Workplace buzzwords of 2022 with a deeper meaning

Workplace buzzwords

of 2022 with a deeper meaning

Behind every term that goes viral on social media is a deeper implication for how the world of work has changed and is changing. We delve into a few phrases that became popularised this year By People Matters Editorial Team

2022 saw a boom in workplace-related terms that went viral. From quiet quitting to productivity paranoia, there was a catchphrase for every kind of workplace phenomenon or behaviour. But underlying the social media back and forth were deeper implications and commentaries on work culture and expectations. Here, we highlight some phrases that were heavily debated during the year, and pierce the veil to shed some light on their real significance. WHERE PROXIMITY BIAS EXISTS, IT IS A SIGN THAT MORE TRAINING IS NEEDED FOR MANAGERS

Quiet Quitting

Possibly the most talked about phenomenon of the year, this phrase became the centrepoint for a storm of debate. It surfaced concerns about generation gaps, recriminations about health and well-being, and lengthy conversations about productivity, performance, flexibility, and more.

What it really means It's not about quitting, in fact; it's about doing no more than what is expected of the job role. It means fulfilling mandated responsibilities, but not taking on anything additional unless there is a genuine incentive; meeting the minimum requirements, but not going above and beyond at one's own expense. And although the term is new, the behaviour itself is in fact well entrenched in every workplace. The majority of employees do no more than what's expected of them, and see nothing exceptional about this.

The implications For this term to have resonated so much suggests that, throughout this entire year and likely long before, the majority of employees have felt overstretched. Some may have felt that their goodwill is being taken advantage of by employers who enjoy getting extra work out of them without having to pay additional compensation. Most certainly would like to wind down the pace of their work enough to rest and recuperate. The takeaway? A lot of people have been stressed and overworked this year, and desire more focus on their well-being.

Proximity Bias

An under-discussed concern, this phenomenon is the flip side of flexible and hybrid work. It refers to the conscious or unconscious bias or favouritism shown by people in positions of authority towards those employees who are in a closer physical proximity.

What it really means In practice, proximity bias means a massive disadvantage for those who work flexibly. An employee working from home may find their work rated less favourably than that of someone working from the office, even though the quality and quantity of both employees' output is identical. This is particularly problematic when we consider that employees working flexibly or remotely are disproportionately more likely to be women, parents, those with disabilities, or those facing challenges with on-site work – in other words, those who are already disadvantaged in some manner.

The implications The fact that proximity bias is a problem suggests that a great many managers still do not have a strong grasp of performance management. They may not even be aware of their own blind spots with regard to the visibility of employees' work. Without a proper understanding of what performance or productivity actually means in the context of their teams' work, these managers and their teams will inevitably face additional challenges in workplace fundamentals such as the allocation, evaluation, recognition, and reward of work. The takeaway? Where proximity bias exists, it is a sign that more training is needed for managers.

Productivity Paranoia

Similar to proximity bias, productivity paranoia refers to managers' fears that employees will not be productive if they are not in the official workplace, but where proximity bias manifests as passive or even unconscious detriment to remote workers, productivity paranoia involves deliberate actions.

What it really means This term was coined by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who used it to criticise employers' practice of monitoring remote workers. Figures from Gartner and other research houses suggest that at least 60% and up to 80% of employers in Europe and the US may have been using monitoring software this year, in comparison to less than 20% when the pandemic started. Given the estimated number of remote workers in either region over the last few years, this in turn means that at least half the workers in Europe and the US have been monitored while working in their own homes at some point.

WORKPLACES AROUND THE WORLD ARE CHANGING TODAY, WITH POWER DISTANCES BEING CLOSED AND MORE VALUE BEING PLACED ON EMPLOYEE INPUT

The implications Just as clinical paranoia is several steps up from regular fear, productivity paranoia implies that employers are resorting to extreme and irrational behaviour to enforce employee productivity. Monitoring software skirts legality in jurisdictions with more stringent privacy laws, and presents a significant reputational risk if companies are caught 'spying' on employees in their own homes. For employers to use such software, especially with remote workers, means the level of trust with employees is so low that they consider the employee's normal behaviour to be a greater risk than legal or reputational damage. The takeaway? Nadella was probably right when he said that companies have to get a grip on themselves before they damage the employeremployee relationship irreparably. Psychological Safety

Not entirely a new concept, psychological safety is the natural complement to empathy and vulnerability, which emerged during the pandemic as a key trait both employers and employees want to see in leaders and managers. Now, employees are looking to find psychological safety in the workplace, and leaders are striving to provide it.

What it really means Psychological safety is about a sense of security – where people feel safe to participate, without fearing that they will be be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes. Research by Google identified it as the foundational metric impacting team performance, and subsequent work by the International Institute for Management Development highlighted it as the basis for improving DE&I in the workplace.

The implications Employers pursue the creation of psychological safety because they want people to speak up – about their wellbeing, about the challenges they face, about the ways that the workplace can be improved. And employees desire psychological safety because they want to be able to bring their whole selves to work – because they want to speak out, be heard, and make a difference for the better. This shift toward openness holds less of a takeaway than the other phenomena described above; it is primarily an indicator of how workplaces around the world are changing today, with power distances being closed and more value being placed on employee input.