Flexible work: there are trends that cannot be reversed

IBM, once a pioneer of flexible working practices, recently announced it was obliging employees with these types of agreements to return to the office or find another job. The move, similar to Melissa Mayer’s at Yahoo! following a memo in February 2013 that some critics described as belonging to another age, comes after twenty consecutive quarters of downward income and losses, similar to what happened at Yahoo! after Marissa Mayer took over. The idea was to bring the workforce together to bolster a culture that seemed to have been lost and that were part of the new CEO’s plan to save the company, and that signally failed. Trying to strengthen your company culture by forcing your workers to do things they don’t’ want to do or consider a backward step back does not seem like a good basis for the future.

There are two main problems with changing the terms of your employees’ contract when things go badly: the first is talent flight, valuable workers who considered the freedom to work from home an important part of the terms of their contract, and who will now simply work somewhere else. The second problem is that such measures blame the workforce in part for the company’s losses, which may well not be the case.

IBM’s decision is a big mistake, and anybody who sees it as a tendency or as the solution to problems related to flexible work, is also mistaken. In short, there is no going back on flexible working arrangements. Companies that try to lock their employees in their offices from nine to five as if they were hamsters in a cage will invariably see their ability to attract and retain talent suffer and will end up being repositories for people unable to find a job anywhere else.

Technology cannot be stopped, and working from home today is not the same as it was five or 10 years ago. Today, technology means that the fundamental problem that existed then, a sense of detachment, the progressive erosion of the bond between worker and company, can be easily avoided. That said, such arrangements are not for everybody, and many companies tend to reach agreements whereby employees can choose how much time they want to work from home or from the company’s office, with the office being reinvented as a place that encourages the exchange of experiences, where people can meet and create opportunities that lead to collaboration, to innovation.

Google is perhaps the best example, but its offices are not cutting edge in this regard, with spaces assigned to each employee, which when people are working from home, means space is being wasted. The reason is that its engineers, the company’s most significant talent, prefer to create their own work spaces, choosing their machines, monitors and keyboards, along with decoration. That these spaces are in cubicles in shared areas rather than in closed offices makes no difference, and simply reflects a desire to improve interaction, to provide opportunities for the spark of innovation to burst into life. But in reality, the office is designed to work as a magnet, as an attractive place where workers want to go, because the food is very good, has laundry facilities, or even a masseuse. Google’s workers can work from home and do so when the occasion requires it, but they are not encouraged to do so, and the idea is that they should prefer to work at the office.

What does seem to be emerging as a trend is the change in telecommunication and work infrastructure. Companies increasingly work with people who are not based in their offices, in addition to an increasing number of freelancers and itinerant workers, coupled with systems that allow us to meet virtually without any special infrastructure, along with spaces for group work, meetings or where it is possible to make a phone call that requires privacy.

This tendency is taking place at a time when more people work from home, meaning working spaces are increasingly liquid, providing a balance and, quite simply, that are more in line with the current technological environment. Trying to go against what has become a clear sign of the times is a very basic way of trying to regain control over the workforce, and is a mistake. It makes no difference whether IBM, Yahoo! or whoever does it. If you believe that these decisions imply that flexible work is in on the back foot, you are wrong. Some trends are impossible to reverse.

(En espa?ol, aquí)