I Was Told We’d Be Discussing the Office…

AI has summarized capitalism for me as follows:

“…an economic system where private individuals and corporations own and control the means of production, such as property, businesses, and industries.?In capitalism, the core principles are profit motive, private property, and market competition.?The government's role is limited to taxation and standard regulatory laws, and individuals are given the freedom to operate their businesses and manage their income as they choose.”??

What does capitalism have to do with the long, heated debate corporate America has been having about the office?? Everything.? In fact, capitalism is the topic, not the office.? Here’s the thing, those advocating for more freedom to work when and where they want aren’t simply rejecting a commute, they’re seeking to shift the priority work has historically taken in their lives such that they have more balance, more time to spend on other pursuits (e.g., family, recreation, etc.) and, by extension work less.? The pathway to achieving their objectives lies in decoupling work from place and time.? Understandably, they prefer to center the conversation on how commuting to an office makes them less productive, as this argument avoids a broader exploration of motivations.??

Capitalist ideology is deeply ingrained in our social system.? Identifying as someone who is unwilling to do whatever it takes to succeed seems out of step in a work-obsessed culture, even anti-American.? In many cases, those wishing to modify how they engage with work believe such choices should not impact their opportunity for career advancement and increases in compensation.? But they do.? ?This is why the conversation gets so passionate.? It’s why the remote-first crowd lost its collective mind when ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, recently said, “…Google is losing the AI race to start-ups because the company decided work-life balance and being able to work from home is more important than winning.”? In his comments, Schmidt merely connected remote work and less work to capitalist outcomes.? This correlation is a direct threat to those who seek remote work in that it suggests their choice may diminish the value of their contribution to the enterprise, possibly resulting in less profit.? It makes them less capitalistic.??

To be sure, this entire discussion is focused on a relatively small subset of the total population; namely, highly educated white collar workers who can choose whether to go to an office.? The office is serving as a productive medium in which to better define modern work (say nothing for the massive changes coming soon from AI).? As employees, the extent to which our choices about the office align with those of our employer has become a primary qualifier of engagement.? There’s more transparency now.? It’s possible we’re seeing the emergence of a new subset of white-collar worker, one who intentionally places limits on engagement to support lifestyle choices.? These people have always existed, it’s just that the office conversation has made identifying them easier.

We need transparency such that both employer and employee clearly state their objectives and connect those objectives to capitalist outcomes (e.g., “…we believe in being in the office because it maximizes our potential and makes our company more valuable”).? But there is risk to both employer and employee in being transparent.? The employer who commits to an in-office workplace posture stands to lose some employees, and the employee who chooses to work remotely when the workplace is mostly in-office may lose value, or worse, lose the job.? In the end, employers who define their workplace culture with strong conviction will attract employees who share their vision, a better outcome for all.

We need to be clear minded about our economic system.? Capitalism does not care if we work in an office.? Capitalism rewards that which works best, that which creates the most profit.? Someone is always there, ready to do more to win.? Companies, in turn, will favor that which best serves their capitalist interests.? Or, at least, they should.? They may try new things, but in the end, they will go with what works best.? Maybe this is a remote-first workplace, but my guess is that’s a very small exception to the norm.? Hybrid has been a catchall, but for most companies, we see it as a hedge, a safe middle ground.? Today, labor leverage is shifting to favor the employer giving corporate leaders more cover to articulate their workplace vision.? We expect to see more outcomes like that currently playing out at Dell, where employees can choose less engagement via remote work, ?but in so doing, they self-identify for less career advancement and lower pay.? Is this fair?? Maybe not.? But it is capitalist.? Capitalism doesn’t purport to offer equal outcomes to all.? It’s the opposite.? It promises to reward some more than others based on the choices we make.