Employers should take a more deliberate approach to defining professional behaviour as workplaces become more hybrid, diverse and cross border, according to organisational strategist Lily Zheng, who argues that many companies still rely on informal customs that are rarely examined.
In a recent analysis of workplace systems, Zheng said professionalism is often treated as a fixed standard, even though expectations differ widely between organisations, sectors, cultures and regions. Practices such as meeting etiquette, punctuality, dress, online camera use and communication style can all carry different meanings depending on the workplace.
The issue has practical relevance for companies managing distributed teams, including those in transport, construction, ports, logistics and other infrastructure linked sectors. These organisations often depend on coordination between office staff, site teams, contractors, public agencies and international partners. Unclear expectations can create friction, while fair and consistent standards can support safer and more reliable operations.
Zheng’s central argument is that leaders should not allow professional norms to develop only through precedent or informal pressure. Instead, they should identify which behaviours help an organisation function well and which behaviours cause harm or undermine performance. This, Zheng said, requires leaders to examine both formal policies and the informal signals that determine who is rewarded, trusted or excluded.
Professionalism, as described in the analysis, includes the shared expectations that shape how people interact at work. Some standards are common across many settings, such as meeting commitments, treating colleagues respectfully and communicating clearly. But Zheng cautioned that there is no single global definition of professionalism, and that rules applied without context can disadvantage some workers.
Examples cited include workplace cultures that discourage discussion of caring responsibilities, appearance standards that restrict self expression, and dress codes that stigmatise natural Afro textured hair. Zheng argued that poorly designed norms can reinforce exclusion or distract teams from their core work, while better designed standards can protect people from harmful conduct and create a stronger sense of shared purpose.
The proposed approach begins with defining what success means in a particular organisation. Rather than starting with inherited rules, leaders are encouraged to ask employees and key partners what outcomes matter most. Those outcomes may include stronger customer service, safer operations, better product delivery, improved staff engagement or more trusted relationships with local communities.
For infrastructure and trade related businesses, those outcomes may also include predictable project delivery, disciplined safety practices, dependable communication across shifts and effective coordination with regulators or clients. The point, Zheng argued, is that workplace standards should be tied to the practical work an organisation needs to achieve, not simply to tradition.
The second step is to identify behaviours that cannot be accepted, even from high performers. Zheng listed physical violence, harassment, intimidation, verbal abuse and discrimination as clear examples. Other situations may require more careful judgement, such as conduct that repeatedly causes clients, colleagues or partners to feel disrespected or undermines the ability of a team to operate.
The analysis stresses that these boundaries may vary by industry and context, but that discussing them openly can reveal assumptions that are otherwise left unspoken. In operational workplaces, this may be especially important where safety, hierarchy, timekeeping and clear communication affect both performance and risk management.
Zheng also recommends setting minimum expectations rather than defining professionalism as an unrealistic ideal. The aim is not to require perfection in every interaction, but to establish the baseline conduct needed for people to work together effectively. A dress standard, for example, may focus on cleanliness and identification rather than imposing unnecessarily restrictive rules. A communications policy may require respect and repair when mistakes occur, rather than expecting every exchange to be flawless.
Hybrid work has added further complexity. Some organisations may prefer cameras to be switched on during important discussions, while others may not need that rule for routine calls. Zheng’s view is that such expectations should be linked to the purpose of the meeting, rather than applied as a blanket measure without explanation.
Another part of the process is comparing written expectations with what actually happens. Zheng noted that organisations may formally encourage work life boundaries while informally rewarding employees who answer messages outside normal hours. Similarly, leaders may claim to value results over visible busyness, while still promoting those who appear constantly available.
Such gaps can weaken trust and make workplace standards seem arbitrary. For companies operating across time zones, supply chains or project sites, they can also blur lines of responsibility and create inconsistent expectations between teams. Zheng argues that leaders need to examine these informal incentives if they want professional norms to be credible.
The final step is to reinforce desired behaviour and discourage conduct that works against the agreed standards. Zheng cautioned that a policy announcement alone is unlikely to change workplace culture. Managers must also adjust everyday decisions, including praise, correction, promotion and accountability.
If punctuality is identified as important, for example, the expectation should apply consistently, including to senior leaders. If respectful communication is a core standard, high performing employees should not be excused from it. Zheng’s analysis suggests that organisations may be more effective if they focus on changing one important behaviour at a time and make clear what is expected.
The broader message is that professionalism remains a changing concept, particularly as workforces become more diverse and as digital tools alter how colleagues interact. Zheng argues that organisations should revisit their standards periodically to ensure they are still serving their intended purpose.
For employers in sectors where coordination, safety and reliability are central to performance, the question is not only what looks professional, but what helps people work effectively together. Clear, fair and context specific norms can reduce ambiguity, support accountability and give teams a more practical foundation for daily work.
