Beyond policies: cultivating a culture of care

Stella: Welcome to a new episode of WHEN on Topic. I’m Stella Kasdagli and I welcome you back to discuss women’s professional and economic empowerment and equality at work – sometimes even outside of it. Our current podcast series is dedicated to caregiving responsibilities and their equal allocation, coming to you –as usual– thanks to CAREdiZO. What is CAREdiZO? It is a European project we at WHEN are involved in, under the European Commission’s CERV programme, which aims to bridge the gender gap in caring responsibilities by promoting equality practices at home, in micro-enterprises and small civil society organisations, that is organisations with up to 10 employees. The project supports family-friendly policies, encourages men to participate in caregiving and, of course, highlights the value of caregiving in the wider society – in other words, what we have been advocating for all along. Its activities include research, co-creation workshops, training programmes and the development of digital tools, such as an educational game and podcasts like this one, aimed at combating stereotypes and promoting equality. The rest of our partners come from Cyprus, Lithuania and Bulgaria and are currently developing their own podcasts, which you may have a chance to discover shortly.

Our topic today is “What happens beyond policies?” In our previous episodes we discussed how important it is to have policies, even in small or very small enterprises and organisations. Today, with the contribution of George Filtsos, Head of Employee Relations and People Advisory at Kaizen, we discuss how culture is shaped beyond these policies and draw on George’s experience to see how the tools used by large companies could be applied in a different way to small businesses and organisations as well. Let’s hear him. 

Stella: George, you bring with you a wealth of experience in HR from large companies. And today I’d like us to explore together how everything you’ve learned regarding the “culture of care” –I’ll use an umbrella term– which is implemented and established within a large company could be interpreted and adapted to a smaller business. And I wanted to start by asking this… Often, especially in smaller businesses, we hear, “We’re a family here; we don’t rely on policies or overly structured frameworks, since we all know each other and we’re nice people, who care about one another”. So, my general question in these cases is this: can we guarantee a culture of care when there are no procedures or policies? 

George: Right, we certainly can’t guarantee it – starting, of course, from the premise that culture always exists and will always exist, regardless of policies, because culture is shaped by the people within an organisation. So, whether intentionally or instinctively, there will be a framework, but it won’t be conscious, and it won’t necessarily be fair or equal. So, there can certainly exist a culture without processes or policies; something that exists there, given that people, on the one hand, are imitative beings and want to see how they should behave, and on the other hand, they want to belong somewhere, so they will observe behaviours and unwritten or unspoken rules and try to apply them to fit in, and thirdly, people operate through reward and punishment. Therefore, whatever is rewarded or punished, that is what we will follow. And all of this, though, does create a certain culture. There may be no policies –that is, there may be no foundation– but a culture will form which will usually continue to favour those it favours right now. Whether it will be fair or unfair depends very much on the leadership; it all becomes very person centered. So yes, there definitely exists a culture, but it’s not conscious; it’s not something built on specific terms…

Stella:  On specific principles or values, possibly.

George: Yes, specific principles. 

Stella: Or maybe the values are there too. Power can be a value or privilege or being flexible towards people, who I know will take an extra step when needed. Or I could be flexible towards a woman going through a transition, as I see her role being that of the basic caregiver, while if a man asks for the same transition for caregiving reasons, I might say “come on, you don’t really need to go change diapers right now”. So, values may exist but they may be different from what we would consciously ask for.

George: And that is exactly why I say that this can lead to the continued creation of inequalities or even equalities, depending on the leadership. Because as long as there doesn’t exist anything to use as guidance, as a de facto standard for how we operate, then the same stereotypes will inevitably continue to be produced, depending on who is leading the said organisation. That’s why policies are useful, even in smaller organisations, as they create a sense of security for people, provided, of course, that these policies are actually put into practice. Because the existence of policies alone doesn’t mean anything; they are a foundation, a starting point, but they are also just words on a piece of paper. Experience is what matters. Even in small companies, in small businesses, it is very important to have a framework, created through such policies and processes.

Stella: You said that policies don’t necessarily translate into culture, and that was my next question. What is the mechanism that allows something I’ve said I’ll do to remain just words and not become action? Why does this usually happen, in your experience, in small or large teams? 

George: We’ve often seen that policies follow a checklist –in the sense that we have to do something, either because there is a directive coming from someplace bigger than us, like the European Union or a group to which we belong within which that’s how companies operate in order to attract talent. It can all start with a checklist the practical implications of which we can’t really grasp. For a policy to become a culture, to become part of the organisation’s life, it must first be understood. We need to know what it’s about, why we’re doing it, what we want to achieve with it, and how it fits into our broader DNA. It cannot be contradictory – that is, we cannot be saying one thing and doing another. Secondly, it must become a lived experience: be interpreted and be put into practice. It is one thing to write it down and understand it, but it is another thing entirely how we apply it. We may say we’re a flexible organisation and prioritize work-life balance, and yet still demand that people respond to emails at 10 or 11 p.m. We may say that we are open to diversity, yet there may be no opposing voices within leadership. All of this stems from policy. And of course, there’s also the question of how consistent we are in these matters and how they translate into what’s important, that is the pivotal moments, the milestones in an employee’s life. In other words, if we have all of this on paper but it doesn’t translate into how we promote people, how we hire people, or how we give a voice in an office, or in a position, then it becomes contradictory again and something that isn’t supported in practice.

Stella: Yes, I am really glad you mentioned these couple of words. That policy needs to be understood and that it also needs to be a lived experience. I was thinking about when we finalised our own policies as an organisation –our internal policies– a few months ago, and how the issue of language really preoccupied us. The fact that we are an organisation that uses a mode of communication based heavily on directness, lively language, care, and equality. Nevertheless, our policies in their original form had this rigid framework that we’re all used to, and we wondered how this language could remain clear and safe –because there is reason behind the way in which it has been formulated– while still connecting with people. And I imagine that even in larger groups or in groups that are more diverse in terms of educational, social, and economic backgrounds –perhaps even ethnic and linguistic ones– one needs to consider other factors too, regarding the accessibility, comprehensibility, and clarity of such policies.

George: 100%. And there’s always the problem that policies are drafted using legal jargon, which obviously isn’t understood by the average worker. And also, in my experience, it usually starts with what other organisations have done rather than what this organisation looks for. It doesn’t start from the bottom up; it starts from the top down. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Stella:  And from the outside in, too.

George: Right. And there really exist organisations so diverse where we need to translate, if you will, what it is we’re talking about, why it’s important to us, and how we’ll put it into practice. Which usually doesn’t happen, because policies usually do function like a checklist.

Stella: Hmm, yes, that’s important, and I think it also has an impact on people’s understanding of the policies. For example, when we talk about leave… be it paternity leave or caregiving leave, etc. You often walk into an organisation, regardless how big or small it is, and people have no idea what they’re entitled to. And this isn’t necessarily due to non-existent policies, but because they’re written in such a way that no one wants to sit down and read them or look them up or understand them. So, there’s a big gap there.

George: And then there’s the matter of translation we mentioned earlier, which I believe in very much, and it encompasses all those unspoken things. Sometimes they aren’t unspoken; they are spoken and will be spoken, but it has to do with, for example, leave policies. Paternity leave in Greece, for example, has increased slightly, but only in recent years. Its use remains low regardless…

Stella: Hmm, that’s true.

George: Which has nothing to do with whether this policy is written down somewhere; it has to do with a broader professional and, of course, social context that prevents you from making use of it. And that is the reality that a company needs to change, because a company has the responsibility to change what they stand for as an organisation. How are we looking at supporting you providing the best possible service to the organisation? To do that, there’s also the need to have personal balance.

Stella: Certainly. Let me take this example of paternity and parental leave to ask you about the role that companies can play. In a small organisation, the founder might play that role. In a larger organisation, the manager will play that role. And it’s not about how they behave toward George, who comes to ask for paternity leave and they’ll tell him, “Sure, George, take it,” but rather to what extent they, Peter, Christos, or Makis, have taken that paternity leave. That is, have they made use of this or other opportunities, themselves, afforded to them either by their position or by company policy to care for other people? How have you seen this play out – if you’ve seen it happen, seen it matter, or even seen it matter in the opposite way… I mean, what happens when I have an employer or a manager, a female manager who tells me, “You go home, but I’m going to stay here until midnight because the work has to get done – it doesn’t matter that you need to leave”?

George: Exactly. And that ties into what I mentioned earlier about imitation and belonging, and what gets rewarded and what gets punished. If I don’t adopt this –if I can’t see it as my own path within the organisation– I’ll never want to follow it. Now, of course, regarding your question, managers in general, in medium and large companies, are often the main obstacle in making the policy a lived experience, because they are the interpreters. And they are the interpreters, even as people who will experience it as employees too… So, if they haven’t experienced it, they simply won’t convey it. But also, to what extent do they have the knowledge of what the policy is and the tools to be able to implement it? When I say “tools,” I obviously don’t mean systems. I mean how I can grant this permission without venturing the outcome I want the team to achieve. Which has to do with productivity, it has to do with planning and available resources. It’s a broader issue. And if I feel that I can’t do this, that I can’t see it through, obviously I won’t bring it to the table as an option. Therefore, it has to do with the lack of empowerment of these people to be able to support a culture of care. And the smaller the organisation, the harder it is. Because in a large organisation, to be honest, it often balances itself out through who does what. The concept of productivity plays itself out; one person ends up covering for another. In smaller companies, where roles are sometimes less clearly defined due to limited resources, it becomes even more difficult. So, this has to start at the top and come as a solution regarding what you can do to help provide flexibility and a work-life balance for your people. And that’s missing. Because, quite simply, we’re not used to it – let’s be honest. I mean, just thinking about our conversation today, I was thinking a lot about Greece specifically. Because that’s where I live right now. And how different things were when I lived in England. In a multinational company, of course, because even there, I don’t think the average company is terribly flexible. But there was a framework that didn’t allow for exception, and it was so that you could provide your people with what they needed. And there was also a framework for how far you could go. And that’s very important. Because that’s what the processes and policies ensure. What is the limit? So, if I could summarise, I’d say that managers have a pivotal role, but they must first be empowered themselves to play that pivotal role, which isn’t happening.

Stella: Right, I have a few casual thoughts I’d like to bring up here, and maybe you can help me based on your experience with your own tools, so to speak. The reason we are discussing managers, even though we are talking about small businesses, is that given the size of our organisation –twelve people– intermediaries are starting to get involved in the teams, so you run into this obstacle we just discussed, this challenge of how to ensure that the culture you were confident you could instil in your team through direct contact with them continues to trickle down when these intermediary individuals join. So, I see two challenges here. One is that often, people –especially those in smaller teams who take on a managerial role– don’t necessarily have the leadership experience to create that framework or maintain the position they need to hold as intermediaries. They’re very good at their jobs and have earned this promotion. That doesn’t mean they also have the skills needed to maintain the framework you describe. At the same time, people who climb the ranks within an organisation, big or small, also have ambition. That’s why they’ve been able to find a way to rise to the top. Which means that when they’re given the chance to go the extra mile, they’re very likely to take it. And I say this in a very positive way, and I say it while also making a disclaimer for myself, that I, too, try to set this example of care that we were talking about within the team. Given my need to ensure the sustainability and growth of this organisation, when I’m given the chance to go the extra mile, I’ll do it without necessarily worrying at that moment that I might be sending the wrong message. So right now, I sympathize with the person who, for whatever reasons –personal or collective– wants to move this thing forward, to get the work done. And while he says, “Go take care of your sick kid, take time for yourself, go do Pilates,” his own behaviour suggests the opposite. So, I’m saying all this to come back to what you said, to the importance of the framework that won’t even allow me, as a founder, to stray too far from what I require my people to do.

George: You’re absolutely right. If you’ll allow me, I’ll tell you how I think this could work in an ideal organisation.

Stella: Yes, I’d love to hear it.

George: In an ideal… well, in an organisation that actually functions… I don’t believe that everyone within such an organisation has to operate in exactly the same way. Because, as you quite rightly said, one person has ambition X, another has ambition Y, one has issue X at home, another has issue Y, and so on. That’s where the translation I mentioned earlier comes into play. It means that you, as the founder, can work until midnight, but the person below you will work their regular hours, take the leave they’re entitled to, or have a flexible schedule. And yet this won’t be an obstacle to advancement; they won’t be singled out, they won’t be stigmatized – on the contrary, they will be promoted as long as they are good at their job. That’s when the framework works perfectly. We don’t all need to work at the same pace, in the same way, because that, too, goes against flexibility. People work in various ways. I might be productive at different times and in a different way. However, people need to feel secure that what is asked of them is clear –it should be asked in terms of productivity, in terms of output– and how this will be evaluated is also clear. And from there on, let everyone decide how they want to manage it. But not the same for everyone. That is not the appropriate message I believe.

Stella: Yes, and perhaps this kind of inclusion in care, as you said, can take other forms. Because I might work until midnight, for example, but then I may have to stop at lunchtime to pick up my kids from school.

George: Exactly.

Stella: And what we’re trying to do, at least on our end, is make that visible. Say that, you know, “Look, I’ll be gone during this time.” That way you know that I’ll need to go, so that you also have the option to take time off when you need to. I’m putting it in simple terms now.

George: And this is where the social aspect comes in. The social dimension, which I feel we haven’t quite found in Greece yet. You mentioned something really nice: that I can work until the evening, but at noon I want to have a little more freedom. And that’s exactly the approach. We talk about this culture of care as something external that happens to some people, as something that’s an exception. And that’s precisely the opportunity, but also the difficulty, of a small business. This shouldn’t be an exception. It’s a way of life. I mean, statistically, at some point most people will need some form of flexibility for care – regardless of what “care” may mean in this context. When we see this as part of life and not as an exception or as something that just happened to Stella or George, then the reasons don’t have to be so strictly defined. It could be a child who is young and needs care. Or a parent who needs care… There are countless things that fall into the category. It’s part of life, and that’s how it should be integrated into the culture. And when it’s a small company, this can be put into practice much more easily. When it has grown too big, that’s where it gets difficult because so many people are involved. Indeed, every person is different. It becomes a bit more complex. But in small companies, I believe this is a challenge, yet at the same time a huge advantage.

Stella: I’m thinking about what you said regarding how we can view this as something normal. We’re currently at the WHEN Hub, a space designed to bring work and care together. And as many of our listeners know, this space began to take shape as an idea many years ago. My colleague at the time, Evita Kolokouri, when we first started discussing this space, told me that her parents were teachers and would come home from school at lunchtime so they could eat together. And when I started working in companies and realised that if I had children, I would never be with them for lunch on weekdays, that made a huge impression on me. And it was something I hadn’t thought about before, because my mom also worked late, and we didn’t eat lunch together. But I thought about how nice it is to learn from other people’s experiences when it comes to caregiving. And that brings me to the question of what we have to learn from the new people entering the job market, who, I think, bring along this –I won’t say demand, but this need, this expectation– this request more strongly. What can we learn from this, and how optimistic are you that we can learn or not? Because I see a great deal of resistance to viewing this as a new way of working rather than as a bad habit. What have you personally learned from this?

George: This is one of my favourite topics, I should let you know. And it’s one of my favourite topics because – let me explain my reasoning to you. I’m very much in favour of it; I’m a huge fan of the younger generation, and I’m also opposed to the belief that the younger generation is spoiled, doesn’t want to work, wants everything to come easily, and doesn’t want to be pushed. Because looking at the big picture, what I see the younger generation wanting is balance. And that’s very ugly on one hand, but understandable on the other, of course, because we’ve put up so much resistance to it. I say it’s unfortunate because, obviously, wanting balance is a good thing. On the other hand, though, it’s understandable because, let’s face it, generations upon generations grew up in very different ways, especially in Greece. And I understand that deep down there might also be a bit of jealousy – why didn’t we have that? Because I used to work until midnight, while others work an eight-hour day and get the same compensation, which I had to work much harder to earn. But this is progress, and it’s entirely legitimate, and we all stand to benefit from it as well. It’s like we hit two targets with one arrow. So, the new generation brings a need for balance. They’ve realized that a working relationship is a give-and-take and not a one-sided arrangement, like we viewed it in the past. I’d also say the end of the millennials is on the horizon; that’s where I believe the change has started to come from. Young people are evaluating employers, something that never happened before. They can seek certain things; they can demand certain things. And if those things don’t materialise, they can walk away to look for something better. And this is often seen as laziness, but everyone must pursue their own dream, their own way of expressing themselves, and their own career. And all of this is perfectly legitimate. There’s a lot of resistance. There have been some social and professional steps taken in recent years with, in my opinion, somewhat questionable motives. I mean, the motives are more about finding talent than about actually caring for people. But that’s okay; let’s look at the positive side. It’s happening for a reason, and there is a positive impact. Many companies in highly competitive industries also understand that they need to move in this direction. Hence, they’re starting to make changes for talent again. I mean, it’s ultimately for profit, but again, that doesn’t matter. But I don’t know that that’s enough unless more legislation is passed. Because we’re talking about competition, we’re talking about talent, we’re talking about specific companies – primarily tech companies and AI. Fine, but what about the millions of other people who don’t work in those sectors, whose jobs may be at risk due to this technological advancement, and where companies don’t face such a shortage of labour? How are they protected? How do they advocate for themselves? Therefore, we are at a crossroads, but in my opinion, legislative action is needed on many fronts.

Stella: Both legislative initiatives and a proper assessment of needs, because often measures are introduced that, instead of actually helping us provide care, they complicate the situation both for the people we aim to help and for those responsible for implementing these policies. And perhaps it’s also a matter of transition, because, yes, it’s always difficult to switch to a new work management system. So, we often complain about it for that reason, because change is hard for us. But there are also things that, over time, seem to limit flexibility instead…

George: And this also has to do with our failure to see the bigger picture. Let’s take parental leave for instance. It’s not just about how, for example, a woman will have more days of leave. It’s also about how, for example, the father will be able to have the same number of days of leave to provide support. We often follow a logic where, as people, if a hand hurts, we cut it off. Instead of taking a broader view of how we can help the system –the system in a figurative sense– and how we can help a family. Because if the other part of the family isn’t helped, we’ll never be able to achieve the balance we’re aiming for. And it’s this one-sided approach that traps us in this vicious cycle, where, years later, we’re still saying we haven’t gotten there yet. Because we don’t look at it collectively. Companies don’t look at it collectively. I mean, even in large organisations, we’ll always go to the problem and say, “Great, how can we address the issue of women’s leave or women’s return to work?” Brilliant. And we have to do it 100%. It won’t have the same impact unless we also take care of the fathers. We go about, for example, participating in such-and-such Career Fair and sign such-and-such agreement to show our diversity. And at a table of the top 20, top 50, there isn’t a single woman, there isn’t another ethnicity, there isn’t an LGBT person. And all of this just goes back to a never-ending cycle.

Stella: Yes, and I think this also has to do with a certain laziness we all have as human beings and as societies. That, okay, we can’t possibly deal with everyone’s complaints, with everyone’s needs. Why, really? I think we can challenge even harder things than what we already do. I have one last question. Small businesses and small organisations, as we know, rarely have HR infrastructure or people to advise and support them, I’d say – even though, in many cases it would be extremely helpful. If you had the opportunity to spend a month at a small company, what would be the first thing you’d do to foster a culture of care within that company?

George: Two things that are certainly very important are talking with the leadership and understanding what the… where the organisation is headed, first and foremost. Because it exists to achieve something, whether it is a nonprofit or for-profit. How will it go about achieving whatever it wants to achieve, and how do I think it can achieve it? That is, the most essential part of the work itself. And then, what are people’s needs? I would very much like to know. Which, and I say this from my experience in large companies, is not done. We don’t ask. We bring in best practices – what we always call best practices. What does such-and-such company do, what does such-and-such country do, what did they vote for in such-and-such country. We don’t ask what our own workforce wants, which varies greatly from one company to another. In other words, working at a tech company with an average age of, say, 30, versus working at a blue-collar company where the average age might be 50 – these are two different worlds in terms of their needs. We need to bring this to the surface. There is a reason to understand, to learn what people need, so that we can build our policies on that foundation.

Stella: And this diversity you described also has to do with how we will go about assessing needs. I’m thinking right now about a quantitative survey questionnaire I had to fill out yesterday, where I didn’t understand half the questions –why they were asking them– and how I was driven to answer based on what I was thinking in the moment. And I think about the person in the factory, the person in cleaning services – how are they supposed to convey their needs and their lived experience through this sort of questionnaire that we see so often.

George: That’s absolutely right. And here comes another big part of how and why the concept sometimes gets distorted. Not just the culture of care and such actions in general. It’s that it isn’t measured. And when we try to measure it, we measure it with the wrong data. We measure it by asking, “Did we do it? We did. Did we ask for high-level feedback? Yes, we did”. We don’t see the result of that. To what extent do these people become more productive? To what extent is the risk of burnout actually reduced for these people? Because we always talk about all this and always take it for granted that, well, if the organisation doesn’t suit you, you’ll just get up and leave to go next door. But that won’t happen 90% of the time. The person will stay there and keep trying to produce to the point of exhaustion. They’ll keep trying to produce at the expense of their own productivity, with reduced commitment.

Stella: With resentment, too. And a bad relationship within their team or with their employer or whatever.

George: Exactly. And that’s where the question comes in: “Fine, but why should I go through all this when that’s pretty much how all companies in Greece operate?” It has an impact. It might not be the immediate one –such as me leaving tomorrow– but it’s what I offer, which is why you have me here. And of course, we need to understand where we should start. I mean, even now when we are talking about the culture of care, the burden is probably not evenly distributed in the world. It’s not evenly distributed based on gender, nor based on ethnicity. If we bring this to the surface, we’ll keep moving in circles.

Stella:  That’s right. Thank you very much, George. 

George: I thank you. 

Stella: You’ve shared a lot of wisdom today, and we’re going to put it to good use.

George: Thank you so much!

Stella: What did you think of everything that we discussed with George today? What other actions do you think CAREdiZO could develop to bring us one step closer to equality, in and out of the workplace? We are here to read and listen to your suggestions, comments and ideas: follow us on our social media, email us, leave a review on Spotify, come and meet us at the WHEN Hub in Athens, and let’s keep the conversation going… to make WHEN –and CAREdiZO– even better for the benefit of everyone, women and men.