Working from home - the pendulum swings the other way
With the RBA holding interest rates and no rate cut expected before November (and it appears unlikely then too), the Australian market looks to be just as challenging as it was at the start of the year. Signs of strain on people are starting to show. Everyone has held back and held their breath, but you can only do that for so long.
What’s been interesting is to watch this slow trickle that may turn into a bit of a wave of companies removing the option for working from home and calling people back into the office. During the pandemic, companies were forced to move to working from home as there was no other option. Many of those companies would not have made that evolution into remote working without this world-altering event. However, many companies are reining in their employees regarding where and when they can work.
Amazon, TabCorp, and the NSW Government are moving back to working from the office only.
PwC UK is using location data to track employees’ whereabouts.
Atlassian and others are staying with a hybrid or flexible option.
Our biggest worry about the companies that have a strong stance either in favour of or against flexible working is that many don’t back up their stance with real evidence. When we looked at why NSW public servants were sent back to the office, all we could find was confusing jargon that didn’t really provide a clear reason (which is unlike the government). Likewise, when TabCorp’s CEO ordered people back to working five days from the office, the reason he gave was “a broad reset designed to create ‘a winning culture’ and lift company performance.” What is ‘a winning culture’, I hear you ask? Well, your guess is as good as mine.
Atlassian at least quotes numbers. They claim that working flexibly has allowed their workforce to reduce commute time by two hours each day and increase their workday by approximately 40 minutes per day. Additionally, internal surveys show that 92% of staff feel that they are more productive due to the company’s flexible working policy. While this is a step in the right direction, the problem with internal surveys is whether they accurately measure what is going on or if they are merely collecting biased opinions.
What we really need to see are the results of some proper peer-reviewed research on flexible working. The challenge is that peer-reviewed research takes time, and there is always a lag before we can make any concrete claims about flexible working.
What has struck me the most while watching this play out is my curiosity about these decisions and how they have come to be. The researcher in me asks the following questions when observing this debate both for and against allowing people to work from home:
What data and metrics are these companies using to make these decisions? Is this based on anything concrete, or is it just gut feeling and intuition?
What does success look like for them, and what about working from the office will ensure that?
Have they observed a specific breakdown in culture among employees that the employer now feels will be resolved by having everyone back in the office?
Have they seen a declining trend in profitability since people started working from home, or is it the fact that we are facing such a challenging financial market?
Do they feel that people are not as productive as they used to be, possibly due to skiving off when they should be working and being distracted by other things at home?
For the companies that are moving back to working from the office, what is their strategy, and what are the intended outcomes? How will they know when this has been achieved?
Are there other agendas in play? Many companies have long-term leases on office buildings in various cities. Do they want their people to be using the liabilities they are locked into?
For companies that are retaining their hybrid or flexible working options, why are they choosing to stay with them? Are they simply trying to be the cool aunt/uncle and looking to be popular in a talent-starved market?
Or is it that leaders are regressing in their leadership behaviours, feeling better having more control and visibility over their teams?
One thing we can say is that our research company e-lab measured how connected people felt to their organisation and team at various time points (before the pandemic, six months, and then nine months into full-time working from home). What we found is that the longer people worked from home full-time, the more disconnected they felt from their organisation and teams. Therefore, it appears that some sort of direct interaction with the office and your team is essential for people to feel connected to their organisation and the people they work with.
We also have to consider the qualitative data we collected during interviews that showed that when you take something away from people that they have become accustomed to (the flexibility to work the way they want), they don’t like it and start thinking about finding an organisation that will allow it.
Based on the limited evidence available, it appears that hybrid working of some description, depending on the industry, is still the best model moving forward. So rather than swinging from one extreme to another, the moderate response still seems the most sensible and best option. Also, when making an argument about how your team members will work, ask yourself the question: “Do we have any real evidence behind this decision, or are we simply trying to justify a position because it is what we believe?”.