📮 𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 Executive Order #14067

And I'm sure you know that I've spent 40 years making successful financial forecasts.

Below is an important message from one of our highly valued sponsors. Please read it carefully as they have some special information to share with you. Employees with non-traditional working arrangements have been punished in pay and promotions alike. As flexible work becomes the norm, can we end the penalty? I It's almost hard to remember a time before the pandemic when working flexibly was the exception, rather than the norm. Whether flexibility meant keeping different hours to the normal 9-to-5 structure or the ability to work outside the office, those whose jobs were structured atypically stuck out as different to their colleagues. And often, they paid a price; those who did secure a flexible role were likely to find that their working pattern came with a pay or progression penalty linked to negative perceptions of flexible work. This especially impacted women, who were twice as likely to work flexibly as men. Yet the upheaval we've experienced over the past two years – and the fact that millions of employees of all kinds across many industries have proved that flexible work can be highly productive – may have shifted these perceptions. Leaders and decision-makers who might previously have frowned on flexible working have had the chance to experience a different way of working themselves, and many found they liked it. In fact, numerous major organisations have stated they do not plan to make a full-time return to the office, in spite of easing lockdown measures in some countries. With such a significant shift, those who want to work flexibly may well be hoping that negativity associated with non-traditional working patterns will have disappeared. But it may not be so simple; presenteeism remains a powerful force, and work cultures still favour those who spend more time with managers. With these factors in play, will the flexible work penalty come back into full force when workers are asked to return to the office, however many days a week – or have the last two years changed perceptions around flexible work for the better? A "want" rather than a "need" Traditionally, unconventional work set-ups were much more likely to be the preserve of mothers juggling childcare with the demands of their career. Yet the enforced shift to widespread remote working – and the fact that many people have subsequently embraced it – has meant that flexible work is no longer reserved for female caregivers. Three-quarters of UK workers now say work-life balance is more important to them than it was pre-pandemic, and employers are starting to respond to this. The number of jobs advertised as remote has increased by roughly 20% since 2020, as demand increases, and both companies and staff alike have begun to understand that wanting to work flexibly is not necessarily negative or due to a lack of commitment. For many workers, it's become about how their career fits with their lifestyle – it's a 'want' rather than a 'need' that can help increase their quality of life. There will always be a bit of a premium for being physically in the office – Alok Alström "Flexible work carried much more stigma pre-pandemic," says Molly Johnson-Jones, co-founder of Flexa, a company that assesses the flexible working policies of major organisations. "Before, those who hadn't worked regularly from home assumed that it meant working less hard. Now, because everyone has been forced to work from home and they've still been productive, those pre-conceived notions of what working from home means have been dispelled." The number of newly created flexible roles reflects this mindset shift; pre-pandemic, finding a flexible role could be a battle, with demand vastly outstripping supply. In the UK only 15% of jobs were advertised as flexible in 2019, significantly less than the 87% of employees who wanted flexibility in their role. Now, however, millions of roles have that flexibility built in, whether shifting to entirely remote or hybrid set-ups. This could be good news for women – the comparatively high uptake of part-time work, remote schedules and reduced hours among working mothers has always been a key contributing factor to the gender pay gap. Yet demand to work flexibly from men increased by 30% during the pandemic, and research suggests that the number of men requesting to work remotely is now comparable to their female counterparts. Although widespread remote working hasn't been the norm for long enough to observe progression and pay patterns among newly flexible workers, experts are hopeful that increased normalisation of flexible work could potentially reduce its negative impact on careers and even lessen gender pay gaps. "Flexible working was historically associated with women more than men, and particularly working mothers," says Johnson-Jones. "By removing the need to have a 'reason' to request flexibility and giving everyone the freedom to choose how to work, we can make true progress on gender equality." Presenteeism remains a powerful force – and flexible workers may still miss out on opportunities to build strong ties with colleagues and managers (Credit: Getty Images) Presenteeism remains a powerful force – and flexible workers may still miss out on opportunities to build strong ties with colleagues and managers (Credit: Getty Images) The problem of presenteeism Yet, as employees trickle back to the office and more workplaces initiate hybrid working policies, some worry familiar problems of presenteeism might stifle progress. "There will always be a bit of a premium for being physically in the office," says Alok Alström, founder of the Future of Work Institute, a think tank based in Sweden. Working remotely could prevent workers from developing a strong relationship with "the person who is controlling your salary and role, particularly if you haven't met key decision-makers. It also means that you are less likely to be invited to social events, which are often where relationships are built within companies." Enforced remote working offered up an idealised version of a more equitable workplace – after all, it's difficult to penalise someone for spending less time at the office when everyone is working from their kitchen table. As yet, however, there's little evidence to show that the level playing field wasn't simply a temporary benefit of lockdown. As Alström argues, it's possible human nature might win out, with office bonding mechanisms offering a natural advantage to those who choose to show up to the workplace in person. Experts also point out that, far from being a utopia for flexible workers, the post-pandemic office environment could heighten competition between at-home staff and those who show up to the workplace. "The democratisation of flexible work might make those who don't go for this option stand out even more," says Thomas Roulet, an associate professor in organisational theory at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School. "It's perfectly intuitive to believe that the flexible work penalty will lessen as everybody gets access to flexible work, but it might simply mean that those who stay away from flexible working make an even stronger signal of commitment to their employers." The post-pandemic office environment could heighten competition between at-home staff and those who show up to the workplace Presenteeism is a powerful force that's been blamed for everything from the widespread burnout of office workers to the productivity lag in many economies. The idea of "showing up" is so deeply ingrained in working culture that Roulet believes some employees may continue to pursue it, even when less rigid work structures are an option, deepening the divide between flexible and non-flexible staff. And this wouldn't just be a problem for people who choose to take advantage of newly adaptable workplace policies. "Hyperflexibility might become the norm, but there are implications for how people take advantage of these policies," he says. For office-based workers, too, "it might actually generate more burnout, as some employees feel more responsible and engaged, and so might be less likely to take time off, for example, whilst others take full advantage of the flexibility options available to them." Preparing for change The only way for workers to know if the penalty is mitigated for good – or perhaps even worse than ever, as Roulet fears – is for working patterns to stabilise in some way so employees and experts alike can collect data. Of course, work hasn't yet settled – and with the rise of a new virus variant, it seems increasingly likely we'll stay in flux for some time. It may be a while until we can see how the flexible work penalty plays out in a world that is newly – and seemingly – permanently accommodating to formerly unconventional work patters. But that's not all bad. This holding pattern gives companies time to continue evaluating their policies and practices as well as examine their biases, as workers are pushing them to do. It creates some hope that we'll soon find a fairer and more equitable way of working, whether workers are at office desks or kitchen tables. Dear Reader, Jim Rickards here… And I'm sure you know that I've spent 40 years making successful financial forecasts. All the success in my career is based on my ability to spot the next moves of the central bankers. I've written numerous bestselling books, including The Death of Money and Currency Wars. I've worked at the highest levels of the finance and intelligence communities… I've been inside the secure meeting rooms, called vaults inside of the Pentagon and the CIA. I've been inside the West Wing of the White House. I've been inside the U.S. Treasury and talked to Tim Geithner. I've been inside the boardroom at the Federal Reserve and I've personally had conversations with Ben Bernanke. All my work has pointed to a dire financial forecast, which could play out as soon as May 2, 2023… And I'm sorry to say, most economic forecasters are looking in the entirely wrong direction… They're keeping an eye on the Federal Reserve, when the real move will come from somewhere else… Specifically, I'm looking at President Joe Biden's recent Executive Order #14067. The consequences of this order could be enormous… And the threat to your money will make the recent inflation we've seen pale in comparison. I just recorded a free public warning, where I go through what Biden's new Executive Order means for you, and for America. Remember: We don't have much time to prepare. This threat is real. And it could accelerate on May 2, 2023. Go here now to view my new public warning. Sincerely, Jim Rickards Editor, Paradigm Press Micromanagement has always existed. But remote work has birthed a new swathe of helicopter bosses, and workers are suffering. R Rarely does an hour go by without Alison, a software engineer, hearing from her line manager. "If she sees my Slack status has been switched to 'away', then I can bet within the next half an hour there'll be an email in my inbox checking how I'm getting on with a project," says the 24-year-old, based in Bristol, UK. "We're all required to attend a morning meeting every day where we're asked for updates on what we're working on – even though they're often long-term pieces of work that hardly change from one day to the next." The micromanagement wasn't nearly so bad when the team were based in a physical office, says Alison. But since the pandemic, the healthcare provider she works for took the decision to turn many of its technical roles permanently remote. "Even though we were busier than ever during Covid-19, which is when we went remote for the first time, my manager doesn't seem to believe any of us are capable of getting our work done without her constant input. It's infuriating." Micromanagement isn't a new phenomenon, of course; there have always been bosses who keep close tabs on their staff. But as the increase in workers performing their roles remotely has fuelled insecurities in some managers, experts say the pandemic has birthed a new swathe of remote helicopter bosses: think helicopter parents, who hover over their children and constantly monitor them, but for the workplace. A July 2020 study in the Harvard Business Review, which surveyed more than 1,200 people across 24 different countries, showed that a fifth of remote workers felt their supervisor was constantly evaluating their work, and one-third agreed their supervisors "expressed a lack of confidence in their work skills". They weren't imagining things: the same study showed 38% of managers felt workers simply weren't as productive at home, and 40% had low confidence in their ability to manage remotely. Even now, many managers are struggling to lead remote teams using the traditional tools they once relied on. These remote micromanagers bombard staff with constant check-ins and calls, unnecessary Zoom meetings or overly detailed instructions. And experts say it's doing significant damage to their employees. Remote workers who feel micromanaged by their boss are less engaged, less motivated and less capable than ever before. Remote micromanagers have driven some employees to go to great lengths to keep their status lights as 'active' (Credit: Getty Images) Remote micromanagers have driven some employees to go to great lengths to keep their status lights as 'active' (Credit: Getty Images) 'We all want control' Two leadership styles have increased since the switch to remote work, explains Katleen De Stobbeleir, professor of leadership and coaching at Vlerick Business School, Belgium. Neither, unfortunately, is positive. In one style, managers disconnect or even forget about their staff working from home, leading workers to feel isolated or alienated; the other style is the polar opposite: micromanagers. "They're constantly checking up on employees, and even pushing them to come back to the office," says De Stobbeleir. They may book endless video conferences, insist on being included on every email or deliver ultra-prescriptive project briefs that give no room for creativity or independence. There are clear reasons for the increase in this type of overzealous supervision, believes Arielle Sadan, a New York City-based executive and leadership coach. "Micromanagement has always been an issue that's primarily rooted in a lack of trust between a manager and their team," she says. "When we're in a remote environment, and a manager doesn't have direct physical oversight of what their employees are doing, then that mistrust gets amplified," she says. "We all want control, and for managers that aren't able to see their employees, that can feel like an even more acute need." The spike in reliance on digital platforms and tools can make it easier for managers to peek over an employee's virtual shoulder, too. Status indicators that show whether employees are in front of their computers can become a crutch for micromanagers, for instance. And for some employers, remote micromanagement goes one step further with the implementation of worker surveillance methods. A July 2022 survey from market-intelligence firm International Data Corporation showed about 68% of North American employers with at least 500 employees use some form of employee-monitoring software. Another September 2021 survey of 1,250 US employers from Digital.com showed that of those who said they used monitoring software, nearly 90% of them fired workers as a result. We all want control, and for managers that aren't able to see their employees, that can feel like an even more acute need – Arielle Sadan Workers are feeling pressure. Alison says she's ended up searching for ways to keep her Slack status as 'active' while she takes a coffee break, for instance, just to keep her boss off her back. Some employees are even investing in tools such as 'mouse jigglers', which keep their statuses active, in order to avoid productivity tracking. Less engaged, less capable Of course, micromanagement isn't always malicious by nature – De Stobbeleir underscores that some of these helicopter bosses are simply trying to reach out regularly to ensure a remote worker feels supported and connected. Similarly, most people like a little bit of structure and oversight from their manager, says Sadan (though the amount of "handholding" each employee needs certainly differs, especially among age and seniority, she points out). Yet regardless of a manager's intention, experts say results of micromanagement are nearly always negative – for everyone. Attrition is, of course, a major concern – something particularly worrying to firms right now, as they're still struggling to retain staff, in an ongoing swell of worker quits. "Micromanagement is a behaviour born out of bad management to a certain extent, and lack of wanting to relinquish control," says Mark Williams, managing director for EMEA at WorkJam, which develops digital tools to improve productivity, and regularly works with companies whose staff accuse them of micromanagement. The consequence is that "the employee feels undervalued, that their ideas and thoughts are not taken seriously. They become disconnected from the company and the brand". In an era of remote work, this becomes amplified, as employees are already physically disconnected from a company and colleagues, and micromanagement only increases this sense of disengagement. Hovering bosses can stunt their employees' growth both in the short- and long term, keeping them from developing key skills to grow (Credit: Getty Images) Hovering bosses can stunt their employees' growth both in the short- and long term, keeping them from developing key skills to grow (Credit: Getty Images) Ultimately, this can result in an uptick in resignations. Micromanagement is easier to navigate in an in-person setting, explains Sadan, as there are less intrusive ways for managers to keep an eye on a project's progress, such as strolling over for a quick chat which could be "interpreted as just being very supportive". But in a remote setting, where micromanagement takes the form of constant emails or calls, the impact on relationships can be more significant. It creates "more frustrations and more anxiety in employees, and less motivation," she says. "Ultimately, you'll see … disengagement and eventually people will leave." But there are also longer-term effects that can follow employees throughout their careers. When workers stick it out in micromanagerial organisations, say experts, they're less likely to end up capable in the long run. Micromanaged employees can end up without the initiative to carry out tasks independently, step outside their comfort zones and develop resilience in the face of adversity, explains Sadan. "An employee that doesn't learn the skills of being creative, to think critically and have the confidence to try something out will only want to do what feels comfortable," she says. "So, their growth in the organisation is going to be more stunted." Micromanagers themselves end up with a big increase in their workload, too, points out De Stobbeleir. "Very often we see these leaders are very stressed, and very often feel they're doing work that others should be doing. As a result, they're not focused enough on strategy as they're stuck in operations, rather than thinking in the long term – which is very important in turbulent times." Learning to trust As remote work has changed the workplace, this shift has left managers scrambling find new ways of interacting with their teams, such as how to assess good performance when they can't physically see work happening in front of them. It's a learning curve, says De Stobbeleir – and although the effects of micromanagement can be detrimental for workers, managers may also be struggling and coping in the best way they know how right now. On the upside, De Stobbeleir believes as remote and hybrid work becomes the norm, helicopter bosses will likely settle down as they learn how to develop more trust with employees based off-site. Alison is hoping that's the case. In the meantime, she's attending the daily Zoom meetings and responding to the constant emails as politely as she can. She's keeping up hope that, at some point, her manager will realise she's more than capable of doing her job without constantly hovering over her shoulder. For now, it's a waiting game. You are receiving this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the Financial Education niche on one of our landing pages or sign-up forms on our website.   If you indra21poetra@gmail.com received this e-mail in error and would like to report spam, simply send an email to abuse@wallstreetwizardry.com. You'll receive a response within 24 hours.   Email sent by Finance and Investing Traffic, LLC, owner and operator of Wall Street Wizardry.   This ad is sent on behalf of Paradigm Press, LLC, at 808 St. Paul Street, Baltimore MD 21202. If you're not interested in this opportunity from Paradigm Press, LLC, please click here to remove your email from these offers.   This offer is brought to you by Wall Street Wizardry. 221 W 9th St # Wilmington, DE 19801. If you would like to unsubscribe from receiving offers brought to you by Wall Street Wizardry click here.   © 2023 Wall Street Wizardry. All Rights Reserved.   Privacy Policy  | Terms & Conditions | Unsubscribe