When you receive a job offer that includes reimbursement for a gym membership, are you thrilled or offended? Employee perks like this, which are common in the tech world, have come under scrutiny recently. They raise an interesting question: At what point does well-intentioned become paternalistic?
I began thinking about this in April when Basecamp founders Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson posted an explanation of changes they would be making to their company culture. The centerpiece of this announcement—and what garnered tons of attention from the tech world, as well as causing about 30% of employees to resign—was the new policy that political discussions would no longer be allowed on company messaging channels.
What caught my attention secondarily, though, was another change included in Fried’s manifesto: The company would no longer offer “paternalistic” benefits. Fried said, “For years we’ve offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer’s market share, and continuing education allowances. They felt good at the time, but we’ve had a change of heart. It’s none of our business what you do outside of work, and it’s not Basecamp’s place to encourage certain behaviors—regardless of good intention. By providing funds for certain things, we’re getting too deep into nudging people’s personal, individual choices.”
I was intrigued by the use of paternalistic as the adjective. Paternalism is defined by Merriam- Webster like this: usually disapproving : the attitude or actions of a person, organization, etc., that protects people and gives them what they need but does not give them any responsibility or freedom of choice. So was Basecamp displaying an attitude of “We know what’s good for you,” while limiting employee choice?
To see it like this is a major reframe of a practice in tech that was otherwise considered to be generous and cool—that of offering extravagant perks that extend well outside of work. (Note that Basecamp will offer equivalent monetary compensation in lieu of these benefits.)
Workplace culture expert and former Twitter vice-president Bruce Daisley recently told Raconteur, “Giving someone a gym membership effectively means you are making a decision for them. I can see how that’s to a degree controlling. If your partner bought you a gym membership you’d rightfully take some offence at the suggestion being made and why you couldn’t make that decision yourself.” (Case in point, remember the backlash against Peleton with its ad centered on a husband giving his wife a Peleton?)
However, what matters is what motivates employees. According to Drewberry’s Employee Benefits Survey, which questioned 2,000 workers at UK SMEs, 51.1% of employees surveyed said they’d like to see their company introduce benefits that help them manage their health and wellbeing. In a parallel arena, studies have long held that requiring employees to have to opt out of automatic retirement savings deducted from a paycheck results in much higher savings rates, which employees appreciate. The same may be true of health benefits like a gym membership: Employees may appreciate the nudge. And even though they could choose to spend the monetary substitution on a gym, they know they probably wouldn’t.
Another consideration when offering non-work-related perks is that different generations value different benefits. Janine Chamberlin, UK country manager at LinkedIn, told Raconteur, “Perks offered to parents may not be relevant for the younger people in your organisation. It’s important to be mindful about offering a variety of different benefits.” The older employees may also value different benefits.
Tech companies famously offer another type of perk that could be seen as paternalistic— services designed to keep the employee on campus. These include complimentary catered lunches, onsite gyms, dry-cleaning or laundry services, etc. Or check out these extremes. To me, these perks may have been appealing to candidates (especially as they had monetary implications as well), but the motive of the company was clearly self-serving—attract the best talent and keep them working around the clock.
If you think of paternalistic as “functioning as a parent,” you could say these on-campus services are reminiscent of a young adult still living in their parents’ basement. Maybe it’s not so good for your social life, but you do it for the savings and convenience.
All this said, perhaps the very best post-pandemic perk may be the ability to never set foot on campus!
It will be interesting to see if the paternalistic quandary is picked up by other companies as the workforce shifts this year, companies begin fleshing out their remote policies, and employees have the ability and motivation to be more choosy about where they work. I suspect companies will be forced to do whatever they can to gain an advantage. The question is, which approach will appeal to the talent?
Photo by William Choquette from Pexels