot of that stuff will give us some clarity. So there are two things that I want to get into  that might help us unpack this really complex but also very again prevalent question. And the first  one that I want to dig into is what's called the social exchange theory. And this is kind of like  the social exchange theory is kind of the why people do put effort into things and why they  don't. And it's largely a subconscious like cost benefit analysis where the idea of like it's the  mental psychological formula in our, in our head. It's the equation of outcome. The thing that the,  that we are going to do is the benefits of the outcome subtracting the costs that it takes on us.  So the benefits are things like the you know, are like things like, you know, like companionship,  emotional support and social status and financial security. So when we do something so the amount  of work that we do it it's things that we want are, we want the financial security, we want the  status, we want the sense of belonging, we want the kind of the human connection. But that's,  we get, but to get that we're subtracting from the negative expenditures that come with  it. Like the amount of time it takes out of our lives to do it, the financial cost of doing it,  the emotional stress and cognitive labor that it costs or opportunities that we miss by doing  this and not doing something else. So when we look at work, with work as the outcome,  we see the amount of work that we're going to do in our approach to work and our efforts in  work as being that cost benefit of being. It's the benefits that we want to get. The financial,  security, the status, the emotional connection, minus the cost and expenses and the stresses and  the missed opportunities. And if the costs are higher, then the benefits, then we get into a,  negative, which is when our work ethic and our value of that work is seen as a negative.

[JAMES]: 6:17

So in a crude sense, it's if I'm not paid enough, I'm not going to work hard  is right. That's, that is, that's one element of what you're talking about here. but it also,  like what kind of comes up as you're talking about that is the idea we've talked about before of,  really understanding what your value proposition in the labor market is. Right. What are you  actually offering people? Because if you want to combat this, ah, what was it? Social exchange.

[COBY]: 6:51

Yep. Social exchange theory.

[JAMES]: 6:53

Social exchange theory, the, the informal cost benefit analysis,  then you need to be able to really articulate what the benefits are. Right? Yes. Employment  is a benefit. but if that employment doesn't provide me with the ability to  put food on the table, then I'm not going to be overly enthusiastic about going to work.

[COBY]: 7:16

Absolutely. And it's the idea of. Because like,  we're looking at it from the idea of why. What is, what is in this, this agreement,  this exchange of my, of my labor for wages? What is in it for me? Well, the, the expectation when  we start a new job is that the benefits are going to be greater than the costs.

[JAMES]: 7:41

Right.

[COBY]: 7:42

And often that is. And again, that's a pretty low bar  in my opinion. but when we start thinking about things like, again, maybe it is the

[JAMES]: 7:53

wages, but that's a very subjective evaluation too, is it not?

[COBY]: 7:58

It's not so much subjective as it is very personalized. Because,  I mean, when you think about a job, you think about the benefits are, I've got, you know,  I have the financial benefit I have, like, you know, the financial security I have. I have  the status that the job gives me. I have access to, you know, like potentially a pool of people  that I can build kind of companionships and kind of a sense of belonging with. I  have a sense of purpose attached to it. like, you know, when you look at all Those things,  you know, how you weigh each of those things individually is personalized and subjective.  But also when you look at the cost of it, well, if I for this job have to travel a larger time,  then I'm giving up more of my invested time and into this. If my cost of living based on  my personal home situation means that, you know, I'm still m making more money but still not enough  money, then there is that sense of, there's, you know, that there, that this becomes, you know,  I'm better off than I was, maybe my old job, but I'm still not in a situation. If the work,  if the culture is very like toxic or very stressful, then the emotional weight of  that. And then we talk about, then there's things like the spillover effect we talked about a couple  episodes ago where the stress of my work spills into my home life. and I feel like I'm, I'm not  going anywhere or that, or that I've capped the, you know, I can't progress in this job.

[JAMES]: 9:21

This cost benefit analysis is never going to get better for me. I've reached the top.

[COBY]: 9:25

Exactly. Then there's idea of like, you know, so what am I missing  by being stuck in this dead end job in a sense. Right. And that is something that,  this is the social exchange theory, something that we kind of run through our minds kind of  every morning when we wake up. Like, you know, like to like get the motivation.

[JAMES]: 9:43

Is it worth getting out of bed this morning?

[COBY]: 9:45

Kind of. I mean that's often when, and that's often something that  does pop into people's minds when they're, when they're, you know, when the alarm clock goes  off, I'm like, oh, do I really want to do this today? Or is it the idea of, is it beneficial  for me to do this today? Right. but I mean these are the kind of things that are, are constantly  going through our minds. These are the, we're constantly doing this math, playing with this,  this equation of outcome equals benefits minus cost as we're playing around with this  stuff. But these are the things that are impacting employee motivation, they're impacting work ethic,  they're impacting employee loyalty, all this kind of stuff. But it's largely like this is  the piece that we have to understand that is not necessary is why one job perk benefit, you know,  salary range, employment opportunities, location is not going to be the same for all people because  it's very personalized in what the job offers, how people analyze the cost benefit analysis.

[JAMES]: 10:52

Interesting. So how does this. So what's kind of running through my head is more on the.  Over time there can be a diminishing return on this cost benefit. So from a business perspective,  I have what I think is a fair exchange. Right. We pay a fair wage for the amount of work, energy and  effort that goes into it. people, the environment may not be perfect, but it's not toxic. You know,  our managers are trained and supportive. But over time the kind of the idea that familiarity  breeds contempt. Right. The longer that you're in this environment without any type of change,  there is this, and we've heard this from clients in the past of it feels like it's never enough.  I keep, I, I do more or I provide what I think is a fair and reasonable wage and it feels like  it's never enough. And how does that kind of play in with this social exchange or the  idea what. The way that I'm thinking about it is kind of a. There's a diminishing return on  these pieces over time. It's just, it feels like people want more and more and more. And less out of the actual job.

[COBY]: 12:21

Well, I mean there is this natural inclination for us to find  comfort in the work that we do. And comfort is usually about. We want the task to be easier,  more predictable kind of, you know, that more, the everyday has more predictability into it. Right.  and then there is the expectation of like, you know, that there's, I mean from,  from a wages perspective, the wages are never enough. There's two sides to that too. Right.  There's sides of it. Well, when you talk about our, our modern economic landscape  and inflation's increasing because wages are enough. And that is one. One side of it.

[JAMES]: 13:01

Yeah. If your wages haven't increased in the last five years,  then you've essentially had a pay cut.

[COBY]: 13:06

Right. So there's that. But I mean, let's say, let's set that aside. If there's been  economic stability and inflation hasn't, has not increased over time, but people are still wanting  higher and higher wages, like the annual raises and stuff like that. There is a sense of like,  of entitlement for in, in the way that we, the way that we get accustomed to the work. Right. Because  it is one of those things where there's a sense of I want to be able to kind of like see progression  in my work somewhere. and if the job hasn't changed, my title hasn't changed, then we kind of  look at that and say, well, Then I expect the kind of the, the costs or the salary to improve because  people kind of want to. Want to avoid stagnation while at the same time there's that drive,  but there's also the drive towards complacency. People are almost like I want more comfort,  but I also want you know, to avoid stagnation. So there's that bit of a cognitive dissonance of, of.  Of trying to. I don't want that. I don't want the job to get any harder, but I also want to be paid  more. And there is a sense of, of that duality. But part of it is, is being kind of clear in your,  in your organization about, about leveraging the benefits and then the knowledge of the social  exchange theory to kind of say well then let's actually look at how can we articulate the. Both  the benefits and people aware of the cost to kind of like make sure that they're not just  doing a subjective formula that's full of their own biases, that they're actually doing something  that may be part of the orientation. Talking about how there's a sense of purpose here, how there's a  sense of meaning and looking for that progression and avoiding stagnation. And there's a sense of. I  think that going back to kind of stuff that we've talked about in past conversations about purpose  really does play a large role in that. If I'm M. Not. If, if the benefits are starting to be. Have  a diminishing return, then part of it is tapping into things like internal motivation to be able  to find those pieces. Because it isn't fair to employers to constantly be dumping more and more  into the benefits pieces. If, if all the benefits are very transactional, but if you can find that  sense of internal spark, then internal motivation, we can actually start to have people see greater  value in the benefits and actually see maybe even potential A diminishing return on the costs. Like  it is possible to do that and usually it is with purpose is where. Is where that will actually lie.

[JAMES]: 15:43

Purpose and recognition seem to be the two non monetary elements that we see  consistently being able to move. progress on these elements. There is. Yeah, there's a component here  that I'm. That I'm still not wrestling with but frustrated by maybe m. And it's really around the  You touched on it earlier around entitlement. there's a. And we have seen this and we have  heard this from clients many times that there's this feeling that, you know, one,  I, I started doing this program, I implemented this program because I really wanted to do  something that showed my team that they were valued. And now it's become an expectation,  it's no longer a perk. I think the clearest example to me was probably a client years ago,  around Christmas, bonuses. the company started, was doing very well, had successive years of you  know, significant improvement year over year in their profit lines and they started being able to  give everybody Christmas bonuses. And then the company hit a couple years of really difficult  times. and that what was a, at one time just, it was a perk, it was an extra, it was literally a  bonus, became an expectation. And people actually got mad that they didn't get their Christmas bonus  despite the fact that the company was actually losing money that year because of the economic  environment more broadly. So there is that component that frustrates organizations that  frustrates leaders in. Why do I bother trying to do some of these things when it feels like  everything that I do gets misinterpreted or undervalued by those who I'm trying to support?

[COBY]: 17:58

And that is a real thing that really does happen. But the diminishing return on  those benefits typically are what happens when the benefits are primarily transactional. When they  are, you know, the idea of, of a blanket action of everybody gets their Christmas bonus and then  people get kind of like accustomed to it and then it's a diminishing return on the benefit. But,  but the benefit is very transactional and, and if you think about it, a bonus, an annual  bonus structure is the same type of transaction that we get accustomed to with, with salary. So,  so that it almost like, it almost like melds into that part of our thinking and then we just  count on it the same way because of that piece. Whereas organizations that are trying to ah, to  not make the employee experience a transactional experience are the ones that are seeing a much  less common situations where the benefits become. Have a diminishing return because  you're trying to understand the employee's individual needs. Like looking like, having  recognition be almost like based on preferences and understanding of the person looking at  connecting their sense of purpose to their work in a way to really kind of inspire them to find  their own intrinsic motivation. And those are the pieces that allow us to sidestep this. This  what's. What may seem like an inevitable slide into diminishing returns, but recognizing that  if we actually can make an employee experience that, that, that values belonging and values kind  of understanding your, your People as people and not just waving a magic wand saying everyone gets  the same thing. I mean largely it's, it's about valuing equity over, over equality.

[JAMES]: 19:52

Right.

[COBY]: 19:52

Giving everyone the same thing makes things very transactional. Understanding what  people need to bring their best self to work and to give you their best work is how you  avoid making those transactional pieces. Because you're 100% right. Social exchange theory will  create a diminishing return on the benefits if the benefits are strictly transactional.

[JAMES]: 20:14

Yeah. And I just want to follow up on that piece because

[COBY]: 20:25

foreign.

[JAMES]: 20:25

You can only really, in an environment that doesn't, that is, where there's a lot of  discontent or there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the role or you know, people are frustrated about  a lot of you know, the factors of the workplace, it's going to be really hard to move to a true,  equity standpoint because it may be interpreted by people as favoritism. Right. Why is this person  getting something different? And those types of comments really only happen when people  are discontent with their jobs. And I just want to. I know we've talked about this at length in  other podcast episodes, but it's really important to state that the shift from equality to equity  is paramount. Like it makes a huge difference. But you have to do the work, you have to do the  foundational work first of making sure that the factors of the workplace, that the environment  is not actively causing job dissatisfaction, that people are not actively frustrated with  the reality of the work, itself, or also you're just going to create a system where people find  more fault in you, and get more frustrated that somebody gets something that they don't.

[COBY]: 21:48

Well, actually, I think you're really onto something with connecting job satisfaction  to this. Because I mean, if you think about about the benefits, part of this cost benefit  analysis with social exchange theory is things like your salary, things like your job security,  things like your benefits, things, you know, those types, those types of things. But I mean,  if you have good job security and good salary, but you have terrible working conditions or you  have terrible safety or wellness, or wellness, supports are minimal or nonexistent, or you've

[JAMES]: 22:23

got a manager that is on you all the time and micromanages and is in your way.

[COBY]: 22:29

Right.

[JAMES]: 22:30

All those pieces play a huge role.

[COBY]: 22:32

Well, it does then, because that's what that those gaps of this  factors that create dissatisfaction increase the cost so much higher that the benefits,  diminishing return is accelerated. Because I mean, it's not that things are neutral and the value of  the benefits is declining. It's that the benefits, just can't compete. A few really good benefits,  a great salary with terrible wellness and terrible or terrible job security and poor  working conditions is not going to be enough to swing the, the equation in your favor.

[JAMES]: 23:08

So you either need to raise the benefits or reduce the cost. Right? Raising the benefits  is going to cost you money. Reducing the cost is going to cost you time and effort.

[COBY]: 23:19

Right. Or, or, but I mean it's. Well actually I would say both would cost you time,  effort and money to, to raise the benefits and, or, or to improve or to limit the cost.  But it's a matter of limiting the cost creates a much greater roi. And the idea because as,  because, because, because as you said before about diminishing returns that when staff. So,  so let's say that they paid their employees. So there's a workplace that had awful job  security, awful safety, awful wellness programs and awful working conditions,  but they paid $100 an hour. Right. That people may find that cost benefit analysis worth it.  The social exchange is something that they will take, but eventually that diminishing return on  the benefits will say that maybe in three years because things haven't improved on the cost side,  everything is still terrible. That $100 isn't going to cut it anymore. So now  they're going to need to raise that. Right. So it becomes almost like an endless need  to increase because you're trying to pay all those things off. Whereas submitting, you know,  or like lowering the salary or having less, you know, dedicated towards salary growth to investing  that into improving the working conditions and the safety and the wellness things or even

[JAMES]: 24:36

just keeping the salary the same. But investing in the conditions is going to  be a more significant payoff because that value that you're presenting to people  gets higher and higher without you having to actually raise the dollar per hour salary.

[COBY]: 24:54

Absolutely. So, and that is, is the other part of the diminishing returns pieces is,  is just that is that it's, it's about what is the, the, the benefits like the salary or  those companies is really having to make up for. Right. And I mean so if there's a better balance,  then the diminishing return is, is much less of an issue and you can actually start to see a much  higher, higher roi. But trying to reduce the costs than always just trying to increase the benefits.

[JAMES]: 25:23

Cool.

[COBY]: 25:24

All right. I want to talk about another thing that really kind of relates to this and  is something that is called the psychological contract. Now this is something that does again,  it does have a bit of an overlap with the social exchange theory. But the psychological  contract theory is kind of the unwritten set of expectations or the kind of like subjective  reciprocal obligations between an employee and their employees employer. So it's, it's, it kind  of is, it dictates an unspoken commitment such as things like we will provide you job security,  we'll provide you career bro. Career growth. And you know, and that is for the exchange of  you providing us with your motivation, your high quality work and those types of things. And that  is kind of what is always kind of written into kind of every like employment relationship is  this psychological contract of you know, that you know, there's these unwritten expectations,  these mutual obligations, this reciprocal benefit to the, both the employee and the employer. And  one of the things that goes back to our question of why don't employees go above and beyond anymore  Is a lot of the times employees see employers breaking that contract and that tends to be the  catalyst for why they maybe aren't providing the same quality of work. They're not providing the  same quality of loyalty to the organization or everything else like that too. Because  employers have done something like things like we talked about before, institutional betrayal,  fracture of trust, micromanagement. These things actually can break the psychological contract  and can cause this situation where employees become disengaged. They don't, they don't feel,  they think and trust their people. They, they, they pull back or they do the whole quiet quitting  things. All those things like that too are usually an outcome of breaking the psychological contract.

[JAMES]: 27:25

Yeah, and this goes to what I kind of started with in my,  I won't even call it an answer, more of my rant at the beginning. and this is,  this is a frustrating point for me because I can see it, how it's progressed very clearly over the  years in that. And we have, we have constantly told people like the, the social con. I've  always heard this kind of more referred to as a social contractor social contract of employment,  where we've kind of created this expectation, that and we tell people from the time that  they are in grade school that education and long term employment is how you succeed in,  in life. It's how you get to that point where you can earn enough to buy a house, to have a car,  to raise a family, to go on vacation. That's the social contract that we have told people  for years and that has in many ways been broken repeatedly through mass layoffs,  through I mean through the 80s and 90s. It was mass layoffs and sending manufacturing,  overseas. Right. It was outsourcing of, jobs. Now it's the gig economy and precarious work and  a reduction in, benefits, whether that's health insurance or pensions or even just redefining the  way that that happens from defined benefits to, you know, 401ks and you know, metrics.

[COBY]: 29:06

It's.

[JAMES]: 29:07

This is a. This is a problem that is not unique to any individual  company. It is something that we as a society have chosen to move away  from. And it is something that we as a society could choose to move back to.  But it requires an awful lot of political and social capital and will to do that.

[COBY]: 29:32

True. I mean, we talk about it from like a sociological standpoint. The idea of. Yeah,  that. I guess to word. as you said, the social contract of employment is  something that is more of a generational, again, sociological component. But when  you think about the psychological contract, that's actually more of a defined, unspoken,  unwritten agreement between an individual employee and individual employer. Right.

[JAMES]: 30:01

Okay.

[COBY]: 30:01

And. And I think that that's. That's something that we can probably be a bit more. We  have a bit more, agency to kind of resolve. Right. Because again, we've talked about, you know, like,  you're 100% right. Things like mass layoffs and reduction of. Of benefits and those kind  of things like that are examples of employers breaking the psychological contract. But I mean,  we also see cases where employees steal from employers where there, you know,  where there's a sense of like, you know, things like. Things like. Things like. Things like  misappropriation and stuff like that. That. That breaks it on the m. On the employee side. Right.

[JAMES]: 30:41

Things like quiet quitting. Things like some of these,  issues that we've been dealing with specifically over the last, you know, almost 10 years, really,  even starting before COVID These are all examples of kind of this break in the  psychological contract and the social. What I think is important around the. The difference  between kind of the. The more broad societal. Social component and the individual psychological  component is that the social component predisposes us to a certain. To look for a certain outcome. We  almost enter in. Like it's. It's so prevalent in our society now that we have a baseline  expectation of betrayal. and it's almost like we have to, as leaders and as organizations to  actively combat that predisposition to, you know, the mentality that this isn't going to work out.

[COBY]: 31:46

Well, you're right. But I think that actually a more. Maybe a more important Point  to look at. When you're looking at the. The psychological contract is the two sides. So  the employee side and the employer side is not an equal, you know, on equal footing because.  So let's say that an employee were to break the psychological contract and steal from the  employer, right? The employer will, will not just deal with that one employee. They will  look to make that never happen again. And they'll usually react by creating new structures, rules  that end up like limiting options or, or perks or benefits from all employees. They'll often  overreact to an employee breaking psychological contract. And this is how we talk about things.  Like we talked. We did an episode about this. We talked about using policies as weapons,  right? So like we talked about in, in that workplace where there was ah. Or that episode  where there was a friend of mine who had a, Had a, company car and one of, you know, and that had  been the normal thing where families could drive the company car and everything like that. It was,  it was a normal thing that it was just like a car that was just provided by the company that you  just tracked your mileage, but anyone could drive it and your family. And then one employee in this  nationwide company took advantage of it and the company overreacted and they removed all those  perks from everybody. And then, And then they. And they used it as a weapon of. And they use  a weapon of retaliation by removing that. That. So that one employee broke the psychological contract  with the employer and the employer overreacted and broke the psychological contract with all  the other employees by punishing them for the actions of the one. And that's probably a. Almost  like the catalyst for what might be feeding the sociological impact is that is that an employer  usually breaks the contract for many employees all at once, where an employee only breaks the  contract between them and the employer. So understanding those, those dynamics.

[JAMES]: 34:10

Okay. Isn't an interesting. Yeah, I. And I, I agree with you. I hadn't, I wasn't  considering it in that way. but that's, that's the type of. From an organizational perspective,  we found a liability, right? We found a place where we are vulnerable and we need to correct  that. But the, the way in which we correct that, you know, maybe a less punitive way would be,  you know, if this is a, core ah, breach of policy, then it's disciplinary, probably even  looking at grounds for termination depending on the severity of the incident. That's a,  that's a way of reinforcing the rules.

[COBY]: 34:59

Right?

[JAMES]: 35:00

Removing the benefit to everybody only serves to make everybody frustrated with you.

[COBY]: 35:09

Right. Yeah. Because, because again like the contract is, is in essence I,  as the employee will give you hard work, loyalty, good performance in exchange for you providing me  with the job security, the fair compensation, the quality of life, the perks and benefits and the,  the sense of kind of harmonious and supportive culture that I need to give you my best work. And  that's usually the core of how we provide these contracts. But then when a company  potentially weaponizes a policy, uses like a. Weapons of retaliation, weapons of oppression,  things like that, then that breaks that again sense of harmony, of reduction, of a perk or  benefit that I've come to rely on. or the, or honestly it's the, it's the removing the equality.  The things that I need to give you, give you my best work and treating us all as a number is part,  is part of that fractured piece that breaks the contract which has employees to stop saying what's  the point of going above and beyond anymore when one person ruins it for everybody else?

[JAMES]: 36:23

Yeah. So you talk about on the employee side, it's, it's hard work  performance, and loyalty.

[COBY]: 36:32

Mm.

[JAMES]: 36:32

And I know we've actually, we've had a full podcast episode on this,  but can. Can loyalty actually be included in the psychological contract anymore?

[COBY]: 36:45

Yeah, I mean, I think that if

[JAMES]: 36:49

we, I mean we, we need to define how we are considering because I think loyalty  from an employer perspective feels different than loyalty from an employee perspective.

[COBY]: 37:00

Well, and this is the whole problem with. And honestly we didn't  even talk about the fundamental flaw with a psychological contract  is that it is unwritten unspoken mutual obligations and there's no clear single.

[JAMES]: 37:14

it's not like it's an employment contract that  has defined terms and outcomes and you both sign your name to.

[COBY]: 37:21

Right. Yeah. Because employee loyalty is. I will stay with you for as

[JAMES]: 37:27

long as you meet my expectations or

[COBY]: 37:30

you know, or you know, I will probably stay here for at least two years where the  employer can be like, well, employee loyalty is 10 years minimum. And I mean. And though. And that  misalignment is just built into something that's unwritten set of expectations or,  or these kind of like unspoken commitments. Right. So I mean there are those natural things  in general. I mean like one of the things that is a, could be a beneficial component to trying  to actually leverage this thing that already exists psychological contract is employers  actually bringing up these pieces to make them a little bit more almost overt and be able to  have these as part of the conversations of. There is this again, this is actually. No,  this is what we talk about. We talk about employee expectations. Right. So the whole  idea of the seven by three rule is trying to kind of clarify these expectations that employees have  for your workplace, which is their component to the psychological contract. And as an employer,  if you bring these things like job security, fair compensation, kind of work life balance,  wellness, working conditions, and you are overtly transparent about what you're providing them  and why. And why, yeah, that does make this psychological contract piece that's, that is  happening. Every single employee at every single company has this with their company. Whether they  think of it or not, it exists in their, in their, in their heads. But if you are overt  and you actually try to create almost like this tangibility, this transparency with it, it makes  it a stronger employee and employee relationship because you're getting on the same page. Right?

[JAMES]: 39:12

Yeah. And I think I just want to capitalize on the why for a second because  that is a missing component that we've seen, companies who are actually doing fairly well,  in a lot of the, the factors that we discuss. And when we go in, we often, we always, we've  said this a million times. We start with, some sort of investigation diagnostic to understand  the realities and get firsthand data that we can actually use and act on. And the difference  between what employers provide and the perception of employees about what they provide is vast.

[COBY]: 39:54

Yeah.

[JAMES]: 39:55

And it comes down to. Well, we, we do these things, but we don't talk about it. We  don't tell anybody that we're doing this, or we don't tell them why we're doing this. You know,  we have these policies in place or we provide this benefit, or we, you know, have this structure  specifically to support employee growth and development or to, ensure that you have the tools  and resources that you need or to make sure that you have the job security that you can rely on.  this position and doing it is not enough. You have to tell people that you're doing it, and you  need to tell them why you're doing it. And then you need to tell them that you did it. And then  you need to remind them that you've done it. And then you need to be consistent in how you do it.

[COBY]: 40:43

Yeah. Because you're right. And this is something that we. Is a common conversation point  when we meet with new clients, because often we do our P3 assessment. So we look at policy,  practice and perception when it comes to kind of these things like the factors of  the workplace that cause dissatisfaction and things like psychological safety and  inclusion and those kinds of pieces. And largely it is kind of humorous to, well,  to us when we say they actually have some good policies and

[JAMES]: 41:12

the well designed policies that are actually designed to support  employees in their work, to provide them with autonomy, and to provide them with  structures and supports. Like it's, it's fascinating to me but employees.

[COBY]: 41:31

But the perception is that those things don't exist because employees don't know about  them and managers don't practice or the practice they really practice is that managers don't know  that they exist either. So they don't, they don't ensure that employees are using them because. And  so they're so they're buried in these manuals that no one ever reads. That's never. The employees  don't even know even exist because they're not onboarded with them. And it's just this kind of  hilarious disconnection. But I do think we can kind of get lost on that. But I do want to kind  of circle back to. I was talking about kind of again, just kind of like summarizing the question  again and looking at what are some things that can be helpful for people to know that when they're  wondering how can we fix this problem, employees don't want to go above and beyond anymore. And one  of the things that I also think is important for us to talk about a little bit too is the idea of  the social exchange theory and the cost benefit analysis. And this idea of the psychological  contract does kind of play into a lot of what we've talked about before with our fragile grip  principle, right? With the idea of the harsh grip, the weak grip and the stable grip. Because when  employees see a work value where the cost benefit analysis of social exchange theory is in their  favor, it's often because an employee's feel that the employers are holding up the psychological  contract and, and that they are providing them the stable grip, which is the sense that they  feel supported, they have, they have what they need. They do feel that their, their employer  is looking out for them individually. Whereas if the employers are too harsh and they're like too  restrictive or they're too, or they're surveilling people rather than you know, like building an  autonomy structures or ever like that, then that's the employer breaking the psychological contract  by kind of, by overly scrutinizing or overly like again like, like oppressing their, their employees  which, which brings up the costs part of the cost benefit analysis and throws off a social exchange  theory. So employees give, give less and then the Weak grip is when they are too lax on stuff  or they let people go too easily. And again that. And And that ruins job security, which breaks the  social contract and that throws off or increases the cost part of the cost benefit analysis. And,  and so employees put in less effort and less time and less work because what's the point?  And it is something that is really important for people to realize that these are the methodologies  and solutions that can help you look at how can we not just try to like fix the symptom of  employees not going above and beyond anymore, but to understand the sickness which is the breaking  of the social contract and the imbalance of the costs over the benefits in the social exchange

[JAMES]: 44:23

theory and not just having things written down and tucked away somewhere,  but actually making sure that it exists in policy, it exists in practice and it exists  in the perception of your workforce. And I just want to capitalize or expand a little bit on the,  the harsh and weak grip. Because I see this so much so prevalent in remote and hybrid work.  Because there's one of the, one of the things that a lot of people that we still haven't, we,  the royal we or the, the societal we still haven't figured out is how to manage people when we are  not hovering over their shoulder. So we tend to default to, well, I just need to trust them that  they're doing their jobs, hands off. Hopefully it all works out. Not a great business strategy.  and that's kind of indicative of the weak grip and people just feel lost or adrift or this is where  you get into a, ah, time theft or people just, you know, performative staring at their screens  and not really doing anything. or you have the harsh grip grip. And this is where we see a lot of  corporations moving or companies moving towards or it's the surveillance mentality of well,  if somebody's not physically in the workplace, then I need to make sure that they are at their  desk for eight hours staring at the computer. We're gonna have time tracking software and  key logging software and you know, we will track their bloody eye movements,  to make sure that they're not staring blankly at a screen, but they're actually doing like  it is so invasive and harsh that it destroys any semblance of a social or psychological contract.

[COBY]: 46:26

Absolutely. And I mean, no, you're right, because I do think that the question  of why don't employees go above beyond anymore is probably one that is that you said, as you said,  it's being asked all over the place in different ways. But I think it's probably a much more  burning question when it comes to can we be successful with a remote or hybrid team if we  don't know why employers are not going above and beyond anymore? And I should say that the idea of,  using the weak or the harsh grip with our employees and either not giving them enough  direction, enough clear expectations, enough autonomy, enough accountability, enough clarity  on what they should and shouldn't be doing, then we, you know, by again falling into the weak grip,  then we're breaking the psychological contract and we're increasing the costs of the cost benefit  analysis. And if we're overly, if we're overly monitoring them or we're overly limiting what  they can do and we're, and everything has to be like triple checked and, and quadruple meetinged,  then we're also again, breaking a psychological contract and we're also increasing the cost  of the cost benefit analysis. And that is, and that is the two things that we do see the most  often. And that is the 2 re. And that is two of the main reasons why the return to work or  return to office mandates are becoming, you know, are still, are still coming because.

[JAMES]: 47:51

And let's be honest,  the return to office mandates are also a breaking of the psychological contract.

[COBY]: 47:58

Well, talk about increasing the cost benefits go back to, okay, now I have

[JAMES]: 48:02

to, now I have to commute and I have to get my kids off to school and I have to.

[COBY]: 48:08

Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah, all, all, you know, I have to deal with the stress of, of, of  the, of the office interactions or I, or you know, or the. Again, a lot of people saw that the,  benefit of working from home was equivalent to, I think it was like a 15% increase in their salary.  So, so some of them see it as like almost like a reduction of their salary doing that. So again,  probably just as significantly, increases the cost, probably cost benefit analysis  and breaks the psychological contract too. So I mean, so really the answer is you need to look  for the solutions to help resolve or to help create the stable grip in your organization.  And a lot of that is having a clearer idea of the job dissatisfaction components and  looking for ways to build greater autonomy in the workplace, better accountability in  the workplace. And those are going to be the things that will allow for us to again uphold  the psychological contract and to try to increase the benefits that are the cost benefit analysis.

[JAMES]: 49:12

Yeah, I just. The accountability piece is huge and that's the piece that  most get wrong is that they, A lot of companies don't understand how do you  actually structure accountability when you're not surveilling people?

[COBY]: 49:28

Yeah, yeah, you know what, that's unfortunately that's a really good point.  But we're bringing it up at the very end of the podcast because that's probably like,  oh, that's that like I, yeah, I think that maybe providing some clarity, some,  some ideas around that should be potentially a focal point of us going forward. Because I  mean it's not just remote and hybrid teams that need that. I mean, I mean we go to organizations,  we often build that in as part of the operational infrastructure that we. Because that's a key to  scalability. So often when we go in to try to resolve operational efficiency challenges and  create more scalable workplaces, accountability frameworks are usually a huge component of that.

[JAMES]: 50:15

So maybe that is accountability frameworks that are tied to the realities,  the context of the organization and the industry and tied specifically to the  outcomes necessary for the specific roles.

[COBY]: 50:28

Right.

[JAMES]: 50:28

Like it's, there's a formula here, there's, there are things that can be done,  but it requires a slight shift in the way that we think about managing teams.

[COBY]: 50:42

Yeah, I'm thinking that we, yeah, we may want to look at, digging into that deeper  and kind of talking about some of the stuff around that ah, in future episodes because  I think that that's going to be something that I'm hoping you listening are piqued  your interest to speak by that because that if you can figure out how to get that part right,  a lot of the other stuff around this, around looking at the benefit side of cost,  benefit analysis and psychological contract really does make that stuff  a whole lot easier to actually do. Okay. But I think that about does it for us.

[JAMES]: 51:13

Yep.

[COBY]: 51:14

So for a full archive of the podcast and access to video  version hosted on our YouTube channel, visit Roman3.ca/podcast. Thanks for joining us.

[ANNOUNCER]: 51:23

For more information on topics like these, don't forget to Visit us at Roman.3ca.  Side effects of this podcast may include improved retention, high productivity,  increased market share, employees breaking out in spontaneous dance,  dry mouth, aversion to the sound of James voice, desire to find a better podcast…