Why Future Nature Of Work Need Us To Talk Moonlighting…
Once upon a time, a rug merchant saw that his most beautiful carpet had a large bump in the centre. He stepped on the bump to flatten it out – and succeeded. However, the bump reappeared in a new spot not far away. He jumped on the bump again, and it disappeared for a moment, until it emerged once more in another place. Again and again, he jumped in his frustration, until finally he lifted one corner of the carpet and out slithered an angry snake.
Peter Senge, the famous Systems guru shared this story in his book. The Law of the Fifth Discipline. It leaves the reader with a vivid image of failure to examine the underlying nature of conflicts at work – that just become the snake under the rug. Even destroying the snake is not enough. Those old enough to remember or those who have read Indian history, would know that during the colonial era, there were many snakes, and the British offered a bounty for capturing them that led to an increase in snakes, as people started to breed them for the reward money. So, the intent could have both intended and unintended consequences.
The issue of moonlighting (including holding dual full-time employments, or a supplementary commercial activity on weekends, even freelancing quietly as a gig consultant) has been in vogue for several years – perhaps decades – involving many levels in the organisation, irrespective of whether we were unaware of it or had turned a blind eye to it. The issue is quite widespread but was felt more acutely in the post pandemic world, particularly in the IT and ITES industry sector, with clients’ demands for an acceleration of digital technology.
It is critical that we look at the issue deeply, without brushing it under the proverbial carpet. Many scholars and practitioners ineptly look at the ‘surface phenomena’ that align with a behavioural concept rather than ‘deep structures’. Secondly, apart from the western universals, which have their basis in a positivist-empiricist mode of enquiry, the psychology lends itself to ‘predicting and controlling’, with scant recognition to the essential role of and impact from local culture. It is as if there is a universal seed, and the soil does not matter (in this analogy referring to the context). In doing so, it denies other forms of understanding behaviour, and as a result the aspect of ‘culture’ remains marginalised.[iii]. The author opines that ‘Kaal’ (time), ‘Desh’ (place) and ‘Patra’ (context) are critical to a psycho-social understanding of an issue deeply.
*Constant renegotiation
In general, we are constantly (re)negotiating the boundaries between systems, forming in-groups and by corollary, out-groups. When negotiation between boundaries is ineffective, one experiences either ‘invasion’, or one is invading into the ‘other’s’ boundaries. This gives rise to an interesting phenomenon. For instance, the subject of ‘moonlighting’ and the ensuing debate can easily be one of ‘employer- employee’, ‘legal-illegal’, ‘ethical- unethical’, ‘right - wrong’. With it, arises the stress levels as much as unpopular and vociferous emotional situations, with equally predictive (and probably biased) responses.
The consensus amongst HR experts seems to be that there is a Need for Gig Work – and that this ‘type of work’ is here to stay. Not that it was new, to begin with. But the severity and the magnitude of its usage has increased in the past few years. There are definite pros to this type of work, especially in terms of building width of experience, linear experiences, ownership of work projects (and the employer brand), and overall capability beyond just providing extra income.
The experts debated several potential benefits that include Overall efficiencies (especially in the knowledge economy) with the ability to replicate or deploy a concept or design across several applications that are non-competing and in gaining better access to scarce resources that are better 'shared' rather than 'hoarded' and 'under-utilised'.
Many experts argued that rather than oppose and fight this market trend, it would be business sense to build this as an Organisational Design Response, and as an emergent reality of the Future Nature of Work. There is very real opportunity of re-imagining the organisational capability by offering linear experiences and development opportunities that such gigs can offer when well-designed and critically built with trust and respect amongst all stakeholders.
The experts, while being supportive of offering ‘alternative experiences / skills / income’, are equally worried and cautious about Managing Transparency and Conflict Handling. Transparency should be encouraged in a manner where employees should be open to disclosing information in advance, and at the same time organisations should define conflict in a manner which does not overtly favour the organisation but accepts gig work as part of a model of the future.
Of course, this would be Role Dependent. From the perspective of employees, there may be job roles that lend themselves more easily to this type of work versus others. And from the employers’ perspective, the risk or concern shown by organisations is higher when there are challenges around measuring output or work by the employee for the organisation.
However, the experts opine that there is an Importance of Full-Term Employment. In full time employment, employers are liable for a lot more than the salary including social security, insurance, social space for employees and most importantly, creating a psychological contract of care, which is provided by best employers and is not even legally mandated. Limiting the narrative to payment for eight hours of work makes full-time employment much more transactional than it is today.
While a few organisations have successfully managed high engagement with gig workers, it can be argued that in general, there is a Lack of Engagement. Quality of engagement in full time employment with employees depends on a two-way interest – employers investing heavily in growth and development of employees and employees delivering for the organisation. In large organisations, the relationship with employers seems to have become much more transactional and employees are treated more like numbers, where employees are just resources paid to deliver for the value they produce.
The expert group deliberated keeping in mind the Customer (Client Interest). As companies work in a global environment, they must be much more careful of confidentiality of information and data connected to their clients’ projects. Employers are liable for any breach made by employees that can have huge repercussions, leading to huge penalties, shifting of business to other geographies, and huge reputational loss. Hence there is a strong need for awareness among employees of the repercussion of their actions.
The expert group formulated a few tenets for consideration:
1. Choice is non-negotiable: Employees have the right to do meaningful work and use time as preferred. Responsibility is inherent to choose. Employers will be supportive of responsible freedom.
2. Balance is crucial to talent marketplace : We need to build a framework keeping in mind the needs of clients, investors, employers and employees equally. Providing freedom without a framework will lead to anarchy. Hence Freedom within Framework!
3. Transparency is a corner stone: Any positive step in the direction to drive engagement will need transparency from the employer in their contracts and employees in terms of what they can offer and what else they want to do professionally beyond the contract with the employer. Equality and Equity decries, ‘Not yours, Not Mine, but Ours”.
4. Creative design is key to Workforce and Workplace: While the design of the organisation will be fixed at any point of time, organisations will need to be much more flexible in their approach to design to ensure equity in work and org design as multiple work.
5. Embrace the Change: to move from resisting or tolerating to actively embracing this talent segment and be seen as doing so in a challenging talent ecosystem.
While the debate still carries on, good employers have always been receptive to their stakeholders, starting with their employees. After all, trust is binary, and building a trust-based discussion needs listening as the key ingredient. Well, the discussion on what’s the Future Nature of Work has just begun…
Steve Correa is an Executive Coach and OD Consultant, with a diverse industry exposure in segments like pharmaceuticals, office automation, FMCG and telecommunications
