Unknown Remote Lands
As pockets of industries around the world find or force "normality", employees and employers have big decisions to make.
To be harsh or not to be harsh that is the question. Well its not entirely the question, but early indications on the moral rights of working from home seems to be generating binary responses across many industries. Recently Google took an axe to employees salaries for those who chose to remain entirely remote, some claimed "no problem" as they weighed up their commuting and housing costs, however some were less so pragmatic. What we see transpiring right now could be categorised into three theme's:
In order to unpack these three approaches we need to establish what we don't know.
Firstly, we don't know what the right answer is and in fact we may never know. Businesses are complicated enough and if we've worked for more than one in our careers we probably all know the diverse ways in which company cultures manifests itself and how personnel, environment and nature of work all play a part.
We still don't know when normal will arrive, don't get me wrong, the risk of lockdown in the UK especially seems to reduce more and more with each handling of "peaking numbers" but it does not mean we are in the same skip to work as the days of January 2020 when our naivety for life changing pandemic's was at an all time high.
We don't know the true impact of working from home on businesses productivity and profitability. The noises coming back from employees has been largely positive, certainly at the beginning "this makes so much sense", "I can move out to the country", "look how much time I now have for my life", "why have we not been doing this before". WFH in principle does "work", gone are the days where pre 2020 when you found out a colleague was WFH you would often share an eye roll with your nearest and dearest compatriot as you both fully well knew the culprit was held up on the sofa wiggling the laptop mouse every ten minutes and sending chaser emails every hour. This now is less likely to be case and productivity is possible and expected.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Critically however, what we do know is that shoehorning yourself into one of the three themes could be make or break for many and understanding the options available to you in the future by selecting one of the three is necessary to ensure make rather than break.
Theme 1 poses the least amount of risk, after all, we were always expected to return right? Office work is for so many our default position, it's been at the heart of human process for decades. Whilst many may now see this as archaic, it is at the very least a position and one that is clear and ultimately tried and tested. What these Theme 1 organisations are hanging their hat on is that a physically present employee is a better employee and one that will continue to progress the company just as they may have done for many years before. Although perceived less risky, It's not one without a fraught future. If society demand increases for more flexibility, pressure will build against those who remain forever against, conversely society may recognise that there is a benefit to physical presence and physical distancing from work and life, "maybe there is something in this office idea". The key to this stance is that it does not rule out future change, the ball remains firmly in the court of the strategy makers and it is theirs to squander.
Theme 3 is the other end of the spectrum and for many the great unknown. I used the term Bean bag as for me it represents a fad and an ideology that did not stand the test of any time. The relaxed ping pong environments that tech companies went all in on from 2010 to show "yeah we're a relaxed bunch here - but we will judge you if you play too much". Low key and self time management was the vibe, but the knock on effects to culture were quite the opposite. Why? because it is human nature to push boundaries even subconsciously. As varying levels of engagement increased over time so did the varying levels of judgement, it was no longer "James missed his deadline because, the task is complex" it's "James missed his deadline because he spent one hour on the pool table, one hour at the coffee machine and went home", chances are if you've been in such an environment you've thought something similar yourself. This highlights the greatest challenge for Theme 3, how do you manage the boundary push after setting this new precedent? "But i'm so productive working from home" I hear you cry, yes but is that because you now do your washing, mow the lawn and sit on a call to the gas company for an hour in the day rather than having to squeeze it in at the evening & weekend or is there actually an increase in output? The answer to the latter may still be yes, but how does a company know this, how will, in the longer term a company establish your contribution to the cause? Overcoming this in the right way will be the ultimate challenge, frameworks with clearly defined expectations and measurables will need to be established, employees may feel a greater intrusion and microscope on their work than ever before. Theme 3 represents a path of no return, imagine in three years time a call to re-assemble as management realise they made a big mistake and actually believe Theme 1 was always the way forward. Life has changed, situations adjusted and routines vastly different from one employee to another, a call to return would be potentially catastrophic. Failed to prepare, prepare to fail would be the resounding message for Theme 3. Certainly not impossible, one only needs to look as far as Hopin the virtual events company to see how well a fully remote company can flourish, but if thats the direction, big upfront investment is required.
Finally to Theme 2, the passive aggressive fence sitters. Possibly the most common approach that we see currently, with organisations not willing (or ready) to make their mark in where they want to be in the future. The immediate precedence is a dangerous one, with the workforce now no longer on an even playing field as the "ins" and the "outs". We saw with the google article, employees are not reacting particularly well to being given less favourable terms if their choice was to remain remote. The "ins" and the "outs" suddenly become the "haves" and the "have nots" and who would be to say over time how that relationship could diminish further with the feeling of moving in the wrong direction on the payroll. Like with Theme 3 having appropriate transparent frameworks that clearly define the employees position and expectations of output and how that compares to an office dweller will go some way to helping those know where they stand. Without it, knowing if someone is pulling their weight or not will be the least of your worries.
We should accept that most will start from Theme 1, but the danger is a leap being made taken to Theme 3 just because we've operated over 18 months in such a way, so therefore we get it right? Remember that this was a time of the sticky plaster, "we're all in the same boat" mentality, who were simply not allowed to do anything else. When the world around us is open and "normality" resumes what happens then, frankly no one does know. However acceptance of the fact that an office framework does not evolve naturally in correlation to a movement from 1 to 2 to 3 without input and management will go some way to help navigate the future transition. Like with any good change project, teams need to be taken on a journey, understand the milestones, goals and narrative in order to get onboard.
Like with the buzzword of COVID, the future of remote working is unprecedented, but that doesn't mean we should be afraid to lead our teams to embrace change, we just need the foresight to accept that this is not a one size fits all future.
