The Future of Work and Organisational Structures

I work remotely. Most early and mid-stage startup founders do too. Do I like it? Majority of the time.?

It’s great for some things. I don’t have a long commute. I can travel and still get work done. Sometimes, I wear PJs (paired with my favourite bear slippers of course) from the waist down on a Zoom call (don’t worry, not with you, whichever client is reading this :D).?

But it’s also terrible for some things. There are days when I barely interact with anyone outside of my partner because I’m strapped to my desk until it’s time to go to bed.? And if we're not careful, it’s easy to just jam endless meetings in–before you know it, it’s 7PM.

Sometimes it is nice to be able to completely shut off your work brain when you leave a physical office. That’s impossible with Slack on your phone and Google Chat on your laptop in the other room.?

I’m not saying I want to change things, exactly. But it’s also not entirely clear to me that this idea of “if it can be done remotely, it will” is accurate. I don’t think this is a CD-cassette tape-type takeover. At least not yet.?

Let’s dig in.

The productivity problem

“The Five-Day Office Week Is Dead.” That was the title of a late 2023 New York Times op-ed by Nicholas Bloom , an economics professor at Stanford. I agree with his overall premise. Forcing employees into the office every day with no flexibility isn’t sustainable.?

It’ll ruin your morale, drive employee churn through the roof, and weaken your employer brand dramatically.?

But in the seventh paragraph of Bloom’s piece, he presents something as fact, when it is not quite so clear. He writes that remote work “boosts productivity” and connects that with saving companies money.?

But if you read the linked paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, it doesn’t seem to match that conclusion. In fact, it states quite plainly that “there is no sound reason to expect the productivity effects of remote work to be uniform across jobs, workers, managers, and organisations.”

The paper details several studies that actually show a decrease in productivity for fully remote workers and mostly attributes any increases to the employee’s perception of gaining time from losing the commute.?

There is little evidence to suggest that remote work can provide a broad, sustained productivity boost—at least from the company’s perspective.

But does that matter?

If overall productivity stays relatively the same, keeping workers at home can result in cost savings. Most companies, at least, could reduce their office footprints, scale down utility costs, and remove other overheads like security or travel expenses.?

It could potentially require an uptick in tech infrastructure, but the net is likely a bit of extra operating cash.?

Looking long term

The question is whether productivity will stay the same long-term, and that’s a question I’m not so sure about. I’ve experienced the negative mental health effects of full-time remote work, and they’re not to be overlooked.?

A study from Carleton University in Canada shows the risk of loneliness, anxiety, and the lack of motivation for remote workers, calling it the “home fever.” These burnout symptoms showed up during the pandemic but haven’t gone away even as most of society opened up.?

There is a real risk of mental health struggles for long-term remote workers who aren’t supported properly or don’t have the right structure around them. That structure will be a huge point of interest for companies moving forward.?

The idea of an “always on” workforce is a tempting one for businesses and bosses, especially startups that have big goals and small resource pools. But it’s one they should avoid if they want their teams to stay motivated, healthy, engaged, and valuable.?

Flexibility is everything

Beyond the productivity debate, the advantages of remote work lie in its flexibility. For many of us, especially those with families or other demanding personal obligations, or even a consuming hobby (like me), the ability to design our schedules is a gift.?

Take GitLab, for example. It has operated fully remote for years and established a culture that prioritises outcomes over hours logged. It wouldn’t be GitLab if it wasn’t open source, so you can read their paid time off policy in the public employee handbook.?

It starts with a testimonial:?

“In the three months I’ve been at GitLab, I’ve taken more time off than the last two years at my previous job.”

The company has no limit on paid time off (PTO) as long as you’ve coordinated it with your manager. In fact, the second bullet in the policy is geared toward colleagues who are noticing that their co-workers are pushing too hard without time away. You’re encouraged to mention the unlimited time off and the importance of breaks.?

It explicitly says that you don’t have to log PTO for normal things like going to the gym, taking a nap, grocery shopping, doing household chores, or taking care of a loved one. They understand this is just life, and that work should fit around it.?

There’s one line that absolutely floored me when I read it:

“Not taking time off is viewed as a weakness and people shouldn’t boast about it.”

That’s basically the opposite of the hustle culture we’ve been shown for the last few decades. And I adore it.?

It won’t happen overnight, but I think these kinds of policies are going to become boilerplate in the future. Everyone will need to keep up, or they’re not going to be competitive enough to hire the real difference-makers.?

For me, the notion of a single full-time gig feels restrictive.? Being able to pursue a creative venture, for example, alongside a main salaried role could only make an employee more well-rounded, and more interesting.? This translates to more impact and more joy across the board. Win win.

Death to middle management

Have you ever been a middle manager? Just enough power to feel responsible for big mistakes, not enough to actually fix the issues causing them.?

Middle managers are a dying breed.?

Flat hierarchies are the future. By reducing the layers of management, companies foster a culture of innovation and speed up decision-making, becoming more agile and responsive.?

The emphasis is on collaboration rather than command and control. It opens communication channels, encouraging entry-level workers to share ideas and solutions as freely as executives.?

An easy example is Valve, the game company infamous for having no bosses. From their handbook :

“We don’t have any management, and nobody “reports to” anybody else. We do have a founder/president, but even he isn’t your manager. This company is yours to steer—toward opportunities and away from risks. You have the power to green-light projects. You have the power to ship products.”

But Valve’s flat structure, while loved by employees and revered by wanna-be-employees, has also had some issues. A flat hierarchy can lead to things like:

• Ambiguity: Without clear job titles and roles, employees might be unsure about their specific responsibilities.
• Bottlenecks: While some decisions are quickened, others might stall due to a lack of clear authority.?
• Conflict: With fewer management layers to mediate, conflicts can become more common or severe.?
• Inequity: Territorialism can become rampant, and in turn, it becomes a battlefield where only the loudest get heard, and the most aggressive control the culture.?

But what I’ll call “the great flattening” is coming. More and more of the clients that I partner with are trying out some form of a flat hierarchy, even if it’s contained in certain departments or divisions.?

Spotify’s “Squad” framework involves small, self-organised teams of eight or fewer people. Gore (makers of the classic Gore-Tex) uses what they call a “lattice ” structure, somewhere between a traditional hierarchy and a flat one.?

Some form of these flat(ter) organisational structures will be the norm, at least until there’s another paradigm shift in the working world.?

Final thoughts

The biggest reason why these changes are going to become more common? It’s not because of employee well-being (well, not entirely). It’s about competition.?

Attracting and retaining top talent is harder than ever before. Innovative ways to make them feel more comfortable while still producing the same (or greater) value are the only way to stay ahead.?

It’s why I’m building a way to give younger companies access to top-tier consulting. My clients have big ideas worth sharing and just need a little help figuring out how to get there. They’re the future of work, and from my perspective, it’s in good hands.?