Rethinking the Debate of In-Office/Remote/Hybrid/Virtual/WFH…

Simplified - it’s about the location of the work

LAST OpCo Newsletter on LinkedIn - subscribe here to get it delivered to you weekly

I prefer to avoid the hot, trendy, or touchy subjects across business {enter catch slogan or phrase here on corporate work or business}. Trends aren’t really my thing. But after seeing so many individuals, organizations, articles, and posts focused on remote work as their focus, it pushed me to consider what are some of the other points of view on remote work. If that’s your passion and focus, more power to you, and certainly not passing judgment, but it makes me wonder more -?why is this debate even a thing at this point?

Remote, hybrid, virtual, work from home, etc. have been around a long time, but in 2020 it of course changed dramatically, with so many working from home, completely unplanned and with so much immediacy. But this concept isn’t new, it just became more mainstream and more impactful in the world of work, across less autonomous workers compared with the past. And for three years there has been so much talk about all of the benefits, and yes the in office stalwarts have been popping up, but overall a positive sentiment remained clear - remote work, works, generally speaking.?

Well, the battle continues, and I wonder why it’s still a conversation when so many other important topics need more attention. Over the last three years, preferences can certainly vary, and some environments and work styles work better for others, but the sentiment was quite positive. For mid to high performing workers, what are the concerns with allowing them to work where they can and want to work best as long as it doesn’t hold the business back directly? And for low performers, maybe it’s time we address those performance concerns head on, instead of allowing them to simmer.?

For intentional in person collaboration, there is certainly a time and a place for that in meetings, conferences, 1:1’s, group meetings, etc. For newer team members in certain groups, maybe there is an argument at times to start in office, with certain peers or leaders. 100% work from office, or even 50%+ really should be scrutinized on the value it brings based on the work and the role. Hearing stories of people required to sit in their company’s office space, only to spend all day on video meetings and calls- so what are they bringing in value by being in office, if most work is local, regional, national, global, anyway, and not in the office? Much of collaboration is remote now anyways, so even if you want people in office, leaders and workers must be great at remote collaboration and work.

Who cares where people work, if work is getting done? If work isn’t getting done, what is the real gap - work location, how it’s being communicated, leadership, the organization, or the people, etc. I’d like to see a more logical approach to designing work, including work location.?

Let’s make it about what makes sense for the actual work to be done for specific jobs, teams, or divisions, blended with associate job satisfaction, and the company’s communication and collaboration culture, product, and customer requirements.?It has nothing to do with where associates are sitting

It has nothing to do with where associates are sitting

The question remains, is on-site or off-site essential to the work. Similar to the mindset from the?Jobs to be Done Framework. What is the work, and lets create a structure that supports getting the work done. Establish a framework that is focused on hitting the targets goals set up to support your internal or external customers. Don’t set parameters that limit your potential to justify preferences, preconceived notions, or an old-school mentality. That’s really just to serve themselves instead of supporting the actual work getting done. Let’s get back to working our plan, and planning our work, and targets for work, versus building structure to serve the purpose of serving the organizational entity.

It’s location of work, not a strategy - are some leaders still spending countless hours and resources on this topic? The headline in this?CNBC interview, got me thinking a bit more of the benefits and detractors from remote work-?“Remote work expands labor force participation”.?Increasing your talent pool alone was a huge benefit to some companies through the really tough hiring periods. Being able to hire across the country or the world, is a whole different game. So I wonder - is the tightening only because of the current economic uncertainty, and not just because we’re further away from 2020. Probably a little of both, and a lot of the former. It’s natural for companies and leaders to want to pull back freedoms when financials get tight. It’s natural, but it’s not correct in many cases. Our greatest opportunities often come from our tightest times financially, and if we are overly tight with finances, we will squander the opportunity away, trying to pinch pennies, instead of focusing on capitalizing on the business opportunity in front of us.?

Consider this course of events and see if resonates, as just one example -?

1. Economy gets uncertain and financials get tight
2. Layoff workers
3. Force remaining workers in office
4. Economy picks up
5. Current workers leave because they’re forced in office too much compared to market, and new jobs are available
6. Hiring picks up in the company, but also in the market, so, the talent pool is tight with more innovative and fresh companies are taking your people
7. You raise pay rates and benefits, and offer more remote work

I think you see what I am getting at here. Much of the HR and TA people centric cycles are created by our own organizational missteps, overreactions, or misaligned reactions to changes in the market, not because of logical and impactful business thought and plans.?

Similar to quiet quitting, catch phrases like “remote work”, “WFH”, or “virtual”, seem to grow beyond their value in the conversation?

It’s about control, and if execs are required to be in office in some cases, they want their teams in office, and you have investment in real estate, mediocre management skills, lack of confidence leadership skills or insecurities, resulting in a lack of trust, seeking control, desire for visibility, and so on. It seems there is a strong semblance of leadership insecurity, or you have the wrong team members on the bus. For some, they preach about culture or collaboration, yet those same orgs have some of the worst associate reputations, Glassdoor ratings, or NPS scores - so the story doesn’t add up. For some jobs, you just can’t create reasons why people must be in person. It is clear there is significant motivation for control or micromanagement, or both.?

Others certainly have (seemingly) currently insurmountable value for work in the office, or maybe more so work that is “on location”, in the manufacturing plant, in the lab, on the construction site, in the school, or other areas where the impact in person cannot be equaled remotely, at least not yet. For those jobs, we can continue to look at how work must be done, but for the standard office job, can we get beyond locations being a driver for significant decisions that aren’t related? Let the work guide the location, based on the need for on-site work or collaboration, not because a leader or company wants to control its people. The market will work it out- organizations driving in office for no good reason, will lose in the market eventually. It plays out this way continuously.?

If it’s your people that are the issue, you may need new people, you may need tech to support those people, and you need to get the right people on the bus, and the wrong people off the bus.

And if performance looks better?

And if performance looks better with in person work, take a real look at if it is having associates in the office to work, or is it really your talent or leadership and how they deliver. Understanding this will make your people strategy stronger. It’s easy to?focus on the work location, instead of looking at the more meaningful and critical items like talent autonomy, productivity, quality, leadership confidence and insecurities that drive lack of overall confidence in management’s perception of remote work. Unfortunately we often pick the quick hitter that may or may not be our actual issue.

It’s essential to dive deeper and find the true cause of challenges, issues, problems, customer complaints, and even successes. What is really behind a success or an area for improvement- incorrect assumptions can really set you back. That is a Management 101 topic. You can’t assume that outcomes are tied to something, unless you take the time and effort to prove it out objectively.

Consider the real factors, what’s really going on in your business, and what is a true solution, versus throwing out some quick patch work and targeting work location as the reason. Is in person work being driven as a distraction from long-term issues that are going unresolved? Is a lack of management experience or remote leadership gaps guiding leaders to finding the tool for control or power like some industries or companies? I think about professional roles that have been remote for years, like sales roles. How many sales positions are rarely in the office, and does a sales leader need their sales people in the office to babysit them, no, you look at their results. The results over time flush out and speak for themselves in many roles. Taking a look at sales roles is a great way to put in context of what’s really going on with in office versus remote

What is the impact when we go from an office, to remote, and back office? How does that really impact business? What are the implications? This is a significant sway for people that will be difficult to overcome. Once some people at some companies had the taste of remote work, there won’t be any going back for those people - you have just lost them, even if they are still?there.

This may be a more limited view, but it’s a real look into the perspective of seeing how so many companies are missing the mark on what’s really important performance over presence.?It’s not about whether remote work is right or wrong, it’s about whether it makes sense, going back to the simplicity and logic of great business. It’s not a declaration of your leadership bravado or capability, but it’s a determination by each organization based on the available information, facts, and results, coupled with listening to your people, and their results. Remote work is simply about the location of where the work is getting done, nothing more. Let’s not make it more.?

As leaders, let’s treat our people like grown-ups, expect them to act like adults, hold them to it, and let’s start planning the work to complete it in the best way possible, not to patch other holes, issues, or move the focus away from other weakness in the business that may be the real problem.?

Focusing on the work that supports your growth and success is where your main focus is best concentrated.?Not where people work

RESOURCES

Subscribe to the new home of OpCo on beehiiv!

OpCo: The People Ops Blueprint?— Operations | People | Culture | Opportunity

If Performance Operations Culture means something to you, or you would like to be notified for future posts on operations leadership, culture, and people related topics, make sure you click the????on my?LinkedIn profile page. For additional daily content, check out?grahampeelle.com. You can also find additional articles on?Medium.?Raise Your^ROI, Climb Higher

LEARN: Learn | Explore | Ambition | Reform | No

"Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

- Mark Twain