The Future of Working 9: To get back or not to get back is the question!

This article is based on an academic research study on Working-From-Home phenomena. The mixed-method research (Quantitative and Qualitative) attempted to understand how people experience working-from-Home globally, across age groups, industries, and other demographics. If you would like me to present the study and the key findings in your organization, your network, at your podcast, webcast, or any private or public forum, I am happy to do the same, free of cost.

?It was so much easier to flip to Working-From-Home (WFH) in March as the Pandemic gave us no choice. Within a couple of weeks, everyone who could, and were not furloughed or laid off, were at home, working. Yes, there were minor issues, technology, and non-technology ones, but pretty much all of are surprised by how quickly the work, workplace and the worker adapted to new realities.

A few months behind us, the reverse, i.e., getting back to the office, is emerging as a far harder decision. Some organizations instruct their employees to get back; others have allowed WFH to become a permanent arrangement. Some have changed their minds after initially asking employees to come back. Meanwhile, you see mixed reactions from employees as well. Some are afraid of getting back; others want to, still dismissing the Pandemic as nothing more than 'the flu.' Some need to do so for financial reasons; others don't want to as the schooling and the childcare situation are still unclear. Fortune CEOs predict that the current state of ambivalence will last well into next year, if not beyond.

From my research, it is clear that getting back or not getting back is less a question of when (since we do not control that: the Pandemic does) but a matter of how. 

Here are some themes emerging from the research:

a) Is it about getting back to normal or a DNA reset? Organizations looking at WFH as a reaction to the Pandemic are keen on having employees back to the office. In contrast, Organizations that are exploring this as a DNA reset have a longer view of what this means. New roles like 'Manager- The New work Model,' 'Chief Digital Experience Officer,' "Chief Well-being Officer' are redesigning the employee experience. Progressive organizations like these have concluded that the new workplace is wherever the employee feels the most productive any given day. One day it could be at the office; another day, it could be the local Starbucks, while a third day, it could be at home.

b) Centralized vs. decentralized decision making. Highly centralized (or HQ controlled) organizations may end up making calls on opening up based on the realities where the HQ. One company, which has its HQ in a mid-western city in the US, was reluctant to let their other offices or plants open since the town was a hot-spot. In a different part of the world that had relaxed its constraints, another company was raring to open up, despite having operations in hot-spots. One company in Europe solved this problem by allowing local leaders to make the appropriate decisions based on whatever was necessary. How this decision takes place is a good check on the organization's culture- is it an empowered culture or a centralized culture!

c) The quandary of who works from home and who comes to the office to work. This is another tension point. Organizations that force some of their employees to come to work end up creating a resentment versus those who need not come to work. One organization, which is in the food business, went through this dilemma. The demand for their products was so high that they needed people to come to work, though this created bitterness among the people who were asked to do so. They solved it by having those who could stay at home (mostly managers and senior leaders) come and join the workers in factories and offices and help them manage the workload. Once the employees saw that these 'privileged' folks were working with them as well, that tension went away. Yes, hazard pay helps, but what helps, even more, is the sense of purpose and everyone being together. 

d) 'Show, not tell': Merely sending a memo asking everyone to return to the office is not enough. People are anxious, careful, and want to ensure that they will be safe. Management by 'diktat' or 'fiat' is the ultimate lack of sensitivity...where employees are merely instruments of the management. Instead, it has to be a campaign. One organization produces a constant stream of videos that shows the CEO returning to the office, or employees back at work practicing social distancing, 'try-it-and-see-if-you-are-comfortable' days, and other means of getting people comfortable that the organization is doing its best to take care of employees. These videos help in giving employees (and their families) confidence that their workplace is safe. Other organizations have created videos that celebrate WFH! Giving people the confidence that it is OK to WFH, and the organization is supportive. 

While moving to WFH was a business continuity exercise, moving back to the office is going to be an exercise of trust between the organization and the employee. One large financial services organization is apparently re-negotiating employment terms- so that it absolves itself of any liability in case of employees contracting COVID while at work or traveling for work. Such actions are not going to engender trust. A few organizations have set up committees of employees to help determine the management of transition back to work, and I applaud such moves. 

'How' is more important than 'when'! Do you agree?