7 dilemmas we have to face into, as the world of work evolves

In our book Upgrade, Karen Ellis and I argued that four capacities are key to leading in increasingly complex, changing environments. One of those four is Opposable Thinking: the capacity to work with competing priorities; the capacity that stops us becoming polarised, in a world that's all-too-often presented in black and white.

So, when a client recently asked about trends in the emerging future of work, it seemed wise to consider those trends as a set of polarities. What dilemmas are we facing, as the world of work evolves? Over what questions are we facing a tug of war? In some cases, it will be organisations and their employees who are pulling in different directions. In others, it'll be those at the top and the people they lead. In some cases, it'll be peers with competing needs or preferences. In others, it'll be organisations whose cultures, strategies of industries are causing them to head in opposing directions.

The nature of polarities is that it's rarely optimal to choose one side over the other. In a complex, fast-moving world, it's usually best to optimise the upsides of both poles, and minimise the downsides. So, I figured it might be helpful to paint the following seven trends as polarities. You'll have seen at least some at play, already, so I'd love you to use the comments to share tips on navigating them - and/or to add your own polarities to the list. In doing so, please bear in mind that these are things I'm seeing and hearing about in 'white collar' organisations with a typically 'Western' feel to them - with clients in Europe, the US and Australasia. Feel free to cite differences you're seeing in other working environments. 

1. Purpose vs. Profit: we're all hearing that more and more people prefer to work for organisations with strong, 'authentic' missions that act as a force of good in the world - or at least do less damage than the organisations of yesteryear. It's not just a generational thing, but it could be a privilege of those in 'white collar' roles. Some leaders and organisations buy into that shift, as well; others are paying it lip service. Either way, there's a growing need to balance financial goals (both long and short) with social and environmental responsibility.
2. Botting it All vs. Keeping it Human: we're all seeing how much automation and AI is augmenting or replacing humans at work, and this is likely the tip of the iceberg. As the arms-race intensifies, so does the heat in the question "What do humans add to the workplace that bots will never provide?" And where will each employer draw the line, when deciding which tasks to automate and which to hold back for staff made of flesh and blood?
3. Diversity vs. Cohesion: most employees are seeking greater flexibility in how, where, and when they work. The more diverse a workplace becomes, the harder it is to meet and reconcile its workforce's varied needs, values and preferences while preserving (or creating) a coherent culture and a vision that resonates with everybody involved. Most organisations feel a natural pull to being more 'organised', with consistent practices, predictable standardised schedules and a model of fairness that sees everyone treated equally.
4. Freedom vs. Stability: as the gig economy grows, more people work on short-term contracts and/or distribute their effort across more than one employer. Yet, some governments and organisations are seeking to reverse that trend, and many employees still crave stability and a sense of career progression that's hard to find in freelance ways of working.
5. Autonomy vs. Oversight: a lot of people are looking for greater autonomy and leaders are often encouraged to delegate more and empower the staff working into them, with the media fuelling a push in many countries to greater egalitarianism. Nevertheless, many leaders, organisations and national cultures feel a pull towards hierarchical power structures, which offer the promise of greater clarity, tighter boundaries, fewer direct reports and a ladder for people to climb as a means of rewarding them. These tensions also make it hard to find the right balance between trust and oversight, autonomy and accountability, especially when team members are working remotely.
6. Performance vs. Well-being: most of us have had to choose, at some point, between holding someone accountable and showing compassion for the reasons they couldn't deliver. Increasing pressure on organisations means leaders will inevitably face that decision more and more often. They're also increasingly likely to find that they are the ones their organisations expect to manage their people's mental health, as budgets for formal well-being initiatives continue to shrink while the pressure at work increases, and most people's life beyond work feels more pressured and heated as well.
7. Global Reach vs. Local Talent: remote working opens up access to global talent pools and global working can bring a wealth of efficiencies for multinational organisations. At the same time, quite a few organisations are under pressure to keep the work 'in country' to support domestic workers. There's an added dimension to this polarity, too: with global reach comes the potential for greater diversity and the related pros and cons mentioned above. 

In summary, as the workplace grows more complex, it's important to recognise that these polarities aren’t problems to solve but tensions to manage. The most effective leaders and HR professionals embrace this complexity, recognising that progress comes not from choosing one side but from finding the balance that works in their unique context. Opposable thinking - one of the four essential capacities Karen Ellis and I explore in Upgrade - helps us navigate these dilemmas with greater agility and confidence.

So, how do you and your organisation manage the polarities above? And what other polarities are you encountering, as the workplace evolves? Please share your thoughts and insights in the Comments section below.