Office vs. remote? You’re asking the wrong question
Since the pandemic a simmering debate over remote vs. office working has erupted into a culture war between bosses and workers. I’ve encountered it in conversations with colleagues past and present and when talking to recruiters; it’s even manifested itself in the careers section of every corporate website.
I’ve observed companies aggressively pursuing the agenda they believe is right, with some advertising “fully remote” as a way to attract candidates while others deploy increasingly desperate tactics to lure or coerce people into the office.
Meanwhile, ask the actual workers and you’ll get completely different perspectives. Some love the office vibe, while others fiercely resist.
Such a polarising debate misses the point. Instead of asking where people should work, ask how they should work.
Companies should foster a working environment that suits each individual and is truly inclusive. They should prioritise actively building meaningful working relationships rather than assuming they’ll form spontaneously through co-location alone.
And employers need to stop treating people like dogs, giving out treats to reward their desired behaviour such as coming in on specific days.
Fundamental to getting the right balance is respecting individual choice. Some lack the space or desire to work at home and don’t mind a one or two hour round trip. Others — often with families — cannot avoid spending a few hours per day trudging into the office, severely restricting their lifestyle.
Some employers seek to compromise by offering hybrid working, but I have my doubts. Without a conscious effort, hybrid effectively becomes office-first working. In the best case, all manner of unconscious biases start to creep in.
In the worst case, people are coerced into traveling by managers who, feeling unable to confront the issue head-on, resort to tactics that in any other context would be considered bullying: a steady drip of unsubtle hints, excluding people who don’t show up in person and generally making a more hostile environment for those who don’t toe the line. Meanwhile office working is seen as deserving of special perks.
Office-first working disproportionately affects certain groups — working parents (especially mothers), people with disabilities, older people who tend to live further from the city centre.
Rarely do managers have meaningful conversations with individuals about how to meet their specific needs. Why would they? Very likely they’ve been told by their manager to “lead by example”, by keeping office seats warm, and to encourage their team to do likewise.
There seems to be an almost religious belief that if people work face to face they’ll be more productive; specifically more creative. Yet I’ve seen countless teams underperforming based in the office, including zombie teams where even the manager is obviously checked out. I’ve also worked with highly performing teams in both environments.
You might get the impression I’m a little annoyed. Yes, while I respect all sides of the debate, some of the language used can be grating. Take this example from a recent recruiter ping on LinkedIn:
The role is paying up to £###k and they love collaborating, so ask the team to visit the London office 2 days per week.
The implication being that if you work remotely, you’re not collaborating. I struggled formulating a polite reply, so said nothing.
None of this is meant to diminish the value of face to face contact by the way. Despite technical advances it’s still a great idea for most people to hang out in person at least once per year, preferably much more — this includes teams and clients/suppliers in other countries where possible. Besides, there are some who really suffered as a result of Covid-induced home-working and are glad to re-establish physical contact.
The issue lies with the approach of management, whose individual needs and working style tends to involve more meetings and context switching. This may not always be aligned with those who perform more focused tasks in their daily work.
There has to be a better way.
In my view the most successful companies will be the ones that prioritise individual choice. They’ll build a working model that allows focus time and asynchronous communication. They’ll bring people together when appropriate. All managers will be encouraged to understand the needs of individuals, instead of being coopted into an anti-pattern of coercion.
That’s not to say it’s easy. Firstly, real effort needs to be spent on building a truly hybrid environment. Secondly, we need to think about what it means to build a positive working environment and relationships.
Let’s start with the hybrid environment. This is only tactical but also topical, so I’ll cover it anyway.
Office space needs to facilitate remote working. Don’t think you have it covered because there’s a handful of Zoom rooms and some tiny booths. Actively remove barriers to speaking with people in other locations. If someone has to get up from their desk and spend five minutes trying to secure an uncomfortable booth with poor WiFi, that’s a barrier to collaborating across locations.
One of the best things about working from home is that I can take calls from my desk. Make this possible in the office too. Achieving it might require a little imagination, but acoustics are key. Too much noise is the bane of many people trying to focus, but be wary of the library effect — if you can hear a pin drop, who dares to speak?
Encourage teams to join some meetings on Zoom if one or more participants are dialling in remotely (stand-ups for example).
Stop! I could go on, but I too would be missing the point. Let’s think strategically. Focus on issues that get to the heart of an effective and engaging workplace, where location doesn’t even play a part.
Firstly, consider asynchronous working. Document the systems and processes, record decisions. This avoids “tribal knowledge”, and that awkward (and expensive) exchange with each new joiner:
Old hand: Actually, you need to do it like this…
Newbie: Why?
Old hand: We’ve always done it this way!
True, the asynchronous model does have even stronger benefits when your company operates in more than one location.
How about this one then?
Start with why your business exists, and what ends you hope to achieve. What is a good outcome for customers? How do the responsibilities of each team interact? If in a few years we look back on our relationships with others, what do we really want to see?
Trust people.
Communicate the vision and strategic objectives, then help the team and individual to set aligning goals. Evaluate performance together, based on what was agreed. Focus on learnings.
That has nothing to do with location, and nor does handing out “treats” or rewards come into it. See Drive (Daniel Pink) which instead discusses autonomy, mastery and purpose.
Look at some of the 12 questions that Gallup asks to measure engagement:
My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
There is someone at work who encourages my development.
At work, my opinions seem to count.
The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
Do they depend on location?
Finally, this short article, Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule is well worth a read. It describes the different schedules of managers and makers (for example software engineers, designers and so on). A great working culture will understand and accommodate both.
When many people want to work mostly from home, and others mostly from the office, dictating (explicitly or not) one mode or another begs the question: which group do you want to exclude? Fortunately, employers don’t have to make that choice!
Managers should look at the fundamentals of job satisfaction and employee engagement that suit the individual and style of work.
I firmly believe that if people work together, learn together and achieve together, if there is a culture of respecting the individual, then a company will retain its employees and they will build great relationships. Wherever they may be.
