Remote working is not top down

Did you deploy remote work like a dictator or a free market enthusiast? If it's the former, historic failures might be your key to rectifying the missteps.

While it's true that remote work has its merits, it's also crucial to address the issues of hybrid work that have surfaced and illuminate why perceived failures may not constitute a universal truth. Many of these issues could arguably stem not from inherent flaws in hybrid work but rather from improper implementation and management. For instance, as with salespeople of old when confronted with the introduction of data-driven insight, some individuals adapted to the changes while others struggled and eventually left their teams.

Firstly, a lack of competence or experience in remote management might be more accurately viewed as a temporary setback rather than a permanent flaw. Managers unaccustomed to overseeing remote work may initially struggle, but this doesn't preclude their ability to learn and improve over time. As hybrid work gains popularity, prioritizing training and resource allocation can alleviate these issues, leading to more competent remote management. Understanding how the remote workforce aligns with tasks may not align neatly with the traditional workweek of Monday through Friday. Personally, I've witnessed entire departments, meant to collaborate, being in the office on different days due to what seemed logical on paper. Unfortunately, managing remote work like an autocracy often fails because the ever-changing variables and requirements can overwhelm the decision-maker. Instead, success lies in empowering individuals to fulfill objectives, providing the necessary tools, data, and locations to excel. It's undeniable that having team members in the same room or in close proximity has its advantages, particularly for uninterrupted focus. Regrettably, this often doesn't correspond to our traditional work calendars.

The issue of poor optics often arises from a potent mix of fear and a misunderstanding of what hybrid work entails. Hybrid work isn't about compromise; it's about flexibility and acknowledging that different tasks and individuals may necessitate varied working conditions. Rather than presenting a "worst of both worlds" scenario, with proper management and understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, hybrid work could provide the best of both worlds.

The concern of a fear-based culture is undoubtedly valid, but it's not inherently tied to the hybrid work model. This is an issue of organizational culture that needs to be addressed regardless of the work model. Cultivating an open, supportive culture where employees feel secure in expressing their concerns and ideas can help to alleviate such issues.

Concerns about commutes and accessibility can be mitigated by offering greater flexibility with in-office requirements and allowing employees to work from home more frequently, especially when their tasks don't necessitate physical presence. This approach still provides the benefits of in-person collaboration when necessary while maintaining the flexibility and work-life balance advantages of remote work.

Additionally, criticisms like the "interruption factory" and "half-baked version of both" often reflect poor communication and coordination, rather than inherent issues with hybrid work. Proper planning, coordination, clear communication of expectations, and efficient use of digital tools can help mitigate these issues.

Ultimately, the hybrid work model offers a blend of in-person and remote work that can be customized to suit the specific needs of different employees and roles. With effective management, clear communication, and a supportive culture, hybrid work can offer a flexible, balanced approach that leverages the strengths of both in-person and remote work.