Bill Gates is wrong: Leaders need to adapt to the future of work

One example of a misplaced high standard? Bill Gates. In the early years of Microsoft, he put his prodigious memory (Gates claims to still remember every line of the first complex software program he ever wrote) to an unusual purpose: He memorised employee licence plates. Since Gates often slept on his office floor and “didn’t really believe in vacations,” a quick glance out his window revealed which employees had come in early or stayed late.

A similar example involves a boss of mine who walked a circuitous route to his office every morning so he could see who had come in early — he clearly defining early as “before him” — and later left by the same route to determine who was still working.

Later, Gates would say that he learned “to be a little careful not to try and apply my standards to how hard (others) worked.” Makes sense. No one cares as much as a company founder. (No one should care as much as a company founder.)

But that’s not the only way Gates, like my old boss, applied the wrong high standard. Each mistook presence for effort, even though presence is a poor proxy for performance. Each mistook hours worked as a sign of dedication, even though time spent on the job is a poor proxy for commitment.

It was hardly a coincidence most of my colleagues’ computer monitors faced away from their office doors; that way they could spend the time waiting for our boss to leave on non-work tasks.

One person regularly stayed so late our boss held him up as the example we should all aspire to. In fact, he wanted to make extra money, and used all that overtime to work on a website for a business he planned to launch. (It’s also no coincidence he was the first person I heard use the term “win-win.”)

Think that’s unusual? Think again: Researchers estimate companies waste over $100 billion per year paying for idle time in the US. Other research shows that the average employee is only productive for five hours in an eight-hour day. (Some studies claim the number is closer to three.)

Imagine how adrift Gates, and my old boss, would have felt in the early days of the pandemic. Overnight, memorising licence plates or stalking hallways to measure effort, dedication, and commitment became impossible.

Maybe they would have shifted to scanning Slack to see who was still active. Maybe they would have sent emails early or late in the day to see who responded. Maybe they would have scheduled conference calls for non-standard hours. Or maybe, like countless bosses, they would have shifted from tracking hours worked to evaluating tangible results.

And reaped the benefits. Studies show employees who attend less meetings and face fewer interruptions are significantly more productive. (When you must hold meetings, research shows employees left alone in the morning to make progress on their own tasks are much less likely to multitask during afternoon meetings.) In a broader sense, a watershed study found that remote workers were 13 percent more productive.

Makes even better sense. When people know what to do, understand why what they do is important, and are given the freedom work in the way that best suits them – not you – then good things happen.

Which is the real point of the return-to-work or not conundrum faced by many leaders. Employees clearly appreciate the flexibility and freedom of remote work; employers clearly appreciate the perceived value of getting employees back to the office. At Apple, that disconnect has led to a seemingly endless cycle of return-to-work deadlines, employee pushback, and revised deadlines.

Yet return-to-work policies are another standard that misses the point. Where, or when, or how long it takes for an outcome to be accomplished should be driven by the outcome itself. Goals inform processes; processes don’t inform goals.

Need employees to collaborate? Intensity, not frequency, of interaction sparks productivity and creativity. A study of teams found the most effective teams didn’t constantly communicate. Instead, individuals spent hours – and even days – concentrating on their own tasks, then occasionally communicated in bursts, based on need.

Need an employee to complete a crucial project? Set expectations. Create timelines. Thoroughly describe the desired outcome and its value to the organisation. Then ask the employee how they think they can best accomplish the task. Maybe that will be in-office. Maybe that will be remote. Maybe – likely – that will be some form of hybrid schedule, whether temporary or semi-permanent.

The key is to first decide what you need to accomplish. Only then should you decide how, and where, and when. The only expectations or standards that truly matter is the value you, and your employees, deliver for external and internal customers.

Great leaders use that standard to determine the best way for them, and their employees, to accomplish those goals. Because presence doesn’t indicate performance. Nor does visibility indicate value.

That was true before the pandemic changed the way we work, and always will be.

Jeff Haden, writer, speaker and LinkedIn influencer