Is the New Ways of Working Movement Built on a Blind Spot?
Every now and then, I pen a newsletter that sparks a significant spike in both responses and unsubscribes. It’s usually the more honest, confronting editions—and I’ve got a feeling this will be another one 🫣
Love it, hate it, or somewhere in between, I’d love to hear your thoughts! So please do hit reply and share them—I read every response.
For those of us championing new ways of working—agile, self-management, decentralised decision-making—it’s worth asking a tough question: Are we being a little naive? Are we assuming too much about what people want from work? Are we blind to how most people actually approach their jobs?
Cut the Bullsh!t
We all know this person: smart, capable, successful, and coasting. They’re at the top of their game—or at least, the game as it’s played in most organisations.
For me, that person is one of my best pals. We’ve been friends for over 35 years, and I can tell you they’re one of the soundest (and funniest) people I know. They’re also incredibly senior, well-respected, and thriving in one of the UK’s biggest companies. And when we caught up recently, I had something of a crap epiphany as they admitted what’s rarely said out loud:
"I realised if you just roll with the bullish!t, you can get away with anything."
They’ve got kids, a mortgage, and the everyday realities of modern life to contend with. Work is just one piece of that puzzle. And years ago, they decided it wouldn’t take up more space than necessary.
"I decided to say yes to every optional bit of bullish!t training, courses, internal groups"
Whilst providing a welcome break from the desk, this strategy hasn’t held them back—in fact, it’s propelled them forward while regularly getting them a seat on the free lunch train. For example, they’ve landed a spot on a high-profile national panel tackling a very current and important topic indeed. It’s just one of many hats they wear as a leader balancing competing priorities. And they’re refreshingly honest about the reality of their involvement:
"I don’t do f*ck all on it, apart from the annual away day."
Whether disengaged or just pragmatic, they’ve figured out how to succeed without letting work consume them. Their approach is brutally simple:
"I realised some time ago that you can completely coast your way through a corporate career by occasionally saying the right thing and not being an @rsehole. And being OK at your job, but personable. Being halfway sound goes a long way."
Have We Overlooked the Majority?
And here’s the thing: this mindset is not unusual. These folks are not outliers. Most organisations are full of people just like them—not because they’re incapable, but because work, for many, is a means to an end. People have families, and responsibilities, They are tired and have full lives outside the office/spare room. So, why put in more effort than needed? Sure it might be unfulfilling, but to many, this just isn’t too much of a problem.
This isn’t about passing judgement. It’s about recognising the reality of modern work. Most people aren’t trying to change the world in their 9-to-5—they’re just trying to make it through the day with as little stress as possible. And really, who can blame them? We weren’t supposed to spend our days alone in our spare room/kitchen staring at a screen for 8 hours.
"You’ve got to learn to enjoy the bullish!te. Honestly, it took me a long time to realise."
Built on a Blind Spot
This brings us to an uncomfortable question: Have we overlooked a fundamental truth about the workplace in our enthusiasm for new ways of working? Gallup’s annual surveys have been sounding the alarm for years, showing dismal levels of workplace engagement.
Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, many of us in the new ways of working movement assume a higher baseline of interest in work than most employees have.
Are we designing for the reality we want rather than the one that actually exists? Have we been so busy championing empowerment and autonomy that we’ve forgotten the fact that we need to meet people where they’re at?
Approaches like agile and self-management often assume teams will embrace accountability, ownership, and finely-tuned collaboration. But what if most people are like my mate? Sound as a pound, working to live, and perfectly content to coast.
And that’s the blind spot right there. The belief that new ways of working can scale widely assumes a level of human engagement and ambition that just doesn’t reflect reality. Is my pal—and people like them—the exception or the majority? I fear it’s the latter. And why wouldn’t they be? Most of us aren’t looking to revolutionise the workplace. We’re just trying to get through the day.
If we don’t confront this blind spot—and start designing ways of working that embrace reality—new ways of working might never escape the realm of beautiful ideas. The question is: are new ways of working movers and shakers ready to face this inconvenient truth? And what does this mean for how we design for the workplace?
🙏 You can support this newsletter by sharing it with your colleagues and on LinkedIn.
Excellent provocation Mark, love it. One way I find helpful to frame this is to crudely categorise people in the workplace into two camps:
1. "Sources" - basically people who are grounded in a personal sense of meaning and purpose and whilst they might have what looks like a job, more than anything it's really a vehicle for them to live into this sense of purpose. These people thrive on much greater autonomy to take the initiative and be truly responsible for parts of the collective endeavour.
2. And then we have what we could simple call "Employees". They don't show up out of greater sense of meaning and purpose and their primary needs are more basic: doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle. Your friend, despite his seniority at work, is in this camp. These people can still be very valuable to the collective effort but need more direction and accountability to ensure they're contributing appropriately.
Every human has the potential to be a source, but not everyone's ready, and even those who are will not necessarily show up as a source in a particular context (for example, an artist who also works a day job to pay the bills).
Traditional orgs treat basically everyone as employees and miss out on the energy that sources, when they're truly set free, can bring. And many progressive orgs assume everyone will show up as a source, and that isn't always the case. The solution is to meet people where they are, not try to change them or work against their real needs, and create the conditions where people can show up as sources when it's right for them.
I keep thinking about this article, but keep coming back to another question - Is this learned helplessness driven by how Industrial Era organizations operate?