The abridged article is available to read courtesy of the HRDirector in the March 2025 | Issue 245 publication here >
The full article is published below.
Market forces are driving businesses to change their Employee Value Proposition (EVP), particularly in relation to where employees work. The new EVP battleground is rapidly becoming how firms can better support, train and develop their employees as a wave of presenteeism bites.
There is a value exchange between employer and employee. In return for cash – and other benefits – the employee “sells” their labour to the employer. The employer exists not to provide work, but to grow and make a profit. Ideally, the employer attracts the best employees but does so on an efficient and optimal basis that enables them to achieve the more important objective of financial success.
The “perfect” EVP works equally well for the employer and employee
This isn’t currently the case, and we are witnessing an EVP reset, as employers respond to an array of negative indices. Customer service standards have dropped year-on-year to a current all-time low according to the latest CSAT barometer[1] published by The Institute of Customer Service[2]. We’re also seeing employers in the UK scaling back their hiring plans amid a slump in business – and Labour Government – confidence.[3] Rapidly rising inflation, falling growth and employee productivity levels are now the lowest in Europe.
Research from the Learning and Work Institute has found that UK training spend per employee has fallen by 26% in real terms since 2005 and that the EU average investment in training per employee is double that of the UK.[4] Businesses are also facing a growing metal health crisis within the workforce. Calculations from insurer, Vitality, estimate that mental health issues and absenteeism have cost UK businesses in the region of £138bn in the last 12 months.[5]
A couple of years ago, an EVP that didn’t offer ‘work from home’ (WFH) or, at the very least, a hybrid option, was also deemed uncompetitive. If recruiters were to be believed, it was a basic human right to WFH! Now, large employers appear to be rushing to demand 100% ‘work from office’ (WFO). Presenteeism is the new workplace reality. The only conclusion you can draw is employers see WFH/hybrid in some way contributing to the wave of gloomy indices outlined above.
The only reason an employer would mandate employees work 100% from the office is because there is a business benefit to doing so
The data exists to support the premise that the business works better (on a number of levels) when employees are present and not when they are hybrid or WFH. Comments that vindictive employers are taking this opportunity to inflict suffering on hard working employees belongs in a conspiracy theory or some dystopian Trade Union handbook from the 1970s! It is complete nonsense.
But, then again, so is the belief that an employee can pick and choose where they work (home/office/hybrid). If that choice doesn’t work for the employer, as unpopular as it may be with some in the labour market, the employer has every right to deny the employee that preference. And this is exactly what is happening. The EVP is changing – and the marketplace would appear now to conclude that anything other than WFO is commercially sub-optimal and bad for culture, morale and wellbeing!
For certain, some employers will move slower than others, and hybrid may well form part of their EVP, but only so long as it is economically viable to do so. Now that some very high-profile employers have broken rank and have set ultimatums on employees returning to the office, many others are sure to follow. You may have a different opinion. But the reality says that if these early presenteeism brands outperform their WFH/hybrid competitors, then what started in 2024 as a trend will be a tsunami in 2025 and beyond. Ultimately (some) employee preference will be ignored in the face of harsh economic reality.
There is an argument that some firms in certain markets could perhaps exploit this situation and offer a more attractive EVP that includes hybrid. I am certain that there will be exceptions, and we may see a division in the labour market, with employees who value WFH/hybrid so highly, they are not only prepared to move jobs, but they are also prepared to move sectors and (perhaps) even sacrifice salary. It may very well be that salary sacrifice is a requirement, particularly if, as a result of this policy decision, the employer is less competitive. Ultimately, the EVP must work for the employer first and employee second, which doesn’t preclude it from being mutually beneficial.
But the EVP is far more sophisticated than a paycheck and a WFH/WFO policy
And, as employers have suffered the negative performance and wellbeing consequences of a panicked and pandemic-forced transition to WFH/hybrid, so many look likely to suffer the negative consequences of an inflexible – or at the very least – substantial dilution to what has become the new normal: hybrid working.
The fact is that, in parallel to this office exodus, the workplace has become a great deal more complex and demanding. Not only did employers ship employees out of the office en masse, they also double-downed on technology and “digital-first” customer engagement strategies, so that much of the workflow that now remains is, by default, the more complicated cases.
In many cases, the rush for self-serve and “digital-first” has landed badly with UK consumers and, as a result, customer-facing employees now have to deal with customers more “triggered” than ever before. The ICS’s UKCSI January 2024 report found that a staggering 58% of customers abandoned chatbots after they failed to resolve their issues.[6] This translates to over half (53.7%) needing to escalate to a human agent.
The report also showed that 45.4% of UK consumers surveyed would avoid companies altogether due to poor technology integration in their customer journeys. Additionally, 34.3% would actively dissuade family and friends from interacting with these businesses. The UKCSI identifies key reasons for this growing customer discontent. More customers are experiencing complex issues, and resolutions are taking longer, significantly impacting customer satisfaction.
Customer-centric regulation – like Consumer Duty in the financial services sector – has increased over the past decade and is forcing firms to entirely re-engineer their business models. The workplace, certainly in some sectors, is increasingly almost unrecognisable from the same workplace pre-2019.
How many employers can genuinely defend the investments they have made in employee training and development over the past five years to enable employees to deal with this complexity, disruption and increased customer/peer emotion? How many can honestly say that a lack of material change in how their employees are trained, developed and supported has in no way contributed to the current falling productivity and rising mental health issues we’re seeing?
I suspect many/most C-Suite individuals reading this will acknowledge they still don’t do enough to support employees in a WFH/hybrid environment. They probably also know that the investments made in employee wellbeing solutions haven’t delivered at the anticipated levels. The most common complaint we hear is that, whilst the solutions and assistance exist, very few employees take advantage of it, and the output data (rising mental health issues and falling employee wellbeing levels) is getting worse.
The UK has the lowest spend on Learning & Development in Europe and the prevailing thinking appears to be the delivery of the lowest cost training in the shortest possible amount of time. There would appear to be a big disconnect with this strategy and what employees actually need.
We hear and see firms, especially in some sectors, telling us that staff attrition, amongst new recruits, is at a record high, particularly with Gen Z recruits. Apparently, they are quitting because they cannot do the job. Undoubtedly a function of considerably extended “competency curves” caused by the reduction in peer-to-peer learning, a consequence of employees being out of the office three, four or even five days per week.
Regardless of whether you think I am “just plain wrong” (as one commentator suggested) about a wave of presenteeism sweeping the UK workplace, the reality is that employers need to significantly up their game in relation to employee training, development and support, regardless of employee location.
If perchance I am right, then this new wave of EVP, of which presenteeism is a reality, is bound to fuel anxiety, disharmony and discontent amongst some employees. It may well trigger some low levels of additional attrition, but if it isn’t planned for and managed, it is likely to fail to deliver the expected financial benefits and simply increase workplace mental health challenges.
The answer is cultural and must come from the top
Employers need to recognise that employees need way more support than they currently provide and treating all employees as “sheep” from a training and competence perspective doesn’t work. Employees know this and frequently cite their discontent at the level of workplace learning and development support. It isn’t new news. It is just now becoming the priority.
In fact, it is actually a contributing part of the current problem. In an increasingly complex world, employers must embrace Learning & Development technology that treats every employee as an individual, is respectful, gentle, fosters continual learning, and simultaneously monitors wellbeing whilst ultimately monitoring in-role competence.
Competent employees are more confident, they enjoy their work more, they are more loyal as a result, their mental health is better, and they are more productive, even if working hybrid. So regardless of your policies on WFH/WFO, the EVP that will attract and retain the best talent will overtly include a highly supportive culture of individual employee continual learning and development and competency optimisation.
[1] https://www.instituteofcustomerservice.com/research-insight/ukcsi/
[2] https://www.instituteofcustomerservice.com/
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertolsen-1/2024/12/09/britains-job-vacancies-tumble-as-business-confidence-sinks-following-labours-budget/
[4] https://learningandwork.org.uk/news-and-policy/why-2024-should-be-a-year-for-employer-investment-in-training/
[5] https://www.ftadviser.com/protection/2024/02/01/workplace-sickness-costs-uk-138bn-but-what-can-advisers-do-to-help/
[6] https://www.instituteofcustomerservice.com/product/ukcsi-jan-24/