Authenticity and office culture

This is the final installment in my three-part series on being authentic in the workplace.  In part one I argued that it was worth speaking up in meetings as I believe there are bigger regrets from having not said something than from saying something wrong.  In other words, its a good thing if colleagues see the real you and what you can contribute.  In part two I argued that you should be careful at work events and take responsibility for how you act in front of colleagues.  I feel that the definition of work event should be stretched to cover most interactions with colleagues in and out of working hours.  Exceptions can be made for friendships, but if you don’t normally hang out with someone outside of work, assume it is a work event and behave accordingly.  This final part is on how we can be our authentic selves at work and what limits may apply.

I think it is worth mentioning from the outset that there has been a revolution in thinking on this topic in the last decade.  When I started my career, it was about conformity and working within existing structures.  Some significant changes in the workplace have turned much of this on its head.  Firstly, there was the rise of the tech sector as digital start-ups grew into massive companies and employers.  These companies, emerging out of campuses and garages, decided to do things differently.  Growth targets could be achieved, and standards maintained without employees wearing formal business attire.  Everything from hours of work, to what an office looked like were shaken up as these companies focused on results.  As the distinction between the technology sector and every other sector that relies heavily on technology diminished, the competitive demand for talent allowed these changes to spread.  Flexible working conditions and flatter organizations, mean that office environments are more like a blank canvas that adapt to the needs of the workforce rather than something rigid that the workforce is forced to adapt to.

The second change is the increasing importance of diversity and inclusion programs to help companies better reflect the markets they serve and more importantly widen the pool of contribution and thinking away from a narrow homogeneous group.  These programs demand that the workforce be their authentic self, because only when people are their authentic selves, do we get the full benefit that diversity of thinking can bring.  The quality of training and outcomes probably vary considerably between companies, but its prominence has pulled us away from lazy assumptions and opened the door to a broader spectrum of ideas and approaches in the workplace.

The third change was the pandemic and the ability for many companies to leverage cloud technology to continue operating remotely.  This event changed the relationship between staff and the office for good.  If staff could work flexibly during a global health crisis and still meet their targets, why was it necessary to go back to working 5 days a week in the office when it was safe to do so.  This change feels like one where the final compromise has not yet been found and maybe industries and companies will opt for different approaches until the most effective method of attracting and retaining staff is balanced with the most effective method of delivering value for shareholders.  What is clear is that the genie is out of the bottle, and I doubt I will ever work in an office environment that is similar to the first 22 years of my career.  The office as source of conformity was already weakened by the Tech sector and DEI programs, and now it’s grip on the way people act and think is probably finished.  Flexible working should allow companies to reduce their required sqft per head.  This in turns usually shifts workspaces away from allocated desks and offices to shared desks and collaborative working spaces (meeting rooms or break-out areas).  The hierarchy of floors and executive corner desks may survive in the short-term, but the move towards more open, naturally lit workspaces for all staff feels inevitable.

The trends all point to working environments where people can be their authentic self.  If we exclude technical workplaces where a uniform or working practice is necessary for safety, what guardrails or limits, if any, need to be placed on how we present ourselves? 

In January 1999, three months after I started work and two weeks after buying a suit from a cheap, faux-Italian emporium in London called Ciro Citterio for £120, my employer announced they were going “business-casual”.  The suit probably wouldn’t have lasted more than a year but acquiring a new wardrobe for work on a graduate salary with only a week’s notice was quite hard.  I wasn’t the only one struggling as a few months later a memo of sartorial dos and don’ts was sent to all staff.  The main problem was people coming to work in inappropriate clothes.  Obvious examples included anything that may be considered beach wear or leisure wear.  But other examples included denim jeans, sneakers and t-shirts without collars, all of which I have since worn to the office, usually on dress-down Fridays.  These days I tend to stick to smart denim, smart shoes and polo shirts, but that represents a considerable shift in my attitude over the last 25 years.   When I need to meet clients, suppliers or attend industry events, I will wear a shirt and a jacket (never a tie).  There has emerged a degree of trust that staff will know what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate to wear, and a company only needs to intervene if someone is completely clueless.  I guess the golden rule is to wear the outfit that allows you to achieve your best results, whilst projecting an image of professional competence and without offending others around you.

In terms of how you conduct yourself, if you are respectful of others around you and make it easier rather than harder for yourself and others to do their work, the company should not need to set any artificial guardrails.  Management still needs to be agile and responsive as challenges inevitably emerge.  If you get any group of people together there is a high likelihood that some people may not get on, their approach to work may differ or a disagreement may emerge.  If handled respectfully by the staff themselves, then no management involvement is required.  If it isn’t then the situation will deteriorate, and a manager will need to intervene.  So here is the rub, companies want people to show up authentically at work.  But if someone’s authenticity cuts across another member of the team and their ability to show up to work authentically, then some level of reflection and moderation will be needed to ensure that the entire team feel comfortable in the working environment.  To be blunt, if someone’s authentic self is acting in a manner which is abusive or disrespectful, then their authentic self probably won’t fit in the workplace.  Inclusivity has limits and those limits are making people feel safe and secure in the office or at any work event.

So that’s it really.  Companies need to provide a space which is safe and secure and where staff can turn up authentically and do their best work.  The number of official rules should be limited to those that are genuinely necessary for safety, and adherence to local laws and regulations.  Everything else can be relegated to guidelines to be invoked if necessary.  Staff should expect to be trusted to make good decisions, but management are there to course correct if their decision-making isn’t as strong as it needs to be.  Authentic behavior that is abusive and disruptive and doesn’t align with the culture and values of the team needs to be addressed quickly.

Next week’s post is returning to the subject of speaking up in meetings.   In my post two weeks ago, I said why it was important, but I received some questions about how to do it in practice.  I am happy to wrap up everything I know about this subject into a post and hope you find it useful.